Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, PDS said: Your comment really doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something. I probably misunderstood. I thought you were saying people who disagreed with you are immature since you referenced my mental age as about 8 years old. All I did was own up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, PDS said: Silent Majority, my ass. That's what they said all during the primaries... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said: I don't know Dr. Hurd, or who he is, or what he has written. He posts often on Objectivism Online. Type and enter Hurd in the Search textbox, and you will see a long list of posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: That's what they said all during the primaries... Michael No. The folks you are describing are neither silent, nor a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I probably misunderstood. I thought you were saying people who disagreed with you are immature since you referenced my mental age as about 8 years old. All I did was own up. Michael Trump is 70. Under my analogy, he should have stopped acting like a teenager 56 years ago (plus or minus). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I probably misunderstood. I thought you were saying people who disagreed with you are immature since you referenced my mental age as about 8 years old. All I did was own up. Michael You're 62? Wow. I never would have guessed. I thought you were in your 40's...* *Late 40's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, PDS said: You're 62? Wow. I never would have guessed. I thought you were in your 40's...* *Late 40's... David, I'm actually 64. But you just made a friend for life. I'll take a bullet for you, bro. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, I'm actually 64. But you just made a friend for life. I'll take a bullet for you, bro. Michael The photo was taken 30 years ago. --Brant always glad to help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 48 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: They seem to almost never see anything negative about Trump. They are all on the Trump train as opposed to saying something like, "I wish Trump would do this, or not do that, but I'll vote for him anyway" - instead they appear to see every single thing he says in a favorable way, they have endless explanations for what they think Donald will actually do when elected. They always explain what he has said when others say it is vague and their explanations are sometimes so out of thin air as to be embarrassing. Most of the arguments and explanations are justifications rather than principles. Steve, You need to read actual Trump supporters rather than what people say about Trump supporters or what you imagine Trump supporters are. They say this stuff all the time. They just get tired of saying it, then hearing anti-Trump people immediately honk in their face that this is proof of what a scumbag Trump is. They tend to back up when that happens and get emotional. There are so many examples out there, it's not worth making a list. I suppose I could make a list, but not to prove something like Trump supporters recognize his defects. Not when they have have done so for months in countless articles, posts, videos and comments. And when I have done so, too--and often. It just isn't worth it. It's like trying to make a list to prove that people know crap smells bad even though everyone craps. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 42 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: Michael, we've been friends for a long time and that makes this on-going argument about Trump uncomfortable. I'm going to follow Stephen Boydston's lead and exit till sometime after the election. Steve, Whatever is good for you is good for me. Come and go as you see fit. You are always welcome here. Be happy. I mean it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 39 minutes ago, PDS said: You're 62? Wow. I never would have guessed. I thought you were in your 40's...* *Late 40's... ...as you just slighted all the younger Objectivists on the forum.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 51 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said: Michael, we've been friends for a long time and that makes this on-going argument about Trump uncomfortable. I'm going to follow Stephen Boydston's lead and exit till sometime after the election. Damnit Steve! I hope you really don't follow through with that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 It's so good to see Chuck Todd squirm with Julian Assange. Chuck's used to controlling the narrative--often through the pivot technique. And now he's soooooooooooo frustrated when it's used on him. He needs to get the heat off of Hillary and can't pull it off. You can almost see him sweat. Maybe a Rolaids will help, Chuck... I love it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, Right. And when Patricia Smith, the mother of the Benghazi victim, Sean Smith, talked at the RNC and the media blasted her (and blasted her viciously) for playing on heartstrings, I don't recall any outrage from anyone in our subcommunity on how gauche the media was. Not one tut-tut-tut. But there was a big yawn about Hillary Clinton lying to this lady about her son's death. What happened? Shall we put videos of the two ladies side-by-side and see who cries the most about their dead sons? If one gets outraged at callousness by one side, it is a double standard to give a pass to the other side. What's more, Trump didn't kill either of the sons. Michael Did Hillary say anything about the women who spoke at the RNC convention? Did she even engage those persons? I will bet one of my two most precious body parts she did not This isn't a question of fairness or press bias. That is a seperste issue. All sentient beings are aware the press is biased and unfair. My point is that if Trump's goal is to win the election, this was a dumb move. Really dumb. Mark my words. This is going to hurt him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 21 minutes ago, PDS said: Did Hillary say anything about the women who spoke at the RNC convention? Did she even engage those persons? David, Only back when their sons were killed and Clinton lied to them in their faces about why their sons died. Hell, she even said she was going to get the video-maker and bring him to justice as consolation. That may not count to some people in this episode, but I assure you, it counts to a hell of a lot of others. As a parallel tie-in to this, Rio de Janeiro is ramping up security over a "credible threat" of a radical Islamic terrorist setting off a nuke (dirty bomb) during the Olympics. What if they set the dirty bomb off in a neighboring city instead right as the Olympics are underway? Or any other main terrorist attack, for that matter? (And I swear, I hope my fears are unfounded.) If that happens, do you think people or the press are going to worry about Trump's image in asking if the grieving mother was allowed to speak during the DNC? btw - If I pardoned my crows, what makes you think I would be interested in either of your two precious body parts? Maybe if you threw in both... (OK, OK, that's pushing the quip beyond where it can extend...) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, Only back when their sons were killed and Clinton lied to them in their faces about why their sons died. Hell, she even said she was going to get the video-maker and bring him to justice as consolation. That may not count to some people in this episode, but I assure you, it counts to a hell of a lot of others. As a parallel tie-in to this, Rio de Janeiro is ramping up security over a "credible threat" of a radical Islamic terrorist setting off a nuke (dirty bomb) during the Olympics. What if they set the dirty bomb off in a neighboring city instead right as the Olympics are underway? Or any other main terrorist attack, for that matter? (And I swear, I hope my fears are unfounded.) If that happens, do you think people or the press are going to worry about Trump's image in asking if the grieving mother was allowed to speak during the DNC? btw - If I pardoned my crows, what makes you think I would be interested in either of your two precious body parts? Maybe if you threw in both... (OK, OK, that's pushing the quip beyond where it can extend...) Michael Okay. You win. Trump was 100% right once again. I hope he slaps her next time he sees her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, PDS said: Okay. You win. David, I'm not competing in anything. I'm just telling what I see. Besides, I am stumping for Trump (that's what this thread is about), but I see what I see. You see something different. That's OK... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 This is a real beaut, let me tell ya'. For anyone in doubt, that's the alternative to Trump. Clinton is not hiding anything about regulating constitutional rights except that once she takes a little, she will take a lot. All she's asking for is a little right now and she claims the government has a right to it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Merjet wrote, “He posts often on Objectivism Online. Type and enter Hurd in the Search textbox, and you will see a long list of posts.” Thanks. I could not find much in my files. This may be the Doctor Hurd mentioned. Odd. I think I have met him but I cannot remember where, but I think it was at a university. Peter From: "Michael J. Hurd" <MJHurd@aol.com> To: objectivism@wetheliving.com Subject: OWL: Re: Star Trek Voyager Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:56:50 EST I entirely agree with you re: Voyager and Seven of Nine. I know some people who won't, on principle, watch the newer Star Trek series (having enjoyed the older one), and your comments show how they are missing out on something quite valuable. [The following Star Trek introduction is from his Living Resources website at <http://www.drhurd.com/booklist/star-trek.html> -Moderator] Star Trek offers a rare glimpse into a world of heroes, where the reasoning individual mind solves problems successfully and confidently. Both the old and new series are, on the whole, inspiring as well as entertaining. Although a fantasy concept, Star Trek challenges us to project ourselves into a future where individuals consistently and heroically utilize reason, instead of reliance on emotions, whims, or superstition, to solve their dilemmas. Star Trek is no sterile glorification of technology without reference to mind. The rational mind -- that is, the individual human soul or spirit -- is the essence of what drives this show and its characters. Its themes, such as individualism vs. collectivism (in the case of the evil Borg), are both relevant and timeless. Its heroes are individuals of both intellect and action. Star Trek is as much -- or more -- a work of philosophy and psychology as a work of science fiction. If the central purpose of art and entertainment is to project life as it might be and ought to be, as the philosopher Aristotle argued, then Star Trek fulfills its mission quite well. Psychologically, the shows are magnificently refueling. They give you a refreshing, clean sense that the human mind is efficacious and can solve problems. You will walk away from most of the movies or episodes with a feeling that competence and thought, if diligently applied, can and will conquer adversity. You will experience the sensation, "If this is where mankind can go, then this is where I can go." Sincerely yours, Michael J. Hurd Living Resources Center From: Monart Pon <monart@starshipaurora.com> Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com To: Starship Forum <Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [Starship_Forum] Dr. Michael Hurd and Star Trek Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:29:58 -0700 Michael Hurd is a successful psychologist, author, radio personality, and Star Trek fan. Last year when I first visited his website at <http://www.drhurd.com/>, not only was I impressed by his work, but also by his Star Trek page <http://www.drhurd.com/booklist/star-trek.html> where he writes: "Star Trek offers a rare glimpse into a world of heroes, where the reasoning individual mind solves problems successfully and confidently. Both the old and new series are, on the whole, inspiring as well as entertaining. Although a fantasy concept, Star Trek challenges us to project ourselves into a future where individuals consistently and heroically utilize reason, instead of reliance on emotions, whims, or superstition, to solve their dilemmas. "Star Trek is no sterile glorification of technology without reference to mind. The rational mind -- that is, the individual human soul or spirit -- is the essence of what drives this show and its characters. Its themes, such as individualism vs. collectivism (in the case of the evil Borg), are both relevant and timeless. Its heroes are individuals of both intellect and action. Star Trek is as much – or more -- a work of philosophy and psychology as a work of science fiction. If the central purpose of art and entertainment is to project life as it might be and ought to be, as the philosopher Aristotle argued, then Star Trek fulfills its mission quite well. "Psychologically, the shows are magnificently refueling. They give you a refreshing, clean sense that the human mind is efficacious and can solve problems. You will walk away from most of the movies or episodes with a feeling that competence and thought, if diligently applied, can and will conquer adversity. You will experience the sensation, 'If this is where mankind can go, then this is where I can go.'" When I invited Michael to check out the early version of the Starship Aurora website, he responded: "I like both the style and content of your website and encourage you to continue building it. I like the integration of rational philosophy, psychological heroism, and the Star Trek vision." Visit Dr. Hurd's website and benefit from the resources available there. Monart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 1 hour ago, PDS said: Okay. You win. Trump was 100% right once again. I hope he slaps her next time he sees her. David, There's a kernel here that points to a theme of something I was discussing with Michael Prescott before he went south on me. It boils down to certain more refined people (to use a polite term ) being perplexed about why people like me who support Trump do not feel ashamed when Trump mouths off or gets accused of saying something socially unacceptable. He asked me if I am not bothered when Trump mocked a disabled man or said McCain was not a war hero. (I am saying it like this to be true to the way he said it, but that does not mean I agree with his contextless framing of these standard anti-Trump talking points.) I tried, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to present what the world looks like to a person who objects to ugliness in reality as priority--and means it--as opposed to those who object to ugly words as priority--and that person means it, too. It's a matter of do-say as opposed to say-do priority. Anyway, I gave two answers and they were pretty good answers, so I want to put them here for future reference if I (or any interested party) ever need them. The first: Quote How on earth can I answer a question framed like that? Do you still beat your wife? But to be polite, I'll answer. I don't buy media spin--for or against Trump. I don't like media spin. You left out a lot in your question and it ended up identical to media spin. (Jumping on the gotcha and leaving out all the rest.) I don't approve of everything Trump says, but I like what he does. So I use a clear principle for cases like that. When there is a disparity between what someone says and what they do, I go with what they do as a better indication of what they will do in the future. For example, Trump didn't make his money with war. He made a lot of golf courses (among other productive things). I don't despise golf courses, but I do despise what I call the "endless war for profit." Don't forget, real people die in them so fat cats can buy shit. Give me the golf courses, skyscrapers, etc. as a money source any day. Hillary's money comes from people who like to profit from war. And she never met a bloody dictator she would not take money from. But she says good things, so that must count for something for some people... For me, the election is a no-brainer. Based on what they do, I predict Trump will avoid war for profit and build things if elected and Hillary, if elected, will encourage war for profit and make lots of sleazy backroom deals while she blames disasters on YouTube videos. Outside of the election, I like Trump's spirit. He's a good guy with a big mouth who builds things and hates war. And he pisses off the corrupt media and control freaks. I just love people who piss off the corrupt media and control freaks. Then he said that didn't answer his question and what's more, I wouldn't answer his question. I responded: Quote ... Do you see what hatred [of Trump] is doing? Of course I answered your question when I said I didn't approve of everything Trump says. Yet you frame it as I WOULDN'T answer your question. That is spin. I don't like the spin of the question the way you framed it, so forgive me if I unspin it as I answer it more to your satisfaction. First straight, no chaser: Does it bother me that Trump said those things you mentioned and made mocking gestures about a reporter who is disabled? A little I guess. Not much, but a little. When I look at young people with their limbs blown off so some wretched politicians and crony capitalists can eat caviar, well, that really bothers me. And that bothers Trump as well. I also notice that doesn't bother many people who are bothered by Trump. In that context, I'm probably a heartless monster to the PC crowd because I am only bothered a little bit when someone gets their feelings hurt because they said awful things about Trump and Trump said awful things about them in return or mocked them--that is, when he actually mocked them for a disability instead of people assuming that was his motive and spinning it. I feel for their boo-boo, I really do, but only a little... I feel A LOT for the folks without arms and legs and worse. They break my heart. And when the nasty folks responsible for that so they can play their little money and power games have their sensibilities flustered because they don't like Trump's tone, I don't feel anything but contempt for them. As for the people who laud--or give a pass to--the nasty folks (the ones who get the arms and legs of the young blown off for money) because they use the right jargon and tone, but hate Trump because they don't like his manner of verbal counterpunching, I feel perplexed--that is until they start calling me nasty names. And believe me, many do. Then I get bored... Let me put this in the context of the theme I detect in your objection. I might be wrong, so if I am, please let me know. You seem to want me to acknowledge that Trump made a dumb move in what he said about the Muslim lady not talking because many people will turn off to him as heartless (or insulting or whatever). And implicit in this is me acknowledging that he did something wrong, callous, (or another whatever). Here is my position with all the extraneous stuff stripped out. Hillary Clinton oversaw and helped engineer the killing and maiming of a gawdawful lot of young people (hell, all ages of people) through the structures she helped construct and operate--not to mention through sheer incompetence and corruption. Real blood. Real deaths. Trump didn't kill or maim anyone, but he's got a big mouth. And he built a lot of stuff. Does his mouth offend me? Next to what Clinton has done? Hardly at all. And I am not alone in this awareness and sentiment. So I disagree that this Muslim lady PC language kerfuffle will hurt Trump. At least among the Trump supporters I see. Even among many independents. That's what I see and how I see it and why I see it that way. Also, please understand that I'm explaining this vision and saying it exists, not competing with you to win any argument. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 2 hours ago, PDS said: Okay. You win. Trump was 100% right once again. I hope he slaps her next time he sees her. You're at least 50% right here. --Brant not bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This reminds me of the way many hardcore Objectivists excused an enormous amount of evidence of Ted Cruz's lack of character and his religious zealotry just because he read a few pages of Atlas Shrugged on the Senate floor. I think the people in our subcommunity are so starved to be taken seriously in the mainstream, they swallow sweet poison because they think taste is the only part that counts. And it tastes soooooo good when the coating is right. Michael Quite brilliant, Michael. Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 59 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: So I disagree that this Muslim lady PC language kerfuffle will hurt Trump. At least among the Trump supporters I see. Even among many independents. Well, you have a Muslim standing on stage demanding a pound of flesh from either Trump or a kid of his, so in the long run I don't see that going so well for Hillary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: David, There's a kernel here that points to a theme of something I was discussing with Michael Prescott before he went south on me. It boils down to certain more refined people (to use a polite term ) being perplexed about why people like me who support Trump do not feel ashamed when Trump mouths off or gets accused of saying something socially unacceptable. He asked me if I am not bothered when Trump mocked a disabled man or said McCain was not a war hero. (I am saying it like this to be true to the way he said it, but that does not mean I agree with his contextless framing of these standard anti-Trump talking points.) I tried, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to present what the world looks like to a person who objects to ugliness in reality as priority--and means it--as opposed to those who object to ugly words as priority--and that person means it, too. It's a matter of do-say as opposed to say-do priority. Anyway, I gave two answers and they were pretty good answers, so I want to put them here for future reference if I (or any interested party) ever need them. The first: Then he said that didn't answer his question and what's more, I wouldn't answer his question. I responded: Let me put this in the context of the theme I detect in your objection. I might be wrong, so if I am, please let me know. You seem to want me to acknowledge that Trump made a dumb move in what he said about the Muslim lady not talking because many people will turn off to him as heartless (or insulting or whatever). And implicit in this is me acknowledging that he did something wrong, callous, (or another whatever). Here is my position with all the extraneous stuff stripped out. Hillary Clinton oversaw and helped engineer the killing and maiming of a gawdawful lot of young people (hell, all ages of people) through the structures she helped construct and operate--not to mention through sheer incompetence and corruption. Real blood. Real deaths. Trump didn't kill or maim anyone, but he's got a big mouth. And he built a lot of stuff. Does his mouth offend me? Next to what Clinton has done? Hardly at all. And I am not alone in this awareness and sentiment. So I disagree that this Muslim lady PC language kerfuffle will hurt Trump. At least among the Trump supporters I see. Even among many independents. That's what I see and how I see it and why I see it that way. Also, please understand that I'm explaining this vision and saying it exists, not competing with you to win any argument. Michael Okay. But here's the deal: you seem to feel a need "win" every issue when it comes to Trump. Something in you is unwilling to give an inch. Your argument above was that if there is a terrorist attack in Rio, nobody will care how Trump talked to a grieving mother. With respect: no shit, Michael. If there is a terrorist attack in Rio, people are not going to care as much about a lot of different things. And this even assumes a US President can do something about terrorist activity in Brazil, let alone President Trump. I can assure you if the San Andres Fault cracks open tonight, people will also be less concerned with Trump's thin skin and/or his big mouth. But that is not the point. The point I was trying to make is that the man is supposed to be trying to win an election, and actions like this matter. Not Hillary's actions. Not Trump's actions a month ago. No. I am merely talking about Trump's particular actions with regard to a grieving mother. I'll give you an analogy. I am a pretty decent poker player. Literally. Not metaphorically. I play in expensive cash games, I've played in the World Series of Poker, etc. I've studied the game of poker more than most. There is a certain type of poker player: he is the guy that MUST win every hand. He unwilling to throw away a marginal hand. He "calls down" hands he has no business playing. Small pocket pairs look like aces to him. He goes "all in" way too often. And he usually goes home broke. You have become that guy when it comes to Trump. You see your best self in Trump. Trump has awakened something in you that seems to have been dormant a long time. This is well and good, assuming it is a wise thing to so heavily invest in a politician. So you think you are building your chip-stack with this strategy. Who knows. Maybe you are. I have serious doubts. In any event, I think I am going to join Steve W. and take a hiatus from OL until after the election.** **If Trump happens to win, however, be assured I will come here bright and early to eat my crow-sandwich like a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, PDS said: Your argument above was that if there is a terrorist attack in Rio, nobody will care how Trump talked to a grieving mother. David, If you read my posts from a different angle, you will see the "action versus word" theme running throughout all of them. Where you have seen competition, I have not. I don't care who wins arguments. I really don't. When I lose, I generally banter about them. (Check and you will see. It's happened a lot. Did you miss my recent comment about Trump pandering, for instance? I owned up.) If you have been competing all along re Trump, we have been playing different games, so to speak. I keep seeing people dismissing this "action versus word" theme (some might say blanking it out) and pretending that words are the main deal with Trump and Trump supporters. Thus, they allege, this time such-and-such words will sink him. He is disgusting because of words. He has changed the entire way of doing politics because of words. He is Teflon Don because of words. And they think that words allow them to ignore brick-and-mortar skyscrapers because skyscrapers don't count. Only words do. This has happened time and time again. But Trump supporters don't care about the words. They look at achievements, they look at skyscrapers, but they also look at war for profit, nonstop administrative fuckups, being screwed over, illegal immigrants flooding across the border, bombs going off and terrorist gunmen killing innocents, and on and on. They look at actions and the results of those actions. They are sick of "words only" people who do the contrary of what they say or do nothing at all. Trump beat out 16 top-quality political competitors and their main error was this--words were given priority over deeds. And this was the same error with all Trump critics. Over and over and over. This error still persists. Even in your criticism of Trump and the Muslim lady. That whole episode was nothing more than more words and trying to nail Trump on those words. (Not you, but them.) But these words mean nothing (or very little) to Trump supporters. Oh, people feel sorry for her, I know I do, but those words are not going to make them unsee reality--meaning unsee actions and results. And when they look at her crying and so on, they can't help but ask, what did Trump have to do with her loss--in actions, not in words? Nothing, that's what. Nothing at all. But what did Clinton have to do with it action-wise? She voted for the war and supported it, for one thing. That is where I am unwilling to give an inch. I use the identify correctly to judge correctly standard of thinking. And Trump critics keep misidentifying the foundation of his nature and his support, then they judge up a storm based on their fantasies. If a person doesn't identify something correctly, how on earth is he going to evaluate it correctly? When a person does it that way, he literally doesn't know what he is talking about. He is judging a figment of his imagination, not reality. I get to a point where I don't know how to say it any differently. So when I said a radical Islamic bomb would change the discourse, I was talking about action versus words. That bomb is a clear and present danger right now. An action danger, not a syllogism, not persuasion, not shaming someone. Special police and armed forces are being mobilized in Brazil to deter it this very minute. And believe me, terrorist actions will continue to happen the world over before the election. Those ISIS people are not going on vacation. Hell, here in America, other assholes like those people shooting cops are not going on vacation. President Obama fucked up action-wise. And Hillary Clinton intends to keep fucking up in the same way. The results of actions under their watch are not pretty. No words on earth will make Trump supporters stop seeing that. What's more, there is a growing number of people who are starting to get it, they are starting to look at actions over goddamn word games. That is why Trump's support is growing. I know this because I am this. And I recognize this in other Trump supporters. That was my point. It has nothing to do with winning a competition based on words. Not even poker. It's trying to put the correct identification on the table so the words will correspond to reality. I can't budge on doing it the "identify correctly" way because there is just too much bad stuff going on right now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now