╌>

Let's talk about Trump's accomplishments....

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tig  •  2 years ago  •  517 comments

By:   YouTube

Let's talk about Trump's accomplishments....
I am going to try —in good faith— to outline things his supporters really liked about him.

Another interesting perspective from the Beau man.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T







Article is LOCKED by moderator [TᵢG]
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  seeder  TᵢG    2 years ago

Here is the link Beau mentioned: 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 years ago

[ deleted ]

To present a video somebody produced that lists 14 superfluous points rather that concrete accomplishments is basic gaslighting. Promoting law [ & ] order is not an accomplishment. Actually establishing it is!

Btw, Fascism is not to be confused with loving one's country. A fascist tries to prosecute his political enemies and establish one party rule. Who would that be?  Always remember TiG, the man who put Fascism on the map started out as a Socialist.

benito-mussolini-mugshot.jpg

So much for an "independent" look at Trump's accomplishments.  Let us know when you want to talk facts.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 years ago

A fascist tries to prosecute his political enemies and establish one party rule. Who would that be?

Ummm, yeah.  Trump baselessly and unsuccessfully called for prosecuting his opponents multiple times, and endlessly describes Democrats as the evil that will destroy this country (just like you and your buddies here do).

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 years ago
So much for an "independent" look at Trump's accomplishments.  Let us know when you want to talk facts.

There's no way to talk about this on this board.  The extremists on the right will only crow about what good Trump did and the extremists on the left can only ignore, disparage and reject that Trump did anything that was good for the country.  With polar opposites like this there's just no way a discussion can happen.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    2 years ago

We can all clearly see the difference.

The 4 Trump years stand in clear contrast to Biden's first 15 months. The November midterms will demonstrate how the nation feels about it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    2 years ago

With all due respect to you, first of all, whether or not Trump did a lot of "good" things may very much depend on what one considers as a good. For example, Trump spent a lot of money on the military. Is that a good thing? It depends on one's beliefs about how much of the national treasure should be spent on conventional warfare. Many people think we already devote way too much of the national budget to making defense contractors and their investors rich. Trump supporters think that his appointing three conservatives to the Supreme Court is one of the best things he did. People who dont want to see an overbalanced conservative Supreme Court will not at all think that was a good thing. Trump's major "contribution" to this country was to get millions and millions of people riled up against their so called enemies such as AOC and Hillary Clinton. Trump spent much of his time attacking people on twitter. Someone once went through his twitter and found that Trump had attacked over 600 different people, by name. Does anyone seriously believe that this is a role for the president of the United States to play? It is absurd. 

Even if one could make an argument for all the "good" he allegedly did, it is far far far outweighed by his truly abysmal , diseased, personality and behavior. trump fomented acrimony among the public, constantly. He made the US presidency into a private grievance factory, operating full blast 24 hours a day. He often tweeted out his grievances in the middle of the night. 

Trump dog whistled racism. I wish I could get someone to honestly debate me about trump's comments on Charlottesville, because the actual facts of his response are horrible for him. When he said there were good people on both sides he KNEW or should have known (because he was president of the United States) that the Unite The Right rally at Charlottesville was created and organized by white supremacists, period. The permit for the rally was applied for and held by a white supremacist. It was completely irresponsible for Trump to say there were good people on both sides, and when he said it,  it was a racial dogwhistle. 

Trump's good is overwhelmed by his bad, and no one is under any requirement to pretend otherwise. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    2 years ago

I hope your hero keeps talking and asking our enemies to help him. His open mouth is the biggest advantage the Democrats have. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.5    2 years ago

I hope you succeed in taking him out, somehow, before the next Presidential election. He is too much of a lightning rod for the radical left.

Keep digging and maybe you'll find something to prosecute.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    2 years ago

I dont give a fuck if he gets prosecuted, although he belongs in prison.  I want the "political right" to disown him and tell him to get lost, and publicly. Anything short of that is inadequate given the damage he has done to this country, and continues to do.  We now have Russian state tv calling Trump their "partner" and calling for the overthrow of the Biden "regime" and trump re-instated. Do you actually support this insanity?  Trump just asked Putin to help him attack Hunter Biden. This is during a war which Putin instigated. Is Trump a fricking mental case? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.7    2 years ago

We will all wait with baited breath for the left to disown Biden, the Clintons, and if evidence keeps mounting Obama. 

You can rant, rave, and throw all the hissy fits you want; but how about trying to clean up the assholes on your side of the aisle for a change?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.8    2 years ago
but how about trying to clean up the assholes on your side of the aisle for a change?

I am farther to the left on many issues than Joe Biden, and I am not a fan of his.  He is 1000 times better than what we had before, as Trump continues to prove every single day. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 years ago
Btw, Fascism is not to be confused with loving one's country.

It is if your a triggered liberal.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 years ago

This seed profiled Trump's accomplishments categorically.   The intent, of course, is to illustrate that Trump followed a very old playbook to rally supporters.   And it worked so well that his supporters cannot even see the playbook when placed before their eyes.

Let us know when you want to talk facts.

Obviously you have no rebuttal;  you offer nothing to illustrate that Beau's profile is wrong.

Making things personal is not a rebuttal. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 years ago
To present a video somebody produced that lists 14 superfluous points rather that concrete accomplishments is basic gaslighting.

That comment illustrates an inability of characterize information in good faith Vic. 

This is what he said: 

Somebody asked me, if I would be willing, to just once, on Trump's last day, to catalog his accomplishments the way his supporters see them, in hopes of promoting understanding. 

THAT is the predicate for the video. 

As we all know all too well, Trump's supporters do NOT limit their views of his accomplishments, to legislation or anything else 'concrete' for that matter. I can't count how many times cons here have cited 'He owns the libs' or 'He doesn't take shit from anybody' as their reason for supporting him come hell or high water. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.11    2 years ago
This seed profiled Trump's accomplishments categorically. 

No it did not.

I didn't hear a word about the Trump economy, did you?

The improvement of all people under that economy?  Tax relief? Fair Trade Deals?

How about securing the southern border?  Remember the all out resistance to the wall?   How great a game changer was the "Remain in Mexico Policy?"

How about massive deregulation or getting a vaccine created in 10 months when nobody, especially Fauci thought it possible?

How about American Energy independence?

How about returning originalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts?  He nominated and had over 230 Federal judges confirmed.

How about securing a $400 billion increase in defense spending from NATO by 2024?

How about withdrawing from the horrible, one-sided Iran Nuclear Deal and imposing crippling sanctions on the Iranian Regime?


All I heard was the rebuilding of the military and a lot of what he pushed for. I'm more than happy with what he actually got done.  If you want to discuss any of the above accomplishments, I'll be here.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 years ago
Btw, Fascism is not to be confused with loving one's country.

No such confusion exists in the video. 

Again, intentional mischaracterization. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    2 years ago

Most of the items on your list were not objectively "good" , they are good in the eyes of conservatives and the far right. They are not reason to keep a serial lying mentally ill narcissist in office. Trump tore this country apart for his own malignant vanity. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.15    2 years ago
Trump tore this country apart for his own malignant vanity. 

Tore it apart?

What country do you live in now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.15    2 years ago
Most of the items on your list were not objectively "good"

As somebody just said: I am farther to the left on many issues than Joe Biden

Therefore I think you should leave what is objectively good to others.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.18  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    2 years ago
No it did not.

Illustrate then which of Beau's categorical points is wrong.   Don't just complain that he was not sufficiently specific.   If his points are wrong then show how they are wrong.   In other words, refute what he actually claimed rather than simply dismiss his point because of how you interpret the title of the seed.

I didn't hear a word about the Trump economy, did you?

You have totally missed the point of the seed.   This seed lists 12 accomplishments (categorically) in a positive fashion as seen by Trump supporters.   It was never intended to list all of Trump's accomplishments.

The purpose was to show how Trump used well-established methods to rally support.    To show how Trump exploited historically proven  sociological weaknesses to build and maintain his base.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    2 years ago
Tore it apart?

You don't remember?  The high inflation?  High Unemployment?  Rising Gas Prices?  Millions of Illegals Crossing the Border?  Oh wait, that all happened after January 20, 2021.  Sorry

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.18    2 years ago
This seed lists 12 accomplishments (categorically) in a positive fashion as seen by Trump supporters.   It was never intended to list all of Trump's accomplishments.

Let me correct that. This seed lists Trump's rhetoric which was viewed as a breath of fresh air to Trump supporters. My problem is with the word accomplishments.

Please note that I never bothered with the little trick usually used by liberal teachers to get people to question their own values. I'm sticking right to that mischaracterization which was so necessary to performing the not so slick magic trick.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.19    2 years ago

Don't worry, nobody will touch the accomplishments. Seventy % of the country is seeing & feeling the flip side and they can't wait for the next election.

Oh ya, here is a link (or two) to my claim:




 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    2 years ago
"Don't worry, nobody will touch the accomplishments."

Because there AREN'T ANY

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    2 years ago
My problem is with the word accomplishments.

Yeah, Vic, you refuse to show how Beau is wrong and simply complain about his use of the word 'accomplishments'.

The point of the seed was to explain why Trump supporters like him.   The argument is that much of the support comes from Trump using historically-sound methods ... methods that encourage people to rally about an individual.     Methods used by some of the most successful and despicable historical figures. 

Nobody has refuted what Beau has offered.   Instead it has been the typical trolling, going personal, etc. that emerges when someone faces something that is distasteful to them but cannot show that it is wrong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    2 years ago

Beau's little parlor trick failed.  I gave everyone the opportunity to discuss Trump's actual accomplishments.

Have a good day.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    2 years ago
Beau's little parlor trick failed. 

Then you should be able to show where he is factually wrong.    Which of those 12 (14) points are factually incorrect?   

You missed the point (and I am confident it was and is intentional).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    2 years ago
Tax relief?

Which is a moot point now since those "reliefs" have expired. I paid more in taxes this year than I have in the last 20 years

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.25    2 years ago
"You missed the point (and I am confident it was and is intentional)"

Of course it was.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    2 years ago
Nobody has refuted what Beau has offered.   Instead it has been the typical trolling, going personal, etc. that emerges when someone faces something that is distasteful to them but cannot show that it is wrong.

I don't think they know how to refute Beau. Trolling and going personal is really all they know how to do. Actually making a factual argument is beyond their abilities.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    2 years ago
The 4 Trump years stand in clear contrast to Biden's first 15 months.

Trump lost 3 million jobs, added just shy of 8 trillion in debt and tripled the UE rate. Biden has slashed the UE rate and added almost 10 million jobs. Trump destroyed the economy and once again, a Democrat has to clean up the mess with the republicans crying about it every step of the way. 

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
1.1.30  Duck Hawk  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.29    2 years ago

People seem to forget the true effect of Trump's economy on the lower and middle income groups. Nobody benefited.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Duck Hawk @1.1.30    2 years ago

I know I didn't

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.29    2 years ago
. Biden has slashed the UE rate and added almost 10 million jobs

But he's not responsible for inflation right? But his cult will credit him for every job that someone returned to from the second he was sworn in. 

If Biden's economy was actually as good as his worshippers claim, he wouldn't have to keep extending the student loan repayment pause because the economy is so rough.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    2 years ago
The improvement of all people under that economy? 

Not ALL people Vic, mostly wealthy people. 

Tax relief?

On the back of the deficit. I thought you and yours were all about the deficit? 

Fair Trade Deals?

Which were and are smoke and mirrors, the 'deal' with China especially. Little to NONE of it was lived up to. 

How about securing the southern border? Remember the all out resistance to the wall?   

A wall that can be breached with a $50 sawsall isn't 'secure' Vic. 

How great a game changer was the "Remain in Mexico Policy?"

How was that a 'game changer' Vic? In 2019 apprehensions were WAY up from 5 prior years. Since you and yours always claim that apprehensions correlate with the number 'missed', that means THAT number went WAY up too, right?

How about massive deregulation

Failing to enforce the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts is NOT an 'accomplishment' Vic. Oh and BTFW, the vast majority of Trump's 'deregulations' were overturned by the Judiciary. 

or getting a vaccine created in 10 months when nobody, especially Fauci thought it possible?

Trump didn't have a fucking thing to do with the vaccine that was created in 10 months. 

How about American Energy independence?

Yes, how about the fact that it lasted for ONE quarter? Why didn't Trump keep it going? 

How about returning originalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts? 

Aren't accomplishments supposed to be 'positive" things Vic? 

He nominated and had over 230 Federal judges confirmed.

Hell, Jimmy Carter did 261. 

How about securing a $400 billion increase in defense spending from NATO by 2024?

Which is from 2014 commitments. WHO was POTUS in 2014 Vic? 

How about withdrawing from the horrible, one-sided Iran Nuclear Deal and imposing crippling sanctions on the Iranian Regime?

How the fuck can an agreement negotiated between Iran, the UK, Germany, Russia, China, the US AND the EU be 'one-sided' Vic?

All I heard was the rebuilding of the military

That was stated as what y'all like, NOT as a fact. It's NOT. In fact, Trump looted the military budget to build his insecure wall. 

and a lot of what he pushed for.

Yes, a lot of what Trump pushed for wasn't accomplished, was it? 

I'm more than happy with what he actually got done. 

Some are easily placated. 

If you want to discuss any of the above accomplishments, I'll be here.

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.35  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    2 years ago
Oh ya, here is a link (or two) to my claim:

Common sense would tell people that.  But after reading this, its sorely missing.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.36  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.34    2 years ago

And lets see a link or a dozen to back up your claims.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Ender  replied to  Dulay @1.1.34    2 years ago

What gets me with all the 'trump economy' crap is donald rode in on a growing economy.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.36    2 years ago

Fuck off. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Ender @1.1.37    2 years ago

All one needs to do is review charts of the trends on economic measures. Every single one they hang their hats on were trending in the right direction before Trump took office. 

EXCEPT tax breaks of course. Republicans demanded a 'fiscal responsible' policies and budget cuts from Obama. They forced the US into budget sequestration and government shutdowns. 

Yet Trump gets into office, and they heralded military spending and tax cuts that blew up the budget. Trump and the rest of the GOP thumped their chest about the military budget, THEN Trump 'diverted' over 7 BILLION from the military for his wall.

7 BILLION here, 7 BILLION there starts to add up. /s

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.40  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.38    2 years ago
Fuck off. 

Damn, when some can't provide the truth claimed, their triggers come out in full force.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.41  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    2 years ago

Trump did start the program that led to the Covid-19 vaccines being ready to roll out in 2021. Thus, saving a lot of lives. For this, I thank him and his team's leadership. It was a RESPONSIBLE ACT. 

For giving his fellow citizens financial 'support' during the opening pandemic when he ordered a shut down I thank President Trump. It was a RESPONSIBLE ACT.

For not starting an additional war somewhere in the world or even at home, I thank President Trump. It was a RESPONSIBLE ACT

For lying "mercilessly," driving up the intrigue in our country, causing heedless distractions, pushing the 'well-spring' of goodwill for the office of the presidency out of sorts, and always "pushing the buttons" of the country during a health crises-I can forgive President Trump if and when he desists his incessant accusations and verbal rumblings from outside the office, but I shall not forget.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.42  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    2 years ago
This seed lists Trump's rhetoric which was viewed as a breath of fresh air to Trump supporters. My problem is with the word accomplishments.

This is a completely valid point.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  Duck Hawk @1.1.30    2 years ago

That bullshit but okay.    

How are they doing now in Biden’s economy?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.44  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    2 years ago

What? Too weak to "take out" your own political baggage? Trump should be a trigger for all conservatives, because nobody needs a 'hatchet-man' wielding political control over their heads.

Fake ass wanna-be's like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell, both, dissed the top of the ticket, before setting him scot-free on their watches for political duplicity in office. And you want us to topple this 'bad actor' of yours. What's wrong with (some) conservatives 'hands'? Snatch Trump out of your party by his 'short hairs' (already)! Take the 'hit.' You've earned it for trafficking in political 'freaks.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.45  CB  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.8    2 years ago

We will clean up any "assholes" we find, in the meantime, can you finger the assault on the senses that is Trump and toss his ass out as a sign of good faith? Yes or no?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.46  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.42    2 years ago
This is a completely valid point.

Sure, titles often are inaccurate / imprecise.   So maybe it is good to set the title aside and actually review the content.

Here is how Beau set the stage immediately before he listed his 14 'things' (@mark 0:47):

I'm going to in good faith try to outline things that his supporters really liked about him but since it is my channel I'm gonna do it.  Six good things and then I'm gonna say one bad thing that I think all of his supporters will be like yeah he he totally did that and then I'm gonna name six more good things and then one bad thing watch to the end okay his supporters loved the fact that under Him …  

This seed offers 12 things / points that enabled people to support Trump in spite of Trump's obvious negatives.   Its purpose, as I interpreted it, was to illustrate that Trump used well-established methods for rallying support ... methods that have worked well for some of the worst characters in history.

Arguing about the title calling these 'things/points'  'accomplishments' is deflection.   Beau used the word 'accomplishments' precisely once in the beginning of his talk and then referred to them as 'good things/points' and 'bad things/points' repeatedly throughout his content. 

Where is Beau factually incorrect in his talk?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.47  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.46    2 years ago
So maybe it is good to set the title aside and actually review the content.

So it's probably also good to refrain from statements like: 

This seed profiled Trump's accomplishments categorically.

Because we now seem to be in agreement.... that's not what it does at all.

Arguing about the title calling these 'things/points'  'accomplishments' is deflection. 

It's not a deflection to state that the video, taken on the whole, is disingenuous, and a wonderful bit of bias confirmation for ever-smug Trump opponents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.48  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.47    2 years ago
So it's probably also good to refrain from statements like:  ...

I disagree.   I used the words 'profiled' and 'categorically' for a reason Jack.    That reason was to take the focus away from the word 'accomplishments' and into concepts that more accurately represent the content presented.   Continuing to harp on a single word while ignoring the content is deflection.   It entirely misses the point of the video.

It's not a deflection to state that the video, taken on the whole, is disingenuous, and a wonderful bit of bias confirmation for ever-smug Trump opponents.

What is disingenuous about the points made in the video?   Which points were factually incorrect?

You can state that Beau does not necessarily believe the points he offered as 'good things' but Beau made it clear that he was trying to explain why Trump supporters like Trump.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.49  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.48    2 years ago
Continuing to harp on a single word while ignoring the content is deflection.

The deflection here is you pretending I'm harping on a single word.  

   It entirely misses the point of the video.

Are we going to agree the point of the video is painting Trump as a fascist?

What is disingenuous about the points made in the video?   Which points were factually incorrect?

They are not "factually correct", because they're not facts at all, they are his opinions.  They are his representations of how he sees Trump supporters and their support of Trump.  

As a collection, they are disingenuous because the list is intentionally limited to the subset of items that he can feebly attempt to use in his "fascism" assertions.

Let's also not pretend that "disingenuous" and "factually correct" are mutually exclusive.

It's like somebody making the point that the Green Bay Packers are a terrible football team because they lost their last two games by a combined score of 51-13.  It conveniently omits the 13 games they won and their division championship.   The combined score is factually correct, but the omission of the other pertinent data makes it disingenuous.

You can state that Beau does not necessarily believe the points he offered as 'good things' but Beau made it clear that he was trying to explain why Trump supporters like Trump.

Again, that's his opinion.  That doesn't mean he has any idea what he's talking about.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.50  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.40    2 years ago

Fuck off. 

I already provided truths. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.51  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.49    2 years ago
The deflection here is you pretending I'm harping on a single word.  

Well then omit 'accomplishments' and omit 'fascism' and let's see what point you can find in the video.

Are we going to agree the point of the video is painting Trump as a fascist?

No we are not.   I have explained in detail the point of the video as I see it.   Even in this reply to you directly:

TiG @1.1.46This seed offers 12 things / points that enabled people to support Trump in spite of Trump's obvious negatives.   Its purpose, as I interpreted it, was to illustrate that Trump used well-established methods for rallying support ... methods that have worked well for some of the worst characters in history.

There is a difference between using methods that worked well for fascists and arguing that Trump is a fascist.

They are not "factually correct", because they're not facts at all, they are his opinions.

Are his 'opinions' correct or not?   Which of his 14 opinions are incorrect?

As a collection, they are disingenuous because the list is intentionally limited to the subset of items that he can feebly attempt to use in his "fascism" assertions.

And now I would yet again disagree with your focus on fascism as the point of the seed.    I did not seed this video to argue that Trump is a fascist.   I have explained how I interpret the seed.   I see no interest on your part to discuss that and there is a limit on how many times I am going to state and explain my disagreement.

Let's also not pretend that "disingenuous" and "factually correct" are mutually exclusive.

Beau stated that he was going to present 12 points that Trump supporters liked about Trump.   He clearly is not a Trump supporter and offered no pretense that he was.   Anyone who offers a dialogue with a punchline will necessarily be technically disingenuous.   Big deal.   

Again, that's his opinion.  That doesn't mean he has any idea what he's talking about.  

And again, show me where he is factually incorrect.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.52  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.38    2 years ago

Oh what's wrong?  Did I trigger you?  And here I am all out of give a shits today.  

It is humorous that you get called out to provide links and that is your response.  How very adult of you.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.53  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.52    2 years ago
Oh what's wrong? 

You. 

Did I trigger you? 

No Jeremy, you BORE me. 

And here I am all out of give a shits today.  

Just today? 

It is humorous that you get called out to provide links and that is your response.  How very adult of you.

At least I posted a response Jeremy. Unlike YOU, who spews volumes of bullshit and bails. 

BTFW, I notice that you didn't 'call out' Vic for the list that he posted. 

Take your bias bullshit to someone who's willing to play your juvenile game. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.54  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.53    2 years ago
No Jeremy, you BORE me. 

And yet you continue to engage me.  I must be that boring.  

And here I am all out of give a shits today.   Just today? 

You're right.  I don't give a shit about you in the least.  

At least I posted a response Jeremy. Unlike YOU, who spews volumes of bullshit and bails. 

Are you ever going to refute anything I say or just continue with the childish tirades?

BTFW, I notice that you didn't 'call out' Vic for the list that he posted.

Then call him out.  You know you can do that.  Although you probably didn't because you know you won't like the result.

Take your bias bullshit to someone who's willing to play your juvenile game. 

You post 1.1.38   and want to call me juvenile?  That's as laughable as your stance on, well, everything.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.54    2 years ago
Are you ever going to refute anything I say or just continue with the childish tirades?

I DID refute what you said Jeremy. 

You did NOT answer the question. PERIOD, full stop. 

Then call him out.  You know you can do that.  Although you probably didn't because you know you won't like the result.

Again, I DID. You obviously read my reply to Vic's list because you chose to question MY comments while giving his a pass. BTFW, members can all see for themselves what the result is. Silence ensued. That, despite the fact that he ended his comment with:

If you want to discuss any of the above accomplishments , I'll be here.

Since I posted my reply 20 HOURS ago, Vic has posted multiple seeds and dozens of comments. Yet much like you, instead of supporting the crap he dumped here, he bailed. 

You post  1.1.38   and want to call me juvenile? 

Reading is fundamental Jeremy. I called your GAME juvenile. 

That's as laughable as your stance on, well, everything.

Yet as been proven over and over again, YOU are the one unwilling and/or incapable of supporting your claims. Though not laughable, it is quite a sad spectacle. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.56  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.51    2 years ago
Well then omit 'accomplishments' and omit 'fascism' and let's see what point you can find in the video.

It makes no difference if he talks about "accomplishments" or "good points" or "talking points" or "ideas" or whatever he wants to call them.  That choice of word is unimportant.  However the entire point of the video is to lead up to the word "fascism".

And now I would yet again disagree with your focus on fascism as the point of the seed.    I did not seed this video to argue that Trump is a fascist.   I have explained how I interpret the seed.   I see no interest on your part to discuss that and there is a limit on how many times I am going to state and explain my disagreement.

If he didn't use the word fascism, you wouldn't have seeded it.

Beau stated that he was going to present 12 points that Trump supporters liked about Trump.   He clearly is not a Trump supporter and offered no pretense that he was.   Anyone who offers a dialogue with a punchline will necessarily be technically disingenuous.   Big deal.

So we're in agreement on disingenuous.  Excellent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.57  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.56    2 years ago

You have no case, a You Tube commentary show can use any approach they like. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.58  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.56    2 years ago
However the entire point of the video is to lead up to the word "fascism".

Yes, now what did I tell you about that?    I told you that the significance of that to me (as the seeder) is that these are a list of tried and true methods that work to rally support for some of history's worst characters.    

The point, yet again, is if one seeks answers for why Trump, in spite of his abysmal character, was and is able to rally such sycophantic support, this list of methods is likely part of the answer.   You still have yet to directly address this yet this is the point.

Again, the point of the seed, my point, is to offer something to consider on that question.   I did not seed this, repeating myself again, to argue that Trump is a fascist.   I do not think Trump is a fascist (as I noted). 

I am done repeating myself on this Jack.   

If he didn't use the word fascism, you wouldn't have seeded it.

Do you understand that you are now calling me a liar?   I have told you multiple times why I seeded this.

So we're in agreement on disingenuous.  Excellent.

Are you serious?   This is all you are after ... some kind of 'victory' on an irrelevant technicality?    We are done.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.59  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.58    2 years ago

some obviously dont know Jack

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.60  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.55    2 years ago
I DID refute what you said Jeremy. 

And exactly where did you do that?  I don't see any links.  All I see is your opinion.

If you want to discuss any of the above accomplishments , I'll be here.

Don't know where you got this from.  That's not me. I'll make you a deal.  You get your conversations straight and then come talk to me.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.61  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.58    2 years ago
Yes, now what did I tell you about that?    I told you that the significance of that to me (as the seeder) is that these are a list of tried and true methods that work to rally support for some of history's worst characters. 

Would those "characters" happen to be fascists?

The point, yet again, is if one seeks answers for why Trump, in spite of his abysmal character, was and is able to rally such sycophantic support, this list of methods is likely part of the answer.

I believe you mistake Trump for the cause instead of the effect, and you mistake rationalizations of a decision as reasons for it.

Do you understand that you are now calling me a liar?

That's not actually the case.  Rationalizations are not unique to Trump supporters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.62  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.61    2 years ago
Would those "characters" happen to be fascists?

Do you think that only fascists employed those methods?

Since it is not my intent to deem Trump a fascist and given I have repeatedly stated in unambiguous language that this was not my intent, why do you continue to attempt to get me to state otherwise?   It is not going to happen because it is not true.

I believe you mistake Trump for the cause instead of the effect, and you mistake rationalizations of a decision as reasons for it.

Trump as the cause for what?   You need to be a bit more specific.

That's not actually the case.  

Yeah, it is.   In direct contradiction to me explicitly telling you that I did not seed this article because the list happened to be labeled as fascism but rather because the list contains historically effective methods for securing support by even the worst characters you come back and tell me that I would not have seeded this article if not for the word fascism.

Don't tell me that I do not know my own intentions and certainly do not claim that my stated intentions are not true.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.63  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.61    2 years ago
I believe you mistake Trump for the cause instead of the effect, and you mistake rationalizations of a decision as reasons for it.

so your assertion that brought about said effect [Trump] would be....?

Cause i witnessed Trump Lie, often while sitting up in bed, as he tweeted out disgussions, directed at feeble minds wanting someone or thing other than themselves, and those they elected to effect it, as the cause for theirs and ours as a nations' failures, For it surely could not be they, or the policies those they had enabled, and did policy write while hidden within were societal detriments which did obviously say much, about the cause and such cause no one wishes to be the reason things dont go well, but, sometimes the truth, be not swell, like pride in the Death of a world leader, Death Be Not Proud  when suicidal signs be found to have been a contributing factor, possibly primed by the pumping and Trumping of a manipulated mass deception by a Put in Place purposeful indiscretion, that constant and consistently, made worse, our  worsened direction that further infected and fueled the infection. 

 As Trump made the accepted norms of understood rules, turn into unenforceable nothingness as the GOP enabled an enabler, liar, criminal, and mentally unstable boy genius, to make a mockery of our country and All of US, all just so they would not lose, lose their power. A disgusting selfish act of fact that almost brought US to a halt, while enabling one unfit, to continue to sit, in where he should have been outthrown, all while he attempted to overthrow and pass out with many YAC's, a Russian profited and prospered Putin reality, that to this day, so many still LIE and deny, took place, all to save face and all a total DISGRACE 0f and for, what so many did give LIFE and LIMB, as they sacrificed NEVER for the likes of him, or they. They sacrificed for our American Way, that Trump DID LEAD ASTRAY, and normalize the Divide predicted to tear US apart, for from the inside our demise was predicted to originate, and all while so manmy continue to support a GOP and a 'leader',  that long ago should have been MORE than enuff reason to ABORT he, and the disgraced GOP, that continues to work towards our demise, as the continued manipulation of you and so many other people, who just cant see what has happened, and how youve been played, as in ewe, and so many other sheeple ling wool over coats of painted to disguise, the Truth, as so many continue to stand up and Lie, i feel, even gravity must find it unreal

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.64  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.50    2 years ago
Fuck off.  I already provided truths. 

Again.,...triggered

Where are these "truths" you are so adamant about?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.65  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.64    2 years ago
Again.,...triggered

Again, obtuse. 

Where are these "truths" you are so adamant about?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.66  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.65    2 years ago

Looks like nothing but a bunch of opinions.

Not surprised your narcissism believes they are hard facts.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.67  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.66    2 years ago
Looks like nothing but a bunch of opinions. Not surprised your narcissism believes they are hard facts.

Then all you need to do is prove that my opinions aren't facts. 

That's how this shit works. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.68  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.67    2 years ago

Nope.

To quote someone who thinks they are famous here,

"You made the claim. You own it".

Please proceed

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.69  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.1.66    2 years ago

Narcissism? Really? No, you keep on insisting you've, "Refuted", others with your mindless denials. An, "Unt Uh", doesn't refute anything!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.70  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.60    2 years ago
And exactly where did you do that?  I don't see any links.  All I see is your opinion.

It isn't my opinion that you didn't answer the question TiG asked you Jeremy. Any member here can review the thread and prove that to themselves. 

Don't know where you got this from.  That's not me. I'll make you a deal.  You get your conversations straight and then come talk to me.

Supercilious clap trap. 

We were talking about Vic's comment.

YOU said I should call him out for not replying to my questions. 

I block quoted from Vic's comment that he said he would be here to discuss it. 

I hope that gets YOU reoriented in the conversation Jeremy. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.71  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1.1.69    2 years ago

So you can't prove anything either.

Got it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.72  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.68    2 years ago

Actually, YOU made the claim bugsy. 

But hey, I have no expectation of you supporting your bullshit, you never do. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.73  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.1.71    2 years ago

Nope! You choose to be in an impenetrable bubble that no outside knowledge ever gets in.

As long as you are inside it no use even trying!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.74  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.72    2 years ago

Nope. I made no claim.

Let's recap.

You responded to Vic's 1.1.33 with your opinionated response.

I then asked you for proof of your opinions, in which that is what they are.

Again.

You made the claims with your opinions you claim are facts

You own those opinions.

So, I repeat myself.

Please proceed.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.75  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1.1.73    2 years ago

Says they guy that thinks using memes is an effective means of debate.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.76  JBB  replied to  bugsy @1.1.75    2 years ago

No, everyone reading this knows who makes cogent points and who is just playing gotcha!

How I deal with trolls should not bother you...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.77  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1.1.76    2 years ago
How I deal with trolls

Yes, JBB you're right. How you deal with fellow leftists does not bother me.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.78  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @1.1.75    2 years ago

“Says they guy that thinks using memes is an effective means of debate.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

So just where do emojis fit in your definition?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.79  GregTx  replied to  Dulay @1.1.67    2 years ago
Then all you need to do is prove that my opinions aren't facts. 

That's how this shit works. 

Please proceed. 

That’s fucking hilarious…..

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.80  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.74    2 years ago
Nope. I made no claim.

Actually, you did. 

You claimed that my post was nothing but a bunch of opinions. 

In reality, most of my post is questions posed to Vic, NONE of which he answered. 

Now I did refute what Vic said with statements of my own, all based on facts that I already knew or looked up.

So if you doubt THOSE statements, prove them wrong bugsy. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
1.1.81  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.67    2 years ago
Then all you need to do is prove that my opinions aren't facts. 

...like that even makes fucking sense.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.82  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @1.1.76    2 years ago
No, everyone reading this knows who makes cogent points and who is just playing gotcha!

lol ...  do they?     In reality the difference in what folks here think are cogent points is massive.

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.83  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.82    2 years ago

Yes, Sparty, everyone knows what is what...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.84  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @1.1.83    2 years ago

Yep, I’m sure you really do believe that ....

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.85  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.78    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.86  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.80    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.87  bugsy  replied to  squiggy @1.1.81    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.88  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.86    2 years ago

too

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.89  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.88    2 years ago

Uh, no...to is the correct usage.

You are wrong...

again.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.90  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.89    2 years ago

I wasn't talking about the usage of to.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.91  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.90    2 years ago

I know what you were referring to. You were referring to the usage of the word to in post 1.1.86. You tried to tell me the correct usage was too.

My usage is correct.

You owe me an apology.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.92  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.91    2 years ago
You owe me an apology.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.93  Ronin2  replied to  CB @1.1.45    2 years ago
We will clean up any "assholes" we find

Prove it, get with your comrades and demand that a special prosecutor be enacted to deal with Joe Biden and his pay for play dealings with Hunter. Since Garland isn't going to ever do jack shit.

in the meantime, can youfingerthe assault on the senses that is Trump and toss his ass out as a sign of good faith? Yes or no?

Nope sorry, we have had seven years and counting of Democrat BS regarding Trump. They were trying to get rid of him before he even took office. They are still after him now that he is out of office. Until the left removes their filth; don't expect Trump to go anywhere. If Brandon and Trump win the nominations- hell make that Trump against any POS Democrat that is not Manchin (who isn't running); and it will be Trump. Consider it pay back for all the shit; and dumping us with Brandon for 4 years.

 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.94  CB  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.93    2 years ago

Well, that suggestion took flight like a lead balloon. Bye, Ronin.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.95  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.93    2 years ago
They were trying to get rid of him before he even took office.

Because he's a POS. Also, it's called voting. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.96  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.93    2 years ago
They were trying to get rid of him before he even took office.

So was the GOP.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2  Drakkonis    2 years ago

Yep. Saw where this was going almost immediately. The problem with this vid is that he doesn't identify what constitutes a Trump supporter. Someone who wants to have his baby or someone who, no matter how terrible a person they thought Trump might be personally, it would still be better than where the left wanted to take us. 

Also, he doesn't actually ever speak of what Trump accomplished. He really only speaks of emotional reactions to things. For instance, not being ashamed of the flag or bald eagles is not actually an accomplishment. 

I've seen some of this guy's vids before. I think this guy is very intelligent and, given some of the issues he speaks about, he's definitely worth listening to, but in this case I think he missed his goal. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @2    2 years ago

I too have watched some of his videos and I disagree with your assessment. The reason is, I think that one of his major goals is to get you thinking, and there is no denying he achieved that goal. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1    2 years ago
I think that one of his major goals is to get you thinking ...

I agree, but only people who are willing to think (Drakk being a fine example) will even listen to this (and any other message).   It is the stubborn ignorance of partisanship and emotional group-think that drives much of the idiocy we see in our nation nowadays.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Dulay @2.1    2 years ago
The reason is, I think that one of his major goals is to get you thinking

I'm not certain that would be his goal but, regardless, one should think about what he said. In my opinion, he tailored his message in such a fashion that what he presented as Trump's accomplishments (even though they were not) would fit what defined fascism. That is, I think he looked at the list of what constituted fascism and attempted to fit what he described as Trump's accomplishments into it. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.2    2 years ago

Of course he had the list in mind when he made the video.  The thing many of his supporters either miss or deny is that he didn't have to stretch at all to find examples within Trump's most celebrated behaviors to find tendencies that matched up with that list.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.2    2 years ago

He didn't just 'attempt' to fit the things Trump supports like about him into the list, he succeeded. 

As of this comment, not one member, including you, has even tried to refute that his examples fit the list he linked. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.5  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.3    2 years ago

First, a disclaimer. I am not a Trump supporter. I'm not saying that in response to anything you or anyone else has said. I'm saying it simply for the sake of context. Although I voted for Trump in the last election, it was mostly a case of "better him than the other guy." Most likely, I won't be voting in 2024 if Trump is the Republican nominee. His actions following the casting of my vote, specifically his part in what happened January 6th and his attempt at disrupting the vote makes him unsupportable. My purpose for this disclaimer is to make clear my response will not be in defense of Trump but, rather, a critique Beau's vid. 

The thing many of his supporters either miss or deny is that he didn't have to stretch at all to find examples within Trump's most celebrated behaviors to find tendencies that matched up with that list.

I have to disagree and I'll use his very first "good accomplishment" to illustrate why. 

Nobody had to be ashamed that they loved the American flag or the Bald Eagle. Those symbols of the nation. He brought nationalism back. He made it okay. They liked that. 

Trump didn't make it okay to not be ashamed of national symbols. It wasn't as if frightened citizens kept their love of country hidden in the basement because they were either ashamed of their love of the symbols or the country they felt these symbols stood for until the liberator Trump arrived and freed them to express what they felt. They were never ashamed of such things before, during or after Trump. 

Further, love of the symbols that represent the nation is not, de facto, nationalism. It doesn't mean that the flag waver believes "my country, right or wrong," simply because they love the symbols, or more accurately, what they feel the symbols represent. While nationalists do love using the imagery, it is hardly the only reason, or even the most common reason, for love of symbols of the nation.  

Lastly, his very first "good thing" he mentions demonstrates the disingenuousness of his claimed intent. Not only was Trump not responsible for that "good thing", he clearly did not think it was actually a good thing. This is contrary to what he stated he intended to do. Specifically, list six good things Trump accomplished and one bad. I understood at this very first "good accomplishment" what his real intent was when he defined loving symbols of the nation as nationalism. I understood that what he was going to do with the subsequent "good accomplishments" was fit them into the list of what makes a fascist.

The reality is, whether one is a fascist concerning such symbols depends entirely upon what one feels those symbols represent. If you agree that is true, then you have to accept that Beau did stretch, shape or otherwise manipulate this point in order to fit it into his ultimate point. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.5    2 years ago
Although I voted for Trump in the last election, it was mostly a case of "better him than the other guy."

Trump was never, not even for one second fit to be president of the United States. Not even close, and it has little to do with the 2020 election. 

In 2016, prior to the election, Trump was a KNOWN pathological liar, crook, bigot, moron, and cheat.  On what possible basis is such a person fit to hold the office of cockroach inspector, let alone president of the United States ? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.7  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    2 years ago

Sorry, JR, but your question isn't on topic. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.7    2 years ago

You are the one claiming he was "better than the other guy". In 2016 Trump wasnt better than a single one of the other 20 people or so (both parties) that ran for president that year. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.5    2 years ago
His actions following the casting of my vote, specifically his part in what happened January 6th and his attempt at disrupting the vote makes him unsupportable.

Too bad you are among a minority of GoP-leaning individuals.

Trump didn't make it okay to not be ashamed of national symbols. It wasn't as if frightened citizens kept their love of country hidden in the basement because they were either ashamed of their love of the symbols or the country they felt these symbols stood for until the liberator Trump arrived and freed them to express what they felt. They were never ashamed of such things before, during or after Trump. 

Trump spoke for those who favor a more isolationist USA.   America first.   American made.   He made wearing "Make America Great Again" and related paraphernalia a popular and accepted thing to do.

The point is that Trump focused on nationalism — a tried and true method for aligning the electorate along common, accepted lines.   This is thus one of several methods Trump used to secure his popularity (in spite of his abysmal character).

The reality is, whether one is a fascist 

I do not consider Trump a fascist and I do not think that Beau is trying to argue that.   Rather I took this seed to be Beau's explanation for how a Trump supporter could actually support Trump in spite of Trump's blatantly obvious negatives.   The answer that Beau gave (as I see it) is that Trump went to the historical playbook for successful manipulation of a society and followed the program.   Some of the worst characters in history were able to align people in support of them using these methods.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.7    2 years ago
Sorry, JR, but your question isn't on topic. 

Sure it is.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    2 years ago
It is the stubborn ignorance of partisanship and emotional group-think that drives much of the idiocy we see in our nation nowadays.

Which is conspicuously absent from the video.

It's as though we're pretending that the majority of both support and opposition to Trump is due to something other than basic political tribalism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.11    2 years ago
Which is conspicuously absent from the video.

There are many things left out of the video.    Since you likely watched it now you know that Beau was making the point that Trump used tried-and-true methods that have worked for even the worst historical characters.    That the reason Trump supporters like Trump is because these methods work.

It's as though we're pretending that the majority of both support and opposition to Trump is due to something other than basic political tribalism.

The Trump phenomena challenges such a simplistic explanation.    That is, there is much more here than stupid partisanship and group-think (albeit those are critical enablers).   I do not know how you see things, but I just witnessed a lying, antagonistic narcissist use the most outrageous lies and denials to literally take over the GOP.   The GOP initially rejected him but somehow (empowered by a growing economy) Trump wound up being the actual leader of the GOP and the majority of the party somehow not only supports him (no matter what he does) but follows his lead and wishes he were again PotUS.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.13  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.5    2 years ago
I am not a Trump supporter. I'm not saying that in response to anything you or anyone else has said. I'm saying it simply for the sake of context. Although I voted for Trump in the last election, it was mostly a case of "better him than the other guy.

The last election was in 2020. During Covid-19 so it is a rank untruth or at best a 'splitting of hairs' to suggest that in a hotly contested election where Trump pleaded with his supporters to come out to the polls and cast a yes vote for him against the other guy that you would ignore those pleadings and cast your only vote instead for a write-in candidate you otherwise wholeheartedly support.  You put your support on 'loan' to Donald J. Trump and its plain and clear in 2020 you were in effect a Trump supporter. No matter what you want to restate it as today.

Most likely, I won't be voting in 2024 if Trump is the Republican nominee. His actions following the casting of my vote, specifically his part in what happened January 6th and his attempt at disrupting the vote makes him unsupportable.

Implying at some future time you (likely? maybe? high/average/low probability?) won't be supporting Trump whom you actually SUPPORTED in 2020. Now, continue onward, please. . . .

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.12    2 years ago
There are many things left out of the video.

Conveniently.  Conveniently left out of the video.  Any positive point about Trump that did not fit his "fascist" theme was omitted, and several ideas on the fascist list were overstated.  

    Since you likely watched it now you know that Beau was making the point that Trump used tried-and-true methods that have worked for even the worst historical characters.

I understand his point.  I simply think the endless connections with "Trump" and "fascism" are wildly overblown, and this is no exception. 

Liberals tend to cry 'fascism' with the same fervor and lack of intellectual effort that conservatives cry "socialism". 

It's also important to note that almost everything in that video has been displayed by other American political leaders, many of whom are revered.

The Trump phenomena challenges such a simplistic explanation.

Occam's razor being what it is.... I disagree.  I also question how you doubt simplistic explanations of what you consider to be very simple people.

That is, there is much more here than stupid partisanship and group-think (albeit those are critical enablers).   I do not know how you see things, but I just witnessed a lying, antagonistic narcissist use the most outrageous lies and denials to literally take over the GOP. 

He did not use lies or denials to take over the party.  People just fundamentally misunderstand this entire phenomenon.

Both Trump supporters and their liberal counterparts believe (erroneously) that we are in a fight for the very future of this country. 

Now, if you're in a fight like that, you want the most aggressive, bellicose asshole you can find.  You don't care if he lies, cheats, steals, sleeps with porn stars, hires his kids, grabs a gold-digger's pussy and then lies some more.  

Stupid partisanship is exactly why his supporters are willing to overlook all the bad shit he does, the exact same way Clinton supporters still overlook all the shady shit they did.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.5    2 years ago
Most likely, I won't be voting in 2024 if Trump is the Republican nominee. His actions following the casting of my vote, specifically his part in what happened January 6th and his attempt at disrupting the vote makes him unsupportable.

Most likely , I won't be voting in 2024 if Trump is the Republican nominee. . . disrupting the vote makes him unsupportable .

Okay, you seem conflicted: Based on "disrupting the vote," Trump ought to be unsupportable by you! Thus, "If Trump" you won't be voting in 2024. 

Or, does Trump still have a 'shot' at getting (more of) your support? jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.16  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.14    2 years ago
Any positive point about Trump that did not fit his "fascist" theme was omitted, and several ideas on the fascist list were overstated.  

That is correct.   Had he included everything about Trump he would not be able to illustrate the Trump playbook.   You are complaining that he had a plan to illustrate that Trump used methods proven effective by some nasty historical figures.    

I simply think the endless connections with "Trump" and "fascism" are wildly overblown, and this is no exception. 

Of course they are overblown.   But it is not at all overblown to point out that much of Trump's appeal correlates with successful methods used by fascists.   It is at the very least part of the explanation of the Trump phenomena.

Liberals tend to cry 'fascism' with the same fervor and lack of intellectual effort that conservatives cry "socialism". 

Yeah well if you are going to just focus on the fringe and ignore the content that accomplishes nothing of value either.   I have spent most of my time dealing with people projecting the entire content of this video on its extremes — pivoting on words such as fascism and accomplishments.   I do not, at all, get the impression that some are actually trying to consider the point Beau has made.

Occam's razor being what it is.... I disagree.  

Occam's razor works if the simplistic explanation is a sufficient explanation.   Simplicity in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing.   I could claim that George Bush's policies were simply a reflection of his faith.   That is partially true, but that simplistic explanation for Bush's decisions is insufficient.

He did not use lies or denials to take over the party. 

You have got to be kidding; Trump is a pathological liar.   Lying is his normal mode of operation.   Clearly his supporters bought his bullshit.   And when his bullshit was exposed as such, they denied it and then bought the next round and the next.   His supporters wanted his lies to be true and people have a remarkable ability to believe what they desire.

Now, if you're in a fight like that, you want the most aggressive, bellicose asshole you can find.  You don't care if he lies, cheats, steals, sleeps with porn stars, hires his kids, grabs a gold-digger's pussy and then lies some more.  

Trump punctuated his presidency in his last two months by engaging in an historically outrageous lie con-job which was wrong on many levels; all because his ego could not handle losing an election.   This was the perfect time (and excuse) for the GOP to preserve some of its credibility and eject Trump and find a new leader.   There are plenty of people who could pursue the same basic agenda as Trump.   Trump, the individual, is not essential.   

Moreover, being an asshole did not accomplish anything of value.   The GOP would have been far better off with a president who was not a national embarrassment and who had the skills and demeanor to work within the constraints of the federal government to get things done.   On top of that, maybe an individual who would not disgrace the office of PotUS.

Trump's lies hit home with his supporters but other than the thrill of hearing the president say what they 'felt', the GOP is divided and has lost substantial credibility.   The tortured logic one must have to defend Trump is embarrassing to watch.  Smart, logical people are resorting to delusional and irrational 'arguments' in the attempt to defend the indefensible.   I think any GOP president with a growing economy at his/her back would have been successful and chances are good, IMO, that this alternative individual would have easily beaten Biden and would be serving his/her second term right now.

Stupid partisanship is exactly why his supporters are willing to overlook all the bad shit he does, the exact same way Clinton supporters still overlook all the shady shit they did.

Indeed.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.5    2 years ago
Trump didn't make it okay to not be ashamed of national symbols. It wasn't as if frightened citizens kept their love of country hidden in the basement because they were either ashamed of their love of the symbols or the country they felt these symbols stood for until the liberator Trump arrived and freed them to express what they felt. They were never ashamed of such things before, during or after Trump. 

No, but quite a few people acted like they were somehow being prevented or discouraged by the left (of course) from displaying their flags and love of them.  Took me 10 seconds to find this.

64s5hq.jpg

My Facebook feed abounds with crap like this, made to drive a wedge between "proud of their country" conservatives and "ashamed of their country" liberals.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.17    2 years ago

Defacing the American flag

vzuihdxt05651.jpg

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.19  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    2 years ago

When one's own political parties needs a person in power to (make a vain attempt) to disenfranchise 80 plus million citizens and their quest for progress. jrSmiley_72_smiley_image.gif For such 'high caliber' tactics one essentially calls for the biggest pathological liar, the crookedest dishonest wanna be political party leader, one who does not care about "Archie Bunkerism,", a 'disaffected' thinker, and well what word fits here best—got it: Cheater.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.20  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    2 years ago

The policy is labeled: Divide and Conquer.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.21  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.11    2 years ago

Jack_Tx, many liberals don't hate Donald J. Trump, but his character and conduct are atrocious and irreconcilable to decency and good order and discipline.

You have the evidence of many republicans disassociating themselves from the only political party they have ever known not because of any wish to be in any other political party, but simply getting away from the present stench emanating in this republican party.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.22  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.17    2 years ago

Okay. While I agree "crap like this" is a bad thing, since it doesn't help anyone, they do actually have a point behind it. The flag does actually trigger a portion of the left. A portion that actually sees those who stand by the flag with varying degrees of enmity. I'm not sure things like this are driving a wedge between groups or is simply a symptom of a wedge already there, like iron filings not being the magnetic field but, rather, showing its shape, if you understand what I mean. 

To my mind, the divide isn't actually bridgeable anymore. I see this being so because, broadly speaking, there's two main categories most people fall into. The first are those who are relativists (driven by postmodernist thought) and the second I'll call objectivists. These are too fundamentally different to really reconcile in a meaningful way. 

That's what I see in the example you provided. That is, to me it seems a sign that they no longer see discussing the issues as either possible or productive. And it goes both ways. You've seen people who lean left in here use the same sort of imagery.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.23  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    2 years ago
Smart, logical people are resorting to delusional and irrational 'arguments' in the attempt to defend the indefensible. 

And shamelessness. The so-called, "god-centric" on NT have become peddlers for dishonest Donald, because he impresses them with his 'fight and combat' skills against any one they term "godless" and holding little to no power to end dehumanization treatment.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.24  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.17    2 years ago

Take back the flag! You, we, have every right to it too:   

original

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.25  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.22    2 years ago
. These are too fundamentally different to really reconcile in a meaningful way. 

@2.1.24. The flag is a symbol of this country and its 'union' (or marriage of world people ) of one body with a diversity of mind. However, one political party wishes to possess all the emotion and passion of the flag for itself. They shall not possess it ever. Our symbolic flag is all-inclusive of the citizenry of this country.

Want to make the flag divide 'bridgeable' once more, stop talking about it as if conservatives are its protectors. We all are protectors of this country and want its national symbols to live up to what they aspire.

Other than than this, suppression will call political and literally war to break out.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.26  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.8    2 years ago
You are the one claiming he was "better than the other guy".

Okay. Let me put it this way, then. I'm here to talk about the vid, not get into a debate about Trump. The purpose of my disclaimer was intended to establish something about my current state of thinking concerning Trump and nothing else. I did so because I believed it might aid in understanding the rest of what I had to say. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.27  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    2 years ago
Too bad you are among a minority of GoP-leaning individuals.

I don't know how true that is, nor am I convinced anyone else does either. But I'm pretty cynical concerning things such as polls and whatnot so maybe I'm wrong. 

Trump spoke for those who favor a more isolationist USA.   America first.   American made.   He made wearing "Make America Great Again" and related paraphernalia a popular and accepted thing to do.

True, but he spoke for others as well. I was completely on board with his desire to get the southern border under control. Not because I don't want people south of in in our country but because I think it's insane to just leave it open to cross anytime, anywhere. I am not an isolationist, in other words. 

The point is that Trump focused on nationalism — a tried and true method for aligning the electorate along common, accepted lines.   This is thus one of several methods Trump used to secure his popularity (in spite of his abysmal character).

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Wanting to make America great again doesn't necessarily equate to fascism or nationalism. It can, but it isn't necessarily so. But perhaps I'm not using the word "nationalism" in the sense that you may be using it. If I were running for president and using such a slogan it would mean my platform would be about bringing good paying, high quality jobs back to our shores. The pandemic, and now the war in Ukraine making the already F.U.B.A.R.ed supply chain problems even worse shows us that we need to start being more self-reliant, which would mean more jobs here. That isn't nationalism. It's wanting to take care of the people who elected you. 

And it wasn't simply a method Trump used to manipulate people. He actually tried to do the things he said he would do. Unfortunately, his narcissism prevented him from being very effective in much of it. 

I do not consider Trump a fascist and I do not think that Beau is trying to argue that.

Agreed. That is, I didn't get the impression that this was actually about Trump. 

Rather I took this seed to be Beau's explanation for how a Trump supporter could actually support Trump in spite of Trump's blatantly obvious negatives.

I didn't take it quite that way. What I thought he was trying to do was, regardless of who it was they were supporting, examine what is behind your support. If you're not careful, it may lead you toward fascism. It seems a lot of people think fascism is a right wing thing but from what I understand about fascism, anyone anywhere on the political spectrum could be fascist. Okay, maybe not anarchists. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.27    2 years ago
I was completely on board with his desire to get the southern border under control.

I was (am) too in principle.   Building a wall seems silly.   Nowadays I would think technology and far more border agents would be more sensible.

Wanting to make America great again doesn't necessarily equate to fascism or nationalism. 

I do not buy that Trump wanted anything other than adoration and praise.   I do think that he used national pride (nationalism) as a tool to secure his supporters.   Exactly the same way he swayed the religious vote.   Trump clearly is no Christian and is not religious yet he pretended to be devout.   No doubt you are quite aware of what I am saying here.

I didn't take it quite that way.

Which is fine, but as the seeder I have been telling people repeatedly that this was why I seeded this video.   I think Beau does a fine job of explaining why people would vote for such an abysmal character as Trump.   There are other reasons of course such as the economy, pure-blind partisanship, etc.   But this video does a decent job of explaining how ordinarily rational human beings could downplay the many negatives of Trump and vote for him.

It also explains, to a lesser degree, why there is continued support for Trump after he made it crystal clear to the world the level of malignant narcissism, pathological lying and utter irresponsibility inherent in this sorry human being.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.29  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    2 years ago
I was (am) too in principle.   Building a wall seems silly.   Nowadays I would think technology and far more border agents would be more sensible.

I'm undecided on the utility of an actual physical wall. Certainly, a wall by itself would be silly but one with the ability to monitor as well? Or would monitoring devices prove effective enough? I don't really know.

I do not buy that Trump wanted anything other than adoration and praise.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, exactly. In my opinion, Trump wanted adoration and praise above all else, but that doesn't make him a fascist or a nationalist. (Yes, I know you have said elsewhere you don't think he was, either. I'm just sticking with the comment you were referring to.)What I think was what he truly and actually felt about the issues making up his platform would bring him that adoration and praise. That is, I don't think he made the border an issue only because he thought it would bring him what he sought but because he really believed what he said on the subject and that people would agree with him. 

I do think that he used national pride (nationalism) as a tool to secure his supporters.

I don't know if I can agree with equating national pride with the sort of nationalism that is fascism we are talking about. I can't say I disagree, either. My attitude toward such things have undergone a change since I began taking my Christianity seriously, so everything looks different. Basically, I'm still considering the issue. 

Exactly the same way he swayed the religious vote.

That makes it sound as if he said what he did concerning religious issues cynically, not intending to follow through with what he said about it. He didn't. He kept his promise to the extent that he could. It's impossible to know, in my opinion, how many people actually believed his claims concerning personal faith, but I don't think it's really all that relevant, speaking for myself. If I had to guess, I'd say that, for most people of faith, what they cared about was that he would do what he said he would do rather than dither over issues of his personal faith. 

Trump clearly is no Christian and is not religious yet he pretended to be devout.   No doubt you are quite aware of what I am saying here.

Quite. 

Which is fine, but as the seeder I have been telling people repeatedly that this was why I seeded this video.   I think Beau does a fine job of explaining why people would vote for such an abysmal character as Trump.   There are other reasons of course such as the economy, pure-blind partisanship, etc.   But this video does a decent job of explaining how ordinarily rational human beings could downplay the many negatives of Trump and vote for him.

While I believe he's speaking of a rather narrow segment of Trump supporters. 

It also explains, to a lesser degree, why there is continued support for Trump after he made it crystal clear to the world the level of malignant narcissism, pathological lying and utter irresponsibility inherent in this sorry human being.

I take it you mean the present, continued support by those still supporting him. Since I think many who voted for him in the past have now abandoned him due to his actions concerning the elections, I would argue that what Beau says in this video now pertains to a higher percentage of Trump supporters than in times past. How much more I couldn't say. Even so, I think there's a large segment that only see Trump as a means to an end rather than as actual supporters of him. 

Of course, everything I've said concerning this is merely my opinion based off of my own impressions on the subject. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.30  Drakkonis  replied to  Dulay @2.1    2 years ago
I too have watched some of his videos and I disagree with your assessment. The reason is, I think that one of his major goals is to get you thinking, and there is no denying he achieved that goal.

In 2.1.2 I said I wasn't certain that was his goal. I now think you are right. I do think his goal was to get one thinking. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.31  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.29    2 years ago
Certainly, a wall by itself would be silly but one with the ability to monitor as well? Or would monitoring devices prove effective enough? I don't really know.

We could use technology to early detect approaching illegals.   We could send out drones to intercept and speak with the individuals (warning them that they have been photographed for ID and are now under constant surveillance and to return or be detained, processed and deported).  Note that drones also serve as mobile floodlights, loudspeakers, cameras, radar, etc.   They can cover a great expanse of distance because of their speed.   With more border patrol (and that includes equipment such as helicopters) the agents would be better equipped to physically deal with illegals.

That is, I don't think he made the border an issue only because he thought it would bring him what he sought but because he really believed what he said on the subject and that people would agree with him. 

Possibly.   After observing Trump for these years I think he views life as a game to play.   I do not have the impression that he gives a single shit about anyone other than himself and his immediate genetic family (biological offspring).

If I had to guess, I'd say that, for most people of faith, what they cared about was that he would do what he said he would do rather than dither over issues of his personal faith. 

And you do not mind that he pretended to be religious to get your votes?

Since I think many who voted for him in the past have now abandoned him due to his actions concerning the elections, I would argue that what Beau says in this video now pertains to a higher percentage of Trump supporters than in times past.

One would have expected that, but clearly the GOP continues to hold him as their leader and are encouraging him to run.   I cannot believe the number of career politicians who continue to suck up to this abysmal character.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.22    2 years ago

Well, the divisive techniques seem to have worked.  You believe the lies.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.33  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.31    2 years ago
We could use technology to early detect approaching illegals.   We could send out drones to intercept and speak with the individuals (warning them that they have been photographed for ID and are now under constant surveillance and to return or be detained, processed and deported).  Note that drones also serve as mobile floodlights, loudspeakers, cameras, radar, etc.   They can cover a great expanse of distance because of their speed.   With more border patrol (and that includes equipment such as helicopters) the agents would be better equipped to physically deal with illegals.

Yep, but probably completely irrelevant. When Trump was elected, Republicans had all three branches of government, yet failed to do anything meaningful regarding the border. The only logical reason for this that I can figure out is that Republicans prefer that the border remains a problem for which they can use to attack Dems. Put another way, Repubs would undoubtedly score political points with their base if they managed to do something meaningful concerning the border but, apparently, that benefit would be less than what they figured allowing the problem to continue would do for them politically regarding Dems. 

Possibly.   After observing Trump for these years I think he views life as a game to play.   I do not have the impression that he gives a single shit about anyone other than himself and his immediate genetic family (biological offspring).

I would tend to agree with you concerning what he cares about as it relates to his family, but that can still be true and, at the same time, still have a genuine concern about the things he made his platform. 

And you do not mind that he pretended to be religious to get your votes?

This question seems to assume that his pretensions concerning his personal claims about religion was a factor in my decision to vote for him. Put another way, that he claimed faith in Christianity was a factor concerning my decision. His claim to faith affected me as much as if he stated that he prefers lima beans over turnips. In actuality, his claim to faith disgusted me because his actions and behavior obviously belied the claim. 

But, you need to listen to what I am telling you. Stop imagining that I do not see what is obvious to you. I voted for Trump for no other reason than I oppose what the Dems want to do to this country. I did not vote for either candidate in 2016 because I found both candidates to be loathsome. I voted for Trump in 2020 because, in my opinion, he genuinely tried to do what he promised he would do in the runup to the 2016 campaign and that was good enough for me.

Patton was pretty much a narcissistic asshat as well but he was probably right in that we should have rearmed the Germans and fought the Soviets then and there. Point being, being an asshat doesn't automatically mean that whatever you do or say is wrong. But that is what Trump's opponents try to convince us of. Look at all the things JR said about Trump before the 2020 election. His thing was completely about Trump's character. He strove as hard as he could to convince everyone that we should not vote for Trump because he was an asshole, rather than speak about the platforms of the parties. To use an analogy, in my opinion JR tried to convince us we shouldn't exit the burning building because the guy holding the escape door was a total asshole and, by exiting, you were aligning yourself with that asshole. The fire represents what the Dems want to do with the country. So, what JR wanted, in my opinion, was for us to ignore the fire over the character of the one holding the door open. 

One would have expected that, but clearly the GOP continues to hold him as their leader and are encouraging him to run.   I cannot believe the number of career politicians who continue to suck up to this abysmal character.

I tend to agree, but perhaps not for the same reason. Since I am admittedly cynical where politics are concerned, I do not believe that most of these politicians support Trump because they believe in him. Rather, I believe they do so because it advances their personal ambitions. I'm convinced that, with rare exceptions, power draws the worst of us, not the best. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.34  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.32    2 years ago
Well, the divisive techniques seem to have worked.  You believe the lies.

I'm sorry. I don't understand your comment. What lies do you think I believe? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.34    2 years ago
The flag does actually trigger a portion of the left. A portion that actually sees those who stand by the flag with varying degrees of enmity.

That lie.

And once you believe that lie, the distance is certainly not bridgeable, because you're willfully believing the worst about people just because they think differently from you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.33    2 years ago
Look at all the things JR said about Trump before the 2020 election. His thing was completely about Trump's character. He strove as hard as he could to convince everyone that we should not vote for Trump because he was an asshole, rather than speak about the platforms of the parties. To use an analogy, in my opinion JR tried to convince us we shouldn't exit the burning building because the guy holding the escape door was a total asshole and, by exiting, you were aligning yourself with that asshole. The fire represents what the Dems want to do with the country. So, what JR wanted, in my opinion, was for us to ignore the fire over the character of the one holding the door open. 

If the majority of Americans believed that Trump's policies were for the best for America he would have won the majority of the vote at some point in his political career. The ONLY time Trump has EVER won a majority of the vote was in the last stage of the Republican primaries in 2016 when it was obvious he was going to be the nominee and his opposition had withered away. In other words, there is no evidence that Americans believe Trump has better answers to our national problems than Democrats H Clinton or Biden do.  Trump supports ending Roe v Wade, a majority of Americans favor keeping Roe v Wade. Some people would say we cant let Trump be president (or the Republicans get control of Congress) for that reason alone. Who the hell are you to say you are right and they are wrong? 

The point is that there is considerable and often majority opinion that disagrees with you that Trump represented better "policies" than Clinton or Biden did. The notion that it was somehow "obvious" that everyone should hold their nose and vote for Trump, even though he is unfit to hold any office whatsoever, is just wishful thinking at best. The public is split on many many issues. And generally demographic trends are favoring the Democrats long term. 

There are many many Americans who think that a heavily conservative Supreme Court is a disaster for the country. Should they vote for an unfit presidential candidate next time just to try and get a seat or two back on the Supreme Court?  Many Americans like the possibility of teaching anti-racism to schoolchildren - should they vote for an unfit Democrat just because they want anti-racism taught in schools? 

People who are mentally and psychologically and morally unfit to hold office should not hold office, period. There are 340 million people in America, surely there are Republicans who can both be fit for office and carry the conservative banner. Arent there? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.37  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.33    2 years ago
When Trump was elected, Republicans had all three branches of government, yet failed to do anything meaningful regarding the border. The only logical reason for this that I can figure out is that Republicans prefer that the border remains a problem for which they can use to attack Dems.

Another reason is that the Rs, at the time, were still fighting Trump.   They later accepted him and then, bizarrely, began to support him in a sycophantic fashion.   Just mind blowing.   Trouble was that by time they were on his team the midterms had stripped them of power.

In actuality, his claim to faith disgusted me because his actions and behavior obviously belied the claim. 

And that is what I figured.

But, you need to listen to what I am telling you. Stop imagining that I do not see what is obvious to you. I voted for Trump for no other reason than I oppose what the Dems want to do to this country.

Why do you presume I did not read that and understand that in your earlier comment?

He strove as hard as he could to convince everyone that we should not vote for Trump because he was an asshole, rather than speak about the platforms of the parties.

I agree with JR that we should not elect such an asshole (one that is at the level of Trump) to the office of PotUS.   Pick another individual; we have hundreds of millions of people in the USA, surely we can avoid putting such a miserable human being in the office of PotUS.

Rather, I believe they do so because it advances their personal ambitions. 

Absolutely that is the reason.   They are riding the political waves.    It is the Trump supporters that give Trump his power.   By supporting Trump, the people causes the politicians to eventually do likewise.   By the way, this is also a key point that JR was making.   He was arguing that people should NOT be supporting Trump because of these very consequences.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.38  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.26    2 years ago

Wow. You plainly and curtly told JR: " I'm here to talk about the vid, not get into a debate about Trump. " And immediately in a series of 'non-stop' jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png comments jrSmiley_116_smiley_image.png you begin to converse and opine with others about Trump in escalating details. I can imagine what this makes you out to be . jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.39  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.29    2 years ago
It's impossible to know, in my opinion, how many people actually believed his claims concerning personal faith, but I don't think it's really all that relevant, speaking for myself. If I had to guess, I'd say that, for most people of faith, what they cared about was that he would do what he said he would do rather than dither over issues of his personal faith. 

That's 'heady' nonsense. We were all children once. One of the very first things children have explained to them is the harm brought about by lying: You will develop a bad reputation as someone who can't be trusted. Just imagine sitting under a lying pastor, itinerant preacher, filling many heads with non-stop lies, misinformation, and obfuscations about Jesus and faith. The church world would be more haphazard than it currently is.

The thing is Trump could not do what he said he would do, because it was all a big lie. Him saying whatever he needed to say to get some (not most) of the white evangelicals in rural states to SUPPORT him and do so while neglecting vital spiritual discernment - a gift of the Spirit. Thus, some evangelicals swallowed words of a greedy candidate with a serpent's tongue and continue to follow him wheresoever he directs.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.40  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.31    2 years ago
And you do not mind that he pretended to be religious to get your votes?

Emphatically.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.41  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.37    2 years ago
Why do you presume I did not read that and understand that in your earlier comment?

What would your takeaway be from the following question?

And you do not mind that he pretended to be religious to get your votes?

From my perspective, I wouldn't expect such a question from someone who understood my earlier comments. 

I agree with JR that we should not elect such an asshole (one that is at the level of Trump) to the office of PotUS.   Pick another individual;

You're missing the point. Running for POTUS isn't the Miss America pageant. Sure, no one desires an asshole for President but whether he/she is or isn't should be a very distant second place to what his/her stated policies are. Read the Constitution. Nowhere does it state that a candidate for POTUS must not be an asshole. 

So, again, JR's efforts to dissuade people from voting from Trump focused on Trump's character rather than why his candidate's policies were better than Trump's. This wasn't some pageant. We should not vote for someone because we think they are a great individual. We should vote based on what they claim they will try to accomplish while in office.

As I have already said, I didn't vote for Trump in 16. I didn't for two reasons. The first was that I had only recently become interested in politics and did not feel I understood enough to cast an intelligent vote.  The other was that I thought the guy was an asshole. But, while Trump was president, I saw that he actually tried to do what he said he would do. That was of paramount importance to voters like myself. During the runup to the 20 election, I repeatedly tried to tell JR that the reason many of us supported Trump wasn't because we thought he was a stellar guy but, rather, we supported his policies. He ignored it and continued to attempt to persuade us that the only thing that mattered was that Trump was not a nice person. I cannot remember a single instance where he attempted to argue why his candidate's policies were preferable to Trump's. 

Finally, it's all well and good to say "Pick another individual." but, for whatever reason, Trump was the choice. It's that simple. 

we have hundreds of millions of people in the USA, surely we can avoid putting such a miserable human being in the office of PotUS.

Yep. You'd think so but we still have to deal with Trump as a factor. I doubt you have much of an idea of how much time I've spent wondering why. I mean, how hard would it be for the Repubs to come up with a candidate that had the same or similar platform as Trump but wasn't an asshole? The only answer I can come up with is that God is working toward His own goals. 

Absolutely that is the reason.   They are riding the political waves.    It is the Trump supporters that give Trump his power.   By supporting Trump, the people causes the politicians to eventually do likewise.   By the way, this is also a key point that JR was making.   He was arguing that people should NOT be supporting Trump because of these very consequences.

My comment was directed at politicians, not the entire population, but fine. Disagree about what JR's point was. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.42  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.38    2 years ago
Wow. You plainly and curtly told JR: " I'm here to talk about the vid, not get into a debate about Trump. " And immediately in a series of 'non-stop' comments you begin to converse and opine with others about Trump in escalating details. I can imagine what this makes you out to be .

You apparently don't understand what I have been saying. I am not speaking of why Trump is a better person than JR's candidate. I have been speaking of why people like myself would vote for Trump over JR's candidate. Specifically, that what Trump wanted to do was better than what Biden wanted to do. 

Also, who I am speaking to makes a difference. I would not bother with this conversation if it were JR. That it is TiG makes a difference. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.43  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    2 years ago
Had he included everything about Trump he would not be able to illustrate the Trump playbook.

I'm not sure you realize what you've just admitted here.  "The playbook" includes all the plays.  If you only take one section, you are misrepresenting the playbook.  Thank you for acknowledging that he's done that intentionally.

Yeah well if you are going to just focus on the fringe and ignore the content that accomplishes nothing of value either.

Now we getting there.

Occam's razor works if the simplistic explanation is a sufficient explanation.   Simplicity in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing.   I could claim that George Bush's policies were simply a reflection of his faith.   That is partially true, but that simplistic explanation for Bush's decisions is insufficient.

That's a misrepresentation of the concept on several fronts, not the least of which is this implication that an Ivy League graduate in a position of great power faced with incredibly complex situations is comparable to the average Trump supporter, whom you clearly believe to be a simpleton.

You have got to be kidding; Trump is a pathological liar.

I have never said he wasn't.  Ever.  

Clearly his supporters bought his bullshit.

Or....the much more obvious explanation is that they just didn't care.

There are plenty of people who could pursue the same basic agenda as Trump.   Trump, the individual, is not essential. 

I don't understand why you continue to project your value system onto people who very obviously don't share it.  It's curious to watch you assert simultaneous views that seem impossibly contradictory. 

On the one hand, you clearly believe these people are utter idiots who actually believe whatever fantastic bullshit Trump spews, and then you immediately turn around and suggest they are making political decisions based on policy.  I wonder if you've actually met any of these people in real life.

YOU make political decisions based on policy.  THEY do not.

Moreover, being an asshole did not accomplish anything of value.

It antagonized people his supporters see as the enemy, in which they see value.   See AOC in her "Tax the Rich" dress. 

The GOP would have been far better off 

The GOP will be better off if he's convicted and barred from running for office ever again.  But his supporters do not give a shit about the GOP.  You're projecting again.

The tortured logic one must have to defend Trump is embarrassing to watch.

They don't care.  It's not a motivator for them.  The sooner you come to grips with the fact that the viewpoints and tools YOU use to interpret and make sense of the world are NOT the same tools THEY use, the sooner you will actually understand the situation.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.44  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.33    2 years ago
This question seems to assume that his pretensions concerning his personal claims about religion was a factor in my decision to vote for him. Put another way, that he claimed faith in Christianity was a factor concerning my decision [SUPPORT].
His claim to faith affected me as much as if he stated that he prefers lima beans over turnips [SUPPORT OR NON-SUPPORT?].
In actuality, his claim to faith disgusted me because his actions and behavior obviously belied the claim [NON-SUPPORT]

Incoherent. Muddied. Seems to be saying something, but cancels itself.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.45  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.39    2 years ago
One of the very first things children have explained to them is the harm brought about by lying: You will develop a bad reputation as someone who can't be trusted.

Agreed. However, while Trump did tell lies (although nowhere near what his opposition claimed he did) he did not lie about what he said he would do if elected. He proved it over the four years of his term. That matters. 

The thing is Trump could not do what he said he would do, because it was all a big lie.

Untrue. Trump could not accomplish all he tried to do for two reasons. First, his narcissism deceived him into the false confidence that, because he was Trump, people would just do what he wanted. The second was that our government truly is a swamp. The Repubs did not support him unless they felt personal gain. They did not, nor do not, see Trump as one of their own. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.46  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.41    2 years ago
What would your takeaway be from the following question?

Do you presume that your collective comments address all aspects of a discussion?   

You're missing the point. Running for POTUS isn't the Miss America pageant.

If that is what you think I have stated then it is you who have missed the point.

Sure, no one desires an asshole for President but whether he/she is or isn't should be a very distant second place to what his/her stated policies are. 

I disagree.   The PotUS represents the USA on the world stage.   What a PotUS says influence millions (if not billions) of people.   There is much more to being PotUS than pushing a particular agenda (policies).

So, again, JR's efforts to dissuade people from voting from Trump focused on Trump's character rather than why his candidate's policies were better than Trump's. 

Correct.

During the runup to the 20 election, I repeatedly tried to tell JR that the reason many of us supported Trump wasn't because we thought he was a stellar guy but, rather, we supported his policies. 

I had the very same conversation with JR many times.

Finally, it's all well and good to say "Pick another individual." 

I am talking about the GOP post Trump's loss.   That was the perfect time to eject Trump.   The greatest recent strategic failure of the GOP was its failure to do so.

I mean, how hard would it be for the Repubs to come up with a candidate that had the same or similar platform as Trump but wasn't an asshole? The only answer I can come up with is that God is working toward His own goals. 

Yeah, well the main reason is that Trump has a large supporter base in the electorate.   Why?   Well this seed explains part of that.   The other part is that Trump benefited from being PotUS while the economy was rising so that reinforced in his supporters that he has some 'magical' power.

My comment was directed at politicians, not the entire population ...

Yes, Drakk, I was quite aware of that.   I had earlier noted that the politicians' switch to support Trump was a result of the electorate.   The electorate does indeed influence the politicians.   Thus those supporting Trump contributed to this grand selling-out by the GOP as a party.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.47  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.45    2 years ago

Was the Trump administration a swamp? Do you not know how many scandals there were in the Trump administration?

You remind me of someone who decides the outcome before they decide the process to get there. You like the final result, (even though many others dont) and that justifies any means. 

The US presidency is mainly a position intended to make Americans feel they are being well led. NEVER did Trump , not even for one day, reach the point where the majority of Americans approved of him. 

Given that fact, how can your position be objectively correct ? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.48  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.47    2 years ago
Was the Trump administration a swamp?

Yes.

Do you not know how many scandals there were in the Trump administration?

The relevant question would be, how many of them were valid scandals? Collusion with Russia, for instance.

You remind me of someone who decides the outcome before they decide the process to get there. You like the final result, (even though many others dont) and that justifies any means.

Can't really respond to this since you don't explain why you feel this way or what I've said that leads you to believe this about me. For instance, I have absolutely no idea what "final result" you are referring to. 

The US presidency is mainly a position intended to make Americans feel they are being well led. NEVER did Trump , not even for one day, reach the point where the majority of Americans approved of him.

We appear to have a very different view of what the Presidency is. 

Given that fact, how can your position be objectively correct ? 

Well, first, the fact isn't given. It's simply your view. Second, objectively correct is an impossible standard and not something I've ever claimed about my views.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.49  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.43    2 years ago
"The playbook" includes all the plays.

Seems to me that you are arguing for the sake of argument.    Playing ridiculous semantic games.   The concept, Jack, is that Beau presented a list of methods that have historically proved successful for rallying support and it worked even for some of the worst characters.

When contemplating the question:  'Why does Trump have so much support' part of the answer, arguably, are the methods he used.

That's a misrepresentation of the concept on several fronts, not the least of which is this implication that an Ivy League graduate in a position of great power faced with incredibly complex situations is comparable to the average Trump supporter, whom you clearly believe to be a simpleton.

Bullshit.   Occam's razor applies if the most simple answer is sufficient.   A simple answer that does not cover the full question is not a substitute for a more complex answer that does.   

I don't understand why you continue to project your value system onto people who very obviously don't share it.  

You seem to think that stating my opinion is projecting it onto others.   I see you taking my words, translating them into nuance-free simplicity and presuming that is the extent of my understanding.   Not exactly a way to encourage me to take you seriously.

It's curious to watch you assert simultaneous views that seem impossibly contradictory.    On the one hand, you clearly believe these people are utter idiots who actually believe whatever fantastic bullshit Trump spews, and then you immediately turn around and suggest they are making political decisions based on policy.  

What I see is you intentionally trying to be obnoxious.   You act as if one cannot conceive of a world consisting of Trump supporters that are a mixed bag.    Some do indeed believe whatever the man says.   Others support him because of policies.   Others support him because he is, in their minds, an 'anti-politician' who craps all over political correctness.   

For you to actually think that I (or anyone else) is not smart enough to recognize the heterogeneous nature of the electorate (and that includes Trump supporters) is beyond naive.   So, given you are not naive, I conclude that you are just trying to be obnoxious.   Given I have not acted that way with you I wonder what prompts such behavior.

I wonder if you've actually met any of these people in real life.

I am surrounded by Trump supporters and GOP partisans.   Presume less.

YOU make political decisions based on policy.  THEY do not.

I do not make political decisions exclusively on policy.   Surely this discussion should have made that clear to you.    Surely you have noticed the importance I give to the character of the individual holding the office of PotUS and the impact that has worldwide given the PotUS represents our nation.

Quite a few people make political decisions on name recognition and habit (always vote party line).    But there is no THEY.   There are many, varied factors underlying the popular support for Trump.   That is why I reject the notion that this can be explained so simply.

It antagonized people his supporters see as the enemy, in which they see value.  

That reason is childish and counterproductive.    An emotional factor that ignores the more important big picture.

The GOP will be better off if he's convicted and barred from running for office ever again.  But his supporters do not give a shit about the GOP.  You're projecting again.

Jack, apparently it is not possible for you to engage me without constantly getting personal.   I have about had it with your crap.

It is absurd to claim that Trump supporters do not care about the GOP.   Where did you get this remarkable fact that if one is a Trump supporter one does not care about the GOP?   Some of his supporters of course are more concerned with what Trump says and does and are not concerned or oblivious to the impact it has on the health of the GOP.   Others most definitely factor that in.   There are common features of Trump supporters but ultimately this is a group of tens of millions of people and their priorities, perspectives and positions will be a spectrum.    

They don't care [that they must use tortured logic to defend Trump].  It's not a motivator for them.  The sooner you come to grips with the fact that the viewpoints and tools YOU use to interpret and make sense of the world are NOT the same tools THEY use, the sooner you will actually understand the situation.

And again you speak with unsubstantiated authority that you know for a fact that Trump supporters categorically do not care that they cannot logically and factually argue in support of Trump.

Again, in closing, you apparently think you fully understand Trump supporters and apparently (by your own words) think that they are a homogenous group of individuals.   I reject that overly-simplistic view.    To me the Trump phenomena is not so easily explained.   There is no single 'all Trump supporters _____ therefore ______' explanation.

The best explanation thus far, IMO, is this (in no particular order):

  • Trump appealed to his supporters on an emotional level using historically proven methods.   See Beau's video for a list of methods Trump used.
  • Trump was lucky enough to be PotUS during a growing economy and thus got credit and credibility from that.
  • Trump told his supporters what they wanted to hear.
  • Trump acted, policy-wise, as any core GOP would act.
  • Trump was seen as an anti-politician and the electorate generally is no fan of career politicians.
  • Hillary was a horrible candidate.
  • Vulgar partisanship and group-think.
  • Too many in the electorate are ignorant / gullible.

And the above affects the various individuals differently.   Trump supporters vary considerably in how they think.

Even with the above, I remain fascinated that —after the Big Lie con job where Trump so clearly illustrated his abysmal character and the fact that he cares more about his own ego than the good of the nation— there are still people who want him as the GOP leader and be returned to office.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.50  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.46    2 years ago
Do you presume that your collective comments address all aspects of a discussion?   

I don't understand the relevance of this question to the question I asked you. More, I don't even know what you're asking here. Recall what I was responding to:

And you do not mind that he pretended to be religious to get your votes?

To which I replied:

From my perspective, I wouldn't expect such a question from someone who understood my earlier comments. 

While I do not assume that my collective comments address all aspects of a discussion, I have consistently put forth, numerous times, that policy trumps personality. Given that, I don't see how you could ask the question you did if you understood what I had said previously. The question seems to ignore what I had said previously and, further, imply that I voted for him simply because he claimed religion. 

If that is what you think I have stated then it is you who have missed the point.

It isn't about what you stated. It's about what I stated. That is, I was addressing my views, not yours. 

I disagree.   The PotUS represents the USA on the world stage.   What a PotUS says influence millions (if not billions) of people.   There is much more to being PotUS than pushing a particular agenda (policies).

Okay, I don't want to misunderstand you so...

Sure, no one desires an asshole for President but whether he/she is or isn't should be a very distant second place to what his/her stated policies are.

This is what you say you disagree with. To be clear, I don't disagree that the POTUS is not simply what his/her policies are. I am stating that they are far and away the most important aspect of a POTUS. Everything else a POTUS is supposed to be should be in support of stated policy. Otherwise, a POTUS becomes nothing more than a slave of the poll. Presumably, we elect people because we believe they are going to do something we think needs doing, not because we think they're a super nice person. 

 So then, if you say you disagree, what, exactly, are you disagreeing with? What a POTUS says does influence billions. Are you suggesting that POTUS should simply say what people want to hear (rhetorical question. Of course you're not.) or should he say something in support of the policies that got him/her elected in the first place?

I am talking about the GOP post Trump's loss.   That was the perfect time to eject Trump.   The greatest recent strategic failure of the GOP was its failure to do so.

Okay. And, I'm almost in complete agreement with you, kind of. I think you will understand what I mean when you read the rest. You call it a strategic failure on the GOP's part but I think stating such assumes that the GOP wants what we want. The GOP, by which I mean those with real, actionable power, almost certainly don't want what you and I want. I know you agree with me that our government, especially congress, is a clown show. I think you'd agree that power tends to attract the worst of us rather than the best, although there are the rare exceptions. So, saying "the GOP's greatest strategic failure" is really only true from a certain perspective. To them, it may very well be a victory. 

Of course, this isn't gospel. It's my opinion. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it is beyond my understanding how the GOP could not put forth someone who had the same platform as Trump but was, ethically, more acceptable. I'm not going to explain why, but it just makes me believe in God more. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.45    2 years ago

Don't forget that some of what he wanted to do was illegal.  Like his threats to limit freedom of the press.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.52  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.41    2 years ago
2.1.5   Drakkonis   replied to  sandy-2021492

First, a disclaimer. I am not a Trump supporter.

I repeatedly tried to tell JR that the reason many of us supported Trump wasn't because we thought he was a stellar guy but, rather, we supported [Trump] policies.

Plain and simple contradiction.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.53  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.42    2 years ago
I would not bother with this conversation if it were JR. That it is TiG makes a difference. 

Not hard to understand at all. After all, English is my 'mother tongue.' It is you who wrote,

"I'm here to talk about the vid, not get into a debate about Trump." 

Who immediately entered into at-length 'talks' on a variety of matters centered on. . . Trump. You told an untruth (euphemism). Now you want to merely dismiss it?! Certainly, you can correct the statement after you own up to it. And "immediately" return to tending to your "favorites."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.54  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.45    2 years ago

How many lies does an individual have to continually tell before you, literal you, call him or her out as a flagrant liar? How high is your 'saturation point'? One to fifty? Fifty to a hundred?  One hundred to a thousand?

You state: "[N]owhere" near what his opposition claimed he did." Okay, you may be qualified to make that statement, I don't rightly know. I ask you: When Trump lied did he cross your saturation point, yes or no?

Lastly,  once a flagrant liar is exposed, is lying a help or a hindrance to him or her getting "accomplishments" completed? Or, should onlookers and those who hope to benefit from truthful and right decision-making, just put their heads down and continue on indifferent?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.55  igknorantzrulz  replied to  CB @2.1.54    2 years ago
When Trump lied did he cross your saturation point, yes or no?

i think his toes, are perpetually crossed

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.56  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.41    2 years ago
During the runup to the 20 election, I repeatedly tried to tell JR that the reason many of us supported Trump wasn't because we thought he was a stellar guy but, rather, we supported his policies. 

You SUPPORT TRUMP then (and likely, probably in 2024) because you agree with his policy measures on conservative matters, because you do not allow feelings to interfere with goals crossing the finish line. Yes or no?

The problem for your worldview is this: Character orients the man, woman, boy, or girl. It centers any individual in the comfort zone within their being.

Subsequently, the president you sought to SUPPORT for office in 2020 failed to get reelected because more of the citizenry did not buy his attitude towards the office, issues of the day, and many unimpeded lies!

The conclusion is liars are not trustworthy. Do you agree? How many liars do you put your trust in?

Objectively-speaking, you had no reason to believe Trump would get anything done new done that you had not experienced him getting accomplished through 2016-2020. Why? Because Congress and fleeing republican politicians, generals, other officials, were opposing, abandoning, and being thrown out of power because of a man they could not trust to keep his word/s.

Our democratic systems worked to suppress those impulses of President Trump to make "impossible" our national and international position in the world through a check on his compulsive lying.

Notorious leaders, Kim Jung Un, Putin, Erdogan, Al-Assad, and so on,  friends openly assented to by Donald Trump, take down their enemies and frenemies using methods that suppress officials who respond to their respective citizenry and in their stead bring in "associates"  only trusted by these men to do a 'job.' Void of any feelings for all the people involved. 

That is the problem with supporting policies over character!

BTW, you SUPPORTED TRUMP in 2020. It is his transactional character trait in 2020 which caused him to react in the manner of January 6, 2021 and he is unwavering 'today.'  Why wouldn't you vote for him again if character does not matter to your vote?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.57  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.51    2 years ago
Don't forget that some of what he wanted to do was illegal.  Like his threats to limit freedom of the press.

Without knowing specifically to which you are referring, it's a bit hard to comment on. That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you provided an example I could possibly agree with. But, perspective accounts for much. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.58  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.54    2 years ago
How many lies does an individual have to continually tell before you, literal you, call him or her out as a flagrant liar?

Your question assumes that I have claimed Trump is not a liar. This isn't the case. 

You state:"[N]owhere" near what his opposition claimed he did. "Okay, you may be qualified to make that statement, I don't rightly know. I ask you: When Trump lied did he cross your saturation point, yes or no?

This question is like asking me when is water too wet. My default setting is that all politicians lie most of the time. Whether their intentions are good or bad, they say what they believe the sheep need to hear, but then proceed to do whatever they feel they need to do to accomplish their goal. 

Lastly,  once a flagrant liar is exposed, is lying a help or a hindrance to him or her getting "accomplishments" completed?

See my last statement.

Or, should onlookers and those who hope to benefit from truthful and right decision-making, just put their heads down and continue on indifferent?

You tell me, CB. American politics, hell, politics anywhere, is a sewer of the worst kind. It is full of people who are only looking out for themselves or trying to impose their version of "truthful and right decision-making," which, as being the Christian you claim to be, you should recognize as anything but "truthful" or "right decision-making" most of the time. 

But, speaking for myself and as a Christian, we shouldn't "put their heads down and continue on indifferent." Rather, we Christians should recognize merely human political systems are not our business. Such systems will not produce "truthful and right decision-making" because they aren't based on God's word. If that's true, then it isn't a case of "just put their heads down and continue on indifferent," it is simply focusing on what is actually important. If you are truly a Christian, you know that human systems not based on God will not succeed and will ultimately perish. How much effort do you think we should put into such systems, then? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.59  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.58    2 years ago
You tell me, CB. American politics, hell, politics anywhere, is a sewer of the worst kind. It is full of people who are only looking out for themselves or trying to impose their version of "truthful and right decision-making," which, as being the Christian you claim to be, you should recognize as anything but "truthful" or "right decision-making" most of the time. 

Your tragic flaw in all of this is that you really seem to believe that Trump is merely another politician, no better or worse than all the others. Which is complete nonsense. In 2020 , when Trump screamed or yelled at Biden for almost the entirety of the two hour debate, and interrupted Biden dozens of times, his performance was described as the worst and most offensive debate performance in US history.  By definition , when you are the worst at something you are not in the norm. Of course its not just that debate, it is hundreds of other ways Trump was abnormal. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.60  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.56    2 years ago
You SUPPORT TRUMP then (and likely, probably in 2024) because you agree with his policy measures on conservative matters, because you do not allow feelings to interfere with goals crossing the finish line. Yes or no?

Cannot answer because I don't understand the question. Specifically, the part about feelings. 

The problem for your worldview is this: Character orients the man, woman, boy, or girl. It centers any individual in the comfort zone within their being.

I don't understand what you are saying. Character doesn't orient the person. That puts the cart before the horse. Character is a result, an end product, based on what the individual deems most important in living their life. As for "centering" and "comfort zone" I have no idea what you mean. 

Subsequently, the president you sought to SUPPORT for office in 2020 failed to get reelected because more of the citizenry did not buy his attitude towards the office, issues of the day, and many unimpeded lies!

Assuming your perspective, I'm sure that's true. However, if you want to understand mine, it isn't so true. Unfortunately, I have little hope you will listen to what I have to say, but will say it anyway. You appear to believe that I have some interest in Trump as a person. That my past support of him had something to do with his character, personality or whatever you want to describe it as. This would be a mistake. 

Imagine one hundred of us are trapped on the 30th floor of a burning building. Two individuals claim they have differing solutions to our problem. One seems like a nice guy and the other seems to be a complete asshole. Which will you follow and why? 

The conclusion is liars are not trustworthy. Do you agree? How many liars do you put your trust in?

Context, CB. We're talking about politics, remember? They're all liars. 

Objectively-speaking, you had no reason to believe Trump would get anything done new done that you had not experienced him getting accomplished through 2016-2020. Why? Because Congress and fleeing republican politicians, generals, other officials, were opposing, abandoning, and being thrown out of power because of a man they could not trust to keep his word/s.

Objectively speaking.... interesting that you think so much of what is only your opinion. Subjectively speaking, Trump, effectively or not, did things I approved of. The border and China for example. If nothing else, he was a block toward what the Dems wanted to do. That is something you seem to refuse to comprehend. I voted for Trump because I wanted to oppose what the Dems wanted to do, not because I thought Trump was a stellar individual. 

That is the problem with supporting policies over character!

That may be the scariest sentence I've ever read. 

BTW, you SUPPORTED TRUMP in 2020. It is his transactional character trait in 2020 which caused him to react in the manner of January 6, 2021 and he is unwavering 'today.'  Why wouldn't you vote for him again if character does not matter to your vote?

(the most heavy sigh in the history of mankind) The answer is in your question. If character doesn't matter to me (concerning politics) , what must? What a person does, maybe? While I don't believe for a hot second that Trump has the intelligence to orchestrate Jan 6th, his actions concerning the election, not his personality, make him unsupportable in my opinion.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.61  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.59    2 years ago

In my opinion, you misunderstand me because you don't understand where I am coming from. In order to understand me, you need to accept that I am in no sense a Democrat, or a Republican. I am a Monarchist. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.62  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.52    2 years ago
Plain and simple contradiction.

If you can't separate the person from the policy I can't help you. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.63  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.61    2 years ago

If the king wanted to marry your daughter, but he is a horrible human being, would you give your daughter over to him because you liked his monarchist policies? 

The starting point for an elected official should be fitness for office. If candidate A is not fit, go on to candidate B. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.57    2 years ago

The man wanted to stop TV news networks from reporting his cronies' real opinions of him.  That's not Washington being a swamp.  That's the supreme swamp monster trying to keep the world from finding out that he has idiotically populated the swamp with creatures that find him to be monstrous and moronic.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.65  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.64    2 years ago
“It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.”

Can't have that can we.....

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.66  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.63    2 years ago
If the king wanted to marry your daughter, but he is a horrible human being, would you give your daughter over to him because you liked his monarchist policies? 

If the King wanted to marry my daughter and he was the best human being ever...

Do you get it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.67  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.66    2 years ago

I get that your comment is non responsive. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.68  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.64    2 years ago
The man wanted to stop TV news networks from reporting his cronies' real opinions of him.

Yep, that's bad, alrighty.

That's not Washington being a swamp.

Disagree. I think you are saying this because you're narrowing your focus onto one particular thing. Imagine yourself as an alien, exploring the galaxy. You come upon Earth and observe it. Could you honestly say that what you observed concerning American politics wasn't best described as a swamp? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.69  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.67    2 years ago
I get that your comment is non responsive.

What I expected. The point, which I assume you ignored. was that anyone could come up with a hypothetical condition that forced a conclusion. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.70  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.69    2 years ago

I think my question was pretty simple. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.71  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.70    2 years ago

Try this:

Should the American people elect someone to the office of PotUS who is clearly unfit for this office?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.72  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.63    2 years ago

If he never met her a before, and my daughter, due to her upbringing, wound up being a whore, she could then marry the King, and then have an affair and i would not care. For her affair wouldn't be, an E Z Passed down the Line Conga dance, as her affairs were of affairs that weren't maid of romance, as they were faced with many an obstacle, like many in this age and day. So as the cards were now shuffled, and about to be dealt, i must also mention, my daughter the whore, is also, "a woman of the world, and God she knows it" , so needlessto say, but i'll say anyway, my daughter is also a lesbian bisexual, but it is all ok, for the man who would be King, and the fellow who would pursue her, and her affair, were one in the same, in this strange game, for he was a Man Called Horse, but couldn't ha\ang, and could barely clear his dry throat. For the "man" not hung like a Steed was in fact also the Man with a name like Richard Harris, but he actually was called Dick for it was short, as said like a Whorse with a snort, and for good treason. So Dick, the wanna be adulterous King with the thirst for affairs, and water, wished to marry my lesbian whore daughter who couldn't lead a thirsty Man called Horse to Water, decided for dear old dad, she'd marry the wanna be King adulterer who handle all of his, and her, affairs, while enriching Papa Smurf with treasures beyond belief, so i decided,, as bribed it, i was, i would be the worst Man at the wedding, but what i soon found out, as it gave my whore daughter great shame, was that the King and the Adulterous affair dude, were one in the same (As in Man Whore). So on the first of April came the big day, where as i would give my happily gay loose daughter, the lesbian whore away, to another whore who would be king, and also the same guy who did have affairs unequal, until sequel. So the slimy affair man whoring ands my daughter adoring  wedding day was here, and the J O King showed up with a pre nup, so i, as the worst man, told the Man whom would be king and an adulterous lesbian whore loving thing, Fck U Trump, you can keepm your Orange Ring around your hair and heir thing, for we werent in Utah, asz Trump had already multiple Rings, like Uranus, and had already married three wives and one daughter he had bought with a quarter. And with who he & she, shared a child daughter named Jared, after the Subway guy who went down   for pedophilia, and there was then  suddenly a great Raquet. as i thought i heard the Wedding Bells RINGIN, but just my alarm clock zinging, as i awoke from a strange dream , it did seem, in an open paved field from this dream where i did feel extreme Lee like dissapointed, for no longer Annointed and Dick's Father in Law, for the wedding, like the Law , was broken off, and it was then when i saw in half the time while being paid time in a half, the reason to laugh, for i found that in this paved parking lotta of field and streams, where cow patty melts with schrooms were dropped like acid by and for the grooms, who i had played Dodge the Lawn Dartz with that previous eve, only to awaken and find my mind bacon, that i threw on the cow patty with schrooms and named it the Exaggerator, after my Dick almost son in law, on that fateful Eve before the marriage of my happily gay lesbian daughter whore who was to be wed in that field of asphalt dreams spread, like jamb on a parking lott floor exit door, that i will now use to make my escvape, for this fractured fairy tail was pulled, like from a cake, and need be used as a reminder kidz, to not Wake and Bake for goodness sake, unless you have an E Z bake oven and a 100 watt light bulb !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.73  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.72    2 years ago

How epic !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.74  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.69    2 years ago
The point, which I assume you ignored. was that anyone could come up with a hypothetical condition that forced a conclusion. 

well, im not anyone, else like me, thank God, or your illegal Alien of choice, cause there are very few who could produce a hypothetical condition as pathetical asz mine

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.75  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.58    2 years ago
How many lies does an individual have to continually tell before you, literal you, call him or her out as a flagrant liar?

Your question assumes that I have claimed Trump is not a liar. This isn't the case. 

You state:"[N]owhere" near what his opposition claimed he did. "Okay, you may be qualified to make that statement, I don't rightly know. I ask you: When Trump lied did he cross your saturation point, yes or no?

This question is like asking me when is water too wet. My default setting is that all politicians lie most of the time. Whether their intentions are good or bad, they say what they believe the sheep need to hear, but then proceed to do whatever they feel they need to do to accomplish their goal.

What the heaven are you replying to direct questions with indirect, unfeeling, abstract words?! It is a gross waste of time and kind of points to the meaninglessness of interacting with you. If you do not want or intent to get anything accomplished here on NT or with me simply don't bother commenting (back).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.68    2 years ago

There are swamps and swamps, Drakk.  I never said Washington hasn't been a swamp.  I merely object to characterizing Trump as a victim of the swamp.  He outswamps anybody there.  And he'd have done worse, if he could have gotten away with it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.77  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.58    2 years ago
But, speaking for myself and as a Christian, we shouldn't "put their heads down and continue on indifferent." Rather, we Christians should recognize merely human political systems are not our business. Such systems will not produce "truthful and right decision-making" because they aren't based on God's word. If that's true, then it isn't a case of "just put their heads down and continue on indifferent," it is simply focusing on what is actually important. If you are truly a Christian, you know that human systems not based on God will not succeed and will ultimately perish. How much effort do you think we should put into such systems, then? 

I am not sorry you can't be "persuaded" (at least not yet anyway) of my belief in Jesus Christ. No matter to me, nevertheless. It is God who gives the "increase" - yes or no?  Moving on.

You have a dilemma in your faith walk. That is, you SUPPORT and likely, maybe, high/low probability could support a gross insincere liar - Donald Trump to return to lead a nation of the most diverse people on Earth, whom in so many words you have implied is not godly in any sense of the God you give your service.

Worse still, (for you) this world system is the only system you will experience in this lifetime we mutually share.

This nation has a constitution and you wish to ignore it or bent it and every human mind in the country to the will of the God you accept and serve. But, the god you serve gave you a separate church and its administration to execute authority over. Yet, some of you want more than God has supplied in this time for which we exist.

Is God unable to give you the kingdom you seek (on Earth)?

Must some of you expedite the coming of God 's kingdom (by taking a 'pagan' and caustic liar into your 'breast') ?

It would appear God wants to world to move along according to a timetable not fixed by humanity. Have you any other indication? 

Therefore, let the constitution be a human document designed to direct our nation; the Church a spiritual dwelling for the heart and soul-sharing of believers.

It is a mistake to become either so jaded or conceited as to believe God needs anyone of us to accept the worse of humanity to accomplish a good and godly set of propositions on Earth!

I hope I dealt with your 'concern,' if not do make it known.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.78  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.60    2 years ago
Assuming your perspective, I'm sure that's true. However, if you want to understand mine, it isn't so true. Unfortunately, I have little hope you will listen to what I have to say, but will say it anyway. You appear to believe that I have some interest in Trump as a person. That my past support of him had something to do with his character, personality or whatever you want to describe it as. This would be a mistake. 

And there is the fatal flaw in your discussion of Trump. @ 2.1.33 jrSmiley_116_smiley_image.png What about Donald Trump formed your negative opinion of him in 2016? Listen. It begs the question that you found Trump "loathsome" in 2016 before any policy/ies were executed!

2.1.33 Drakkonis: I did not vote for either candidate in 2016 because I found both candidates to be loathsome.

Trying to 'dissect' a president and hold tightly to your chest the 'best' parts of Donald Trump (according to some of you) and not come to a realization that a man is whole, the sum of his parts, is to be utterly surprised when the portion you thought you disposed of for policy-sake is now addressing some of you face to face:

2.1.5 Drakkonis   replied to sandy-2021492 @ 2.1.3   2 days ago

Although I voted for Trump in the last election [2020], it was mostly a case of "better him than the other guy." Most likely, I won't be voting in 2024 if Trump is the Republican nominee. His actions following the casting of my vote, specifically his part in what happened January 6th and his attempt at disrupting the vote makes him unsupportable.

@ 2.1.5 jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png what offended you was not any policy prescription for the country of Donald Trump; you were and likely still are offended by the "distinct mental and moral" failing (character) of a man who would play a vital role in the January 6th 2021 disruption of the vote and who continues in its folly today .

Donald Trump is unrepentant over January 6, 2021. It is a character flaw of the man. It is what we have been warning against all along. We have a system that protected us him on that day.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.79  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.60    2 years ago
Imagine one hundred of us are trapped on the 30th floor of a burning building. Two individuals claim they have differing solutions to our problem. One seems like a nice guy and the other seems to be a complete asshole. Which will you follow and why?

Follow the individual with an appropriate plan for getting out of the burning building, of course. But, and it is a big 'but,' you qualify the actions that will be taken every step of the way leading to exiting, so that along the way no "percentage" of us in the building (men, women, children, pets) will be sacrificed to the smoke and fire!  Moreover, upon finding that the "asshole" has been lying about the plan, cut him or her out of leadership.

The conclusion is liars are not trustworthy. Do you agree? How many liars do you put your trust in?
Context, CB. We're talking about politics, remember? They're all liars. 

That's cute, but no cigar. Bluntly trying to convey to the heart and mind that all are political leaders are liars does a disservice to honest officeholders. For example, would you say that all church pastors are liars?  I am pretty sure you would not. As it would demean your own pastor/leader. Or, all lawyers are liars? No, you would not on that day you are in need of a sincere court representative.

Plus, such an assertion (all politicians are liars) sidesteps all relevant nuances.

Let's not go there.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.80  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.71    2 years ago
Should the American people elect someone to the office of PotUS who is clearly unfit for this office?

And the answer would still not matter. Hillary should have won, otherwise, and moss on a rock would have done as well as Biden the second time, as long as it wasn't Trump. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.81  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.76    2 years ago
He outswamps anybody there. 

A matter of opinion, I suppose. Whether or not you agree, the one thing that I feel was refreshing about Trump was that you didn't really have to worry about political doublespeak with him. You pretty much knew that what he said was what he meant. 

And he'd have done worse, if he could have gotten away with it.

With the exception of Carter, that pretty much goes for all of them. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.82  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.60    2 years ago
That is something you seem to refuse to comprehend. I voted for Trump because I wanted to oppose what the Dems wanted to do , not because I thought Trump was a stellar individual. 

Wait! You just "jumped" from the objectivity horse (desiring what is good for all of people of America) and up on to the subjectivity horse (wanting what is good for some of you), metaphorically-speaking.

@ 2.1.41   Drakkonis   replied to  TᵢG @ 2.1.37     yesterday
 Read the Constitution. Nowhere does it state that a candidate for POTUS must not be an asshole. . . . .We should not vote for someone because we think they are a great individual. We should vote based on what they claim they will try to accomplish while in office.

You wanted someone who would fit the bill of: "an ASSHOLE" to own the liberals . That's emotional. That's feelings. That is not good policy for America! Instead you got an individual with a terribly flawed character who swerved his country and some of you so badly that now you question why you switched from considering him "loathsome" in 2016!  And, some of you are still conflicted as to letting an "asshole" come back into office in 2024! Amazing. But why?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.83  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.81    2 years ago
You pretty much knew that what he said was what he meant.

I don't see how you can say that while also admitting that he's a liar.  Surely you see the contradiction.

And then there's the fact that a lot of what he actually meant was abhorrent.  His threats to the press, as an example.  His exhortations to his supporters to rough up protesters.  His xenophobia.  His admiration for Putin, whom he surely knew at the time was guilty of orchestrating the murders of his political opponents.  His claims that the elections were rigged, but only if he lost.  His inexcusably ill-informed statements about the coronavirus.

With the exception of Carter, that pretty much goes for all of them. 

A matter of opinion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.85  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.84    2 years ago

Informed citizens are supposed to know this stuff. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.86  afrayedknot  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.81    2 years ago

“…refreshing about Trump was that you didn't really have to worry about political doublespeak…”

Refreshing on a rather simplistic level.

Repulsive using any other metric. His ascension was demonstrably ill-prepared, ill-equipped, but ultimately…perfectly timed.

Let him continue in the self-praise as he most certainly will, but it is time his influence be recognized for the anomaly it was, lest it fester any further. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.87  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.80    2 years ago

You evaded the question.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.88  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.77    2 years ago
I am not sorry you can't be "persuaded" (at least not yet anyway) of my belief in Jesus Christ. No matter to me, nevertheless.

I can be persuaded. All you need to do so is present correct doctrine. 

It is God who gives the "increase" - yes or no?  Moving on.

Don't have a clue as to what you are asking.

You have a dilemma in your faith walk. That is, you SUPPORT and likely, maybe, high/low probability could support a gross insincere liar - Donald Trump to return to lead a nation of the most diverse people on Earth, whom in so many words you have implied is not godly in any sense of the God you give your service.

While it might indeed be a dilemma, since it's hard to choose between Godless people and policies, the most I can do is the best that I can. In Trump's case, I considered him very much the lesser evil than either Hillary (although I didn't vote in that election) or Biden. 

Worse still, (for you) this world system is the only system you will experience in this lifetime we mutually share.

No, it isn't. And, if you really were a Christian, you'd know this. The world's system belongs to Satan. Christ made those who put their trust in him citizens of his kingdom. It isn't a future kingdom but a present one. 

This nation has a constitution and you wish to ignore it or bent it and every human mind in the country to the will of the God you accept and serve. But, the god you serve gave you a separate church and its administration to execute authority over. Yet, some of you want more than God has supplied in this time for which we exist.

Um... yeah. That must be one heck of a movie you're imagining in your head. Wish I could watch it. 

Is God unable to give you the kingdom you seek (on Earth)?

Must some of you expedite the coming of God 's kingdom(by taking a 'pagan' and caustic liar into your 'breast') ?

It would appear God wants to world to move along according to a timetable not fixed by humanity. Have you any other indication? 

Really, really, really, really have no idea what you are getting at here.

Therefore, let the constitution be a human document designed to direct our nation; the Church a spiritual dwelling for the heart and soul-sharing of believers.

It's hard to know what the heck you're talking about, most of the time. In this case you seem to be making some sort of appeal to the separation of church and state. What relevance does this have to the current discussion? 

It is a mistake to become either so jaded or conceited as to believe God needs anyone of us to accept the worse of humanity to accomplish a good and godly set of propositions on Earth!

Tell that to Pharaoh, who God called "His servant." 

I hope I dealt with your 'concern,' if not do make it known.

Well, I wasn't aware I had a concern. Perhaps you could tell me what it was?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.89  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.83    2 years ago
I don't see how you can say that while also admitting that he's a liar. 

Because what he lied about was usually as obvious as everything else he said. Shithole countries, for instance. That wasn't a lie. It was really how he felt. Probably every other president or politician agreed but wouldn't say so because of the optics of doing so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.90  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.89    2 years ago
Because what he lied about was usually as obvious as everything else he said.

Being a lousy liar negates the contradiction?

Sure, sure.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.91  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.62    2 years ago

I pointed out: You stated you are NOT a Trump supporter. And later You stated you ARE a Trump (policy) supporter. Now you can restrict your definition of that man vs. that man's policies any way you wish, but it is all Trump-related.

I have no need of  'help' from you to understand it!

Moreover, the error you have awakened to is this: Attempting to bifurcate the man (his character) from his policy prescriptions nearly cost this country  (January 6, 2021!) its democratic system of governance. It definitely cause the lives of certain citizens who died related to the activities of that day!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.92  igknorantzrulz  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.86    2 years ago

when i spin a yarn, i'm a frayed knot to tie it a round each and every thing around so most is tied together with glue

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.93  igknorantzrulz  replied to  CB @2.1.91    2 years ago
Attempting to bifurcate the man (his character) from his policy prescriptions nearly cost this country its democratic system of governance!

can't we let the little things go...?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.94  Drakkonis  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.86    2 years ago
Repulsive using any other metric. His ascension was demonstrably ill-prepared, ill-equipped, but ultimately…perfectly timed.

Whatever. Try stop looking at the man and start looking at what put him in power. You can believe the left that it was due to racist white male Christians and, here, have some tasty cool-aid. Or, you can look at what really made Trump President. 

  1. For those that liked him, Trump came across as "one of us," meaning "outsider." Not the same old thing in a different looking package. This was due to the fact that, not only did he speak on "their" level, you understood that he meant it. He didn't give the impression that he was checking the right political boxes, since he pretty much ignored those sorts of things. He didn't occasionally cross the politically correct line. He simply ran over it as if it wasn't there. In short, regardless of what you might think of him or his politics, he was the most genuine thing his supporters ever saw in the arena of politics.
  2. They liked his platform
  3. They hated the oppositions platform.

Speaking for myself, I voted for him for 2 and 3. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.95  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.60    2 years ago
I don't believe for a hot second that Trump has the intelligence to orchestrate Jan 6th, his actions concerning the election, not his personality, make him unsupportable in my opinion.  

Yes, keep splitting insignificant hairs all day long. See where it lands you where Donald Trump is concerned. Moreover, one of Donald's chief 'beefs' with what he terms "RINO republicans" is he transacted to be your president if you would keep him ("the man") in office. And, he lost! And he simply can't accept that some of you did not vote for him in 2020. Of course, you did vote for the man, Donald. Several months later, you became vividly aware of the danger in breaking from your "loathsome" opinion of "the man."

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.96  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.94    2 years ago
He didn't give the impression that he was checking the right political boxes, since he pretty much ignored those sorts of things.

Of course he did.  Consider his about-face on abortion.  He wanted his pregnant mistress to have one.  As a candidate, he thinks abortions should result in jail time.

He gives a half-assed attempt to act religious, because he panders to the Christian right.  Never mind that he spent an Easter Sunday morning on the golf course, and showed up for part of a service still wearing his golf shoes.  Never mind that he doesn't believe he's sinned.

You have to downplay a lot of shit he's pulled to say the things you're saying, Drakk.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.97  afrayedknot  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.92    2 years ago

“when i spin a yarn,”

…no glue, no goo, and those simpletons    with no clue will unravel, as they spin gravel in their travel headed no where. 

Keep on keeping on as yours is a voice, regardless of choice, that requires deep introspection and not shallow deflection.

Apologies for the poetic abuse…I have no excuse.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.98  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.94    2 years ago
Speaking for myself, I voted for him for 2 and 3. 

And thus you considered his abysmal character less important than his promised policies.   Does ' less important ' work or are you going to debate that word choice too?

In short, regardless of what you might think of him or his politics, he was the most genuine thing his supporters ever saw in the arena of politics.

He was perceived as that which is ironic since all the while he was lying.   And even his opening lies were outrageous: 

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall."  — 

Thus it was and is unbelievably naïve for his supporters to see that as genuine (as in honestly candid).    What he was was unabashedly politically incorrect and many people found that refreshing.   I found the lack of political correctness refreshing too but since his refreshing style was replete with lies and reflected an abysmal character, the positive was overshadowed by the negative.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.99  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.96    2 years ago
You have to downplay a lot of shit he's pulled to say the things you're saying, Drakk.

Don't use ' downplay ', Sandy.

  no-no-no-no.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.100  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.99    2 years ago

Oops, my bad.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.101  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.1.91    2 years ago
I pointed out: You stated you are NOT a Trump supporter. And later You stated you ARE a Trump (policy) supporter. Now you can restrict your definition of that man vs. that man's policies any way you wish, but it is all Trump-related.

As I have repeatedly stated, I did not vote for Trump in 16 because I thought he was an asshole. At that point, character was all there was to go on. I voted for him in 20 because, during his time as president, he proved to me that he would do, or try to do, what he said he would do. Also, because voting for him was about the only option available for opposing the evil I saw coming from the left. 

As it stands now, should Trump run in 24 and it comes down to him or a Dem, I won't be voting. This would be because I don't see myself as a Trump supporter. I'm a supporter of policy. Trump's policy concerning the 20 election crossed a line for me. 

Now, if you want to view that as supporting Trump, the man, character and all, I can't stop you. 

Moreover, the error you have awakened to is this: Attempting to bifurcate the man (his character) from his policy prescriptions nearly cost this country  (January 6, 2021!) its democratic system of governance.

Nonsense. How does Trump's policy concerning China or the border support your claim? Those were the sorts of things I cared about. And your claim that democracy nearly fell on January 6th is nothing more than leftist fueled propaganda. To date, no one has provided an explanation, credible or otherwise, how the riot, not insurrection, on January 6th could have turned our government from one of democracy to totalitarianism. Yet we have half the country running around like Chicken Little, claiming the sky is falling. 

Except...

Except the sky really is falling. Democracy really is failing in the U.S. And it's coming from the Left. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.102  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.101    2 years ago
 To date, no one has provided an explanation, credible or otherwise, how the riot, not insurrection, on January 6th could have turned our government from one of democracy to totalitarianism.

Uh, I have seen it explained here time and again.

Democracy really is failing in the U.S. And it's coming from the Left

Now I am just reading bad comedy.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.103  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.96    2 years ago
You have to downplay a lot of shit he's pulled to say the things you're saying, Drakk.

Considering the religious angle, no, I don't. If you cared to do so, you could look at everything I've ever said about Trump and you would not find one single statement in support of his supposed faith. If I ever made a comment on Trump's faith (not sure that I have) it would have been a negative comment. 

Considering everything else, again, no, I don't. Why is it that you guys can't hear what I am saying? I don't care about Trump, the person. I care about his policies. If he did an about face on abortion why would that matter to me beyond the fact he now supports my own position? 

Let me ask you something, which should also answer TiG's first question in 2.1.98  

Imagine two candidates for office. One of them is the nicest, most well spoken person you've ever encountered. Their honesty and humanity truly empresses you. The other is a complete and provable asshole. The only difference between the two, policy wise, is the nice guy is against abortion and the asshole is for it. Assuming the issue of abortion is important to you, are you going to vote for the nice guy because he's a nice guy or are you going to vote for the asshole because, in spite of being an asshole, his policy aligns with yours? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.104  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.103    2 years ago

I hate to wade into this but first of all, no one is 'for' abortion.

Some see it as necessary.

Second, why are you all hung up on trying to change settled law? Why does it bother you all so much that after about fifty years you all are still trying to change settled law.

That is like saying I would vote for a complete asshole that lies and cheats at everything just because he is for gun control.

Makes zero sense to me.

Even if someone checked off every point I wanted in a candidate, I would not vote for them if they did nothing but lie, cheat, enrich his family etc.

Overall it just sounds very selfish to me. Kind of saying I am going to get whatever I want despite the consequences.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.105  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @2.1.102    2 years ago
Uh, I have seen it explained here time and again.

Well, that makes one of us. Even if the rioters killed every last person in the building, then appeared on Fox, claiming they were the new Government, it wouldn't have changed a thing. Governments get to be governments because they have a gun. The rioters did not have a gun. If that fact is going over your head, I will put it more plainly. The rioters could not have toppled "democracy" because the military did not support them. Without that, there wasn't the least chance of "democracy" falling. 

So, whatever "explaining" you are referring to is irrelevant propaganda. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.106  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @2.1.104    2 years ago
Second, why are you all hung up on trying to change settled law? Why does it bother you all so much that after about fifty years you all are still trying to change settled law.

I'm assuming you are being serious in asking this question. That you can ask this question seriously tells me that you wouldn't understand the answer, so why should I bother with it? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.107  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.105    2 years ago

I can only shake my head. There are trumpers running for office at this very minute that are saying they want to still decertify the election.

It was not just about that one day.

You seem to see only what you want to see and I see no point in continuing this.

I should have known better than to start.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.108  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.106    2 years ago

I brought that up as an example, not as a debate.

Ie, why I brought up gun control.

According to you, it is ok to vote for the most vile human being on the planet as long as they support your cause.

Damn the torpedo's..

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.109  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @2.1.108    2 years ago
According to you, it is ok to vote for the most vile human being on the planet as long as they support your cause.

Then you aren't reading what I have written or, at the least, you're ignoring it. If what you say here is true, then I wouldn't have said I will not vote for Trump in 24, if he runs and is the nominee. 

Further, Trump isn't even close to the most vile person on the planet. Hyperbole doesn't equate to fact. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.110  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @2.1.108    2 years ago
I brought that up as an example, not as a debate.

And that negates your question or what I said about it, how?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.111  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.109    2 years ago
Further, Trump isn't even close to the most vile person on the planet. Hyperbole doesn't equate to fact. 

I was talking in general. Not one specific person.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.112  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.103    2 years ago

You said he's not ticking off political boxes.  In pretending to embrace Christianity, he is.  He knows full well that it would be near-impossible for anyone who proclaimed they were not Christian to win the race for POTUS.

No matter whether it mattered to you specifically or not, he demonstrably did pander to political opinions.  Anti-abortion (even though he's not) - check.  Christian (when it suits him) - check.  Backs the blue (except when they're protecting the Capitol) - check.

As a non-single-issue voter, I'd still vote for the nice guy.  One, assholes have problems getting their policies passed, because they're assholes and won't work with others.  Two, one person seldom gets to decide such issues.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.113  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.103    2 years ago
Imagine two candidates for office. One of them is the nicest, most well spoken person you've ever encountered. Their honesty and humanity truly empresses you. The other is a complete and provable asshole. The only difference between the two, policy wise, is the nice guy is against abortion and the asshole is for it. Assuming the issue of abortion is important to you, are you going to vote for the nice guy because he's a nice guy or are you going to vote for the asshole because, in spite of being an asshole, his policy aligns with yours? 

Depends on the office.   If the office is a representative (especially in a state legislature) then character and demeanor are not so critical.

But if we are talking about the president of the USA — the individual who represents our nation for the world — then yes character and demeanor matter greatly.   The PotUS is globally visible as the face and voice of our nation.   I do not want a lying, narcissistic asshole representing our nation.   I do not want a stupid person either.   

When speaking of the PotUS, the person does matter and matters a lot.

IMO.

Also, the mere fact that I have stated my opinion and that I disagree with you does not translate into me claiming I am the person who gets to decide the important factors for the PotUS.    Since you seem to not be able to distinguish that from an individual deeming him/herself as the uber decider for all.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.114  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.112    2 years ago
You said he's not ticking off political boxes.  In pretending to embrace Christianity, he is.

In this sense, you are correct and I was wrong. In retrospect,  my comments in 2.1.103  should have made this obvious to me, as they were made with the realization that Trump was just "checking the religion box." 

No matter whether it mattered to you specifically or not, he demonstrably did pander to political opinions.  Anti-abortion (even though he's not) - check.  Christian (when it suits him) - check.  Backs the blue (except when they're protecting the Capitol) - check.

I wasn't suggesting that he did no pandering. I was suggesting that he was more candid than what is normal for a candidate and it resonated with his supporters. Hillary tried being candid with her "basket of deplorables" comment and it failed her. Trump took the same sort of risk with what he thought and it served him. 

More importantly, regardless of what lies he told, be them actual lies or simply exaggerations, he did do his best to keep his promises, in my opinion. I didn't believe for a hot second his claims to faith, for instance, but in spite of that he did act on issues people of faith thought important. 

As a non-single-issue voter, I'd still vote for the nice guy.  One, assholes have problems getting their policies passed, because they're assholes and won't work with others.  Two, one person seldom gets to decide such issues.

I find this answer disingenuous. I'm sure you understand that I simply used one of many hot-button examples in my hypothetical. Trying to claim being a non-single-issue voter is simply avoiding the question. Sort of. Even if it were about one single issue, you apparently find that being a nice person is more important than what the nice person wants to do. That's kind of scary. What if the nice person is a child molester or wants to decriminalize sex with children? Please don't try to answer that because it is obviously a rhetorical question and not something I think you would actually countenance. The point of the question was to illustrate why what is called "cult of personality" is not preferable to what someone actually does. In my view. a total asshole who does the right thing is preferable to a stellar individual who does the wrong thing. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.115  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @2.1.111    2 years ago
I was talking in general. Not one specific person.

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. It's not really possible to have a discussion with someone who talks "in general" since what is general is fairly subjective. That is, there's no actual goal posts. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.116  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.113    2 years ago
But if we are talking about the president of the USA — the individual who represents our nation for the world — then yes character and demeanor matter greatly.   The PotUS is globally visible as the face and voice of our nation.   

Agreed.

I do not want a lying, narcissistic asshole representing our nation.   I do not want a stupid person either.

Neither would I, but it isn't as if there is much of a choice when it comes to the POTUS. Lately, it has pretty much come down to the shiniest of two turds. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.117  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.116    2 years ago
Neither would I, but it isn't as if there is much of a choice when it comes to the POTUS. Lately, it has pretty much come down to the shiniest of two turds. 

Neither Biden nor Trump should be PotUS, but given most of the actually enacted policy is a function of Congress, I greatly prefer an individual who is presidential over one who makes the American people (since we elected the asshole) look like we are all arrogant, belligerent, narcissistic, lying sacks of shit.    And I do not trust Trump at the helm.   That is, not only do I find him to be an abysmal character, I do not find him to be particularly intelligent.   Combine that with an attitude that he always thinks he is the smartest, most qualified person in the room, that is a damn scary notion for someone who engages the world's nations.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.118  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.14    2 years ago
Stupid partisanship is exactly why his supporters are willing to overlook all the bad shit he does, the exact same way Clinton supporters still overlook all the shady shit they did.

Wow. Talk about desperation! It is an additional shortcoming of Bill Clinton that he left the democrats with whataboutisms. That you feel strongly enough about the harm done that you have to invoke the Clinton's means Trump, to your mind anyway, is just as bad!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.119  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.114    2 years ago
I find this answer disingenuous. I'm sure you understand that I simply used one of many hot-button examples in my hypothetical. Trying to claim being a non-single-issue voter is simply avoiding the question. Sort of.

Drakk, you made it a single-issue scenario.  Your question involved two candidates, one nice and one an asshole, with one single difference - a policy issue.  Answering your question as it was written is not disingenuous.  However, you claiming that I am being disingenuous for choosing a hypothetical candidate for reasons of my own choosing, under the hypothetical conditions you set, is disingenuous.  I think most of us can agree that a child molester cannot, by definition, be a nice guy, can't we?  You're moving goalposts (because I didn't fall into your trap), and calling me disingenuous for it.

And anybody who defends Trump accusing me of being in a cult of personality is just laughable.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.120  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.119    2 years ago
Drakk, you made it a single-issue scenario. 

No, I simply used one scenario to make a point. Do I really need to give you multiple examples for the point to be valid? If so, perhaps you can tell me how many you require? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.121  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.120    2 years ago

Your words:

The only difference between the two, policy wise, is the nice guy is against abortion and the asshole is for it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.122  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.118    2 years ago
Wow. Talk about desperation!

*sigh*  Here we go.....

It is an additional shortcoming of Bill Clinton that he left the democrats with whataboutisms. That you feel strongly enough about the harm done that you have to invoke the Clinton's means Trump, to your mind anyway, is just as bad!

As per usual, you fail to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts of a discussion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.123  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.80    2 years ago

Sold out to Trump. The American people should not elect someone to office of PofUS who is clearly unfit for the office? And yet you vote for Trump in 2020 because you wanted to 'own' liberals. And trying to rehire an unfit leader failed miserably.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.124  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.88    2 years ago
I am not sorry you can't be "persuaded" (at least not yet anyway) of my belief in Jesus Christ. No matter to me, nevertheless.
I can be persuaded. All you need to do so is present correct doctrine. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.125  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.88    2 years ago
It is God who gives the "increase" - yes or no?  Moving on.
Don't have a clue as to what you are asking.

Now I am just curious. If I say to you: 'Paul planted, Apollo watered, . . . . ' without providing the reference material in the Bible, would you be able to finish the phrase? And process its meaning too?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.126  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.123    2 years ago

Drakk is just one of many millions who view the PotUS as mostly a policy machine and hold the PotUS' role as the voice and face of the USA to the rest of the world to be far less significant than you or I do.   That is, he is willing to allow a piece of shit like Trump to represent the USA on the world stage because he likes Trump's policies.

That is how it goes, CB.   People have different priorities and see reality differently.   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.127  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.88    2 years ago
Worse still, (for you) this world system is the only system you will experience in this lifetime we mutually share.
No, it isn't. And, if you really were a Christian, you'd know this. The world's system belongs to Satan. Christ made those who put their trust in him citizens of his kingdom. It isn't a future kingdom but a present one. 

Unless it is your opinion that this system ("present one") will end before you leave its experience, what the "h" are you railing against on this one? For the record, the 'kingdom of god' has come spiritually, not physically. I seem to remember you commented on the matter some months ago when you address the subject of a (soon arriving) apocalypse. The apocalypse can't come if it is already here.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.128  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.88    2 years ago
It is a mistake to become either so jaded or conceited as to believe God needs anyone of us to accept the worse of humanity to accomplish a good and godly set of propositions on Earth!
Tell that to Pharaoh, who God called "His servant." 

That would suggest you see "your people" conservatives as oppressed! And that would be a lie straight out of "H." too. It is conservatives like you who have become meddlesome, crude, deceivers, imagining God 'plan' for this world needs "expediting" when Jesus clearly explained that "the end of time" is for God alone to accomplish.

So, some of you are only dragging God's name (and the Church surrounding you all) into the murky mire of deceitful men and women who are exploiting the shallow thinking go on.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.129  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.89    2 years ago

Now you 'went' there. We do not have to look too deep to see your beliefs. I have been establishing all along that for some of you conservatives Donald Trump was and remains a "godsend." For your visceral reactions toward your fellow Americans is nothing short of treating them like "shithole citizens" and vermin!

Donald Trump is no mistake foisted upon republicans and monarchists who populate the republican party. Trump is the manifestation of your wishes and dreams for America.

You will deny it, but it will be. . . a(n) untruth.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.130  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.94    2 years ago

Now wholly back into the defense of former president Donald J. Trump; careful reading from top to bottom the comments, one might get the impression you are SOLD on (persuaded) voting for Donald J. Trump (should he run for president) again in 2024!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.131  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.96    2 years ago

And Drakk does downplay a lot of shit here. All this jrSmiley_116_smiley_image.png jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png is 'combat' for some of these SUPPORTERS of Donald J. Trump. It is a version of "hand to hand political combat and maneuverings as they attempt to fatigue liberals and learn our arguments in order to exploit them. It will fail ultimately because as the facts prove-they do not have truth on their side, but it will take whatever time (and path) it may.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.132  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.101    2 years ago

Just stop it! You giving us 'whiplash' with these stilted comments!  Donald Trump tried to steal the presidency from the legitimate president elected in 2020! Even so, he continues to ask "his people" to carry out whatever activities they choose (keeping his hands clean of illegalities) to throw this sitting president out of office. Moreover, he is pressuring republicans (with threats and hidden phone calls) to rig red states to not allow democrats the power and influence they earn and rightly deserve.

And you have it in your power to know all this. But, you choose to not look, read, and respond or your are all-in with it. Why? Because of Trump policies which we can only extrapolate you SUPPORT AND WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT the man (or his acolyte) to continue.

Enough of the BS. Enough of the namecalling. Enough of the pretense to be 'someone' you clearly are not!

Character matters. Why? Because without good character you get a policy-driven type such as: Kim Jung Un; President Xi (of China, whom you mildly or strongly detest) or President Putin - all carrying out policies approved by their respective, majority, citizenry. And these are dangerous actors on the world stage (as least as far as conservatives are concerned.

So just cut the BS "thousand comments" head faking!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.133  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.112    2 years ago

And Trump did not simply pretend to embrace Christianity. The evangelicals that SUPPORT Trump (in private) told him to make the phony stilted statements publicly and they would come out as if persuaded of his genuineness. Even then, he could not get the messaging right, for he said he has nothing to ask God to forgive him for: an obvious red flag for the body of Christ and there were no "HISSES" from republican evangelicals. They wanted-want this guy and he simply had to play along to get along!

Call this sh** what it is!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.134  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.133    2 years ago
The evangelicals that SUPPORT Trump (in private) told him to make the phony stilted statements publicly and they would come out as if persuaded of his genuineness.

I suppose you have the usual links to back this wild claim up, right?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.135  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.122    2 years ago

Your unremarkable comment is noted.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.136  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.126    2 years ago
That is, he is willing to allow a piece of shit like Trump to represent the USA on the world stage because he likes Trump's policies.

That speaks volumes about Drak's and what he values (a (repeat of a) "shithole" presidency) and his views toward 'us' yes? Drak places little to no value in 'us.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.137  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.134    2 years ago

The evangelicals hold meetings with Donald. In the 'first' -they came out of it issuing statements about a 'mulligan' for this character you support! (1) of (3). In case you are wondering, I am numbering my replies to you, because I reserve the right to bail when I get to three if (when) you stall or dilute discussion!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.138  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.137    2 years ago

I asked for proof for your wild claims, and you cone back with THAT?

major fail #1,

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.139  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.138    2 years ago

Conservative evangelical leader: Trump gets a ‘mulligan’ on his behavior

Does Trump Get a Moral Mulligan?

There is a firestorm of controversy over the comments of evangelical leader Tony Perkins that President Trump gets a “mulligan” for his past sexual indiscretions, as headline after headline reports on this apparently outrageous statement. To quote Perkins directly from his interview with Erin Burnett on CNN, “Yes, evangelicals, conservatives, they gave him a mulligan. They let him have a do-over. They said we'll start afresh with you and we'll give you a second chance.”

On the one hand, I can understand the outrage. We evangelicals didn’t give Bill Clinton a mulligan, and we’re certainly not giving Harvey Weinstein a mulligan. And since we claim to be champions of marital fidelity and sexual purity, we could not have picked a worst poster boy for our cause – at least that is what we’re told.

As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post , “The Trump evangelicals have lost their gag reflex.” Yes, we evangelicals have made our “political bargain with open eyes.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.140  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.139    2 years ago

Perkins represents all evangelicals like you represent all Christians.

hmmm...I wonder what the big book tells us about forgiveness?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.141  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.140    2 years ago
2.1.133  CB   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.112    3 hours ago

And Trump did not simply pretend to embrace Christianity. The evangelicals that SUPPORT Trump (in private) told him to make the phony stilted statements publicly and they would come out as if persuaded of his genuineness.

Quoting myself above: Now with that stated: Where the "h" do you get off invoking "all evangelicals" in furtherance of a distraction. (2.) of (3.)

The big book says to forgive 'seven times seventy.' That is, forgive as often and as much as it lies within you (taking the books in sum total of comprehension.) The issue with Donald Trump is he is a continual unrepentant man and we have had it up to our eyeballs waiting on honest, decent, sincerely reasoning Donald J. Trump to appear in public.

Moreover, I think you confessed to being in this not for the religiosity, so I won't ask of you where your show of forgiveness is for any and all democrats you don't give 'mulligans' too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.142  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.136    2 years ago

The support for Trump because of his policies in spite of his abysmal character / demeanor / etc. is rather common.   

I would not hold that against Drakk, et.al. personally.   It is a priority call;  no malicious intent.

I have many friends and family who think the way Drakk does.   I think their priorities are very wrong and I do not believe they have considered the historical fact that a PotUS is going to accomplish very few (if any) big ticket promises.   But I do not interpret their support of Trump as malicious intent.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.143  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.142    2 years ago

It is malicious intent. These people, eat with us, sit with us, share some of our beds, but have no use for us politically. That is, they do not want to be us in any form, fashion, or "packaging." That is why they stake out positions and stances to oppose "us" on issues of diversity and "live and let live."

Consider this new narrative just breaking:

Sen. Roy Blunt says Ketanji Brown Jackson will be confirmed, but he won't support her

Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Republican leadership, said he will not vote to support President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson , for her historic confirmation to the nation's highest court, citing disagreements with her judicial philosophy.

"Initially, my sense is that the president certainly had every good intention and every right in the campaign to talk about putting the first Black woman on the court," Blunt told "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos exclusively on Sunday. "I think it's time for that to happen. I was hoping that I could be part of that."

The retiring senator continued, "I think she's certainly going to be confirmed. I think it'll be a high point for the country to see her go on the court. But I don't think she's the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the court. And I won't be supporting her, but I'll be joining others and understanding the importance of this moment."

and

‘Mediocre white men’: GOP senators trashed by conservative for ‘asinine’ refusal to vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson

tara-setmayer_200388.jpeg

Reacting to an ABC interview with retiring Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) who claimed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court but he still won’t vote to seat her, a conservative sitting on an MSNBC “The Sunday Show” panel lashed out at the “mediocre white men” in the Senate who oppose her.

After sharing a clip of Blunt stating, “I think she’s certainly going to be confirmed. I think it’ll be a high point for the country to see her go on the court. But I don’t think she’s the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the court. And I won’t be supporting her, but I’ll be joining others and understanding the importance of this moment,” host Jonathan Capehart gave conservative Tara Setmaye r first crack at responding.

“Listen, it’s absurd,” Setmayer exclaimed. “The rationalizations that Republicans are trying to put forth for not supporting this woman are just asinine and they know it. They’re digging; they’re trying to find something to justify this.”

“She is more qualified than the last three Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump nominated,” she continued. “Let’s be honest: she has more experience as a judge. she has an impeccable record, she was nominated and successfully confirmed three other times. But you’re just getting the musings of mediocre white men threatened by the excellence of this Black woman about to make history on the Supreme Court and they just cannot bring themselves to support her and support history.”

“It is so transparent,” she added. “And every time they open their mouths and qualify that, ‘well, you know, we’re going to appreciate the moment, but we don’t think she’s qualified,’ it just shows how absurd the Republican Party has become. If anyone deserves bipartisan support, it’s Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

It is certainly clear that Roy Blunt, who is finally retiring mind you, has no other reason not to support Ms. Jackson than pure partisanship. He simply won't give her (a supposed liberal justice by him) the satisfaction of his support.

We, 'us' can't fathom republicans and some conservatives because we keep looking for humanity and they are pure politics all the time. That is, what's in it for them!

Missouri's old dried-up Senator can't even complete a show of 'grace' even as he heads out to 'graze.' And we are supposed to accept this without frustration?!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.144  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.142    2 years ago

We have been fighting this kind of behavior by conservatives long before I realized what role politics actually plays in my overall life. I simply took it that life was hard, not that anybody was setting out to make it hard(er) for me, mine, and others not like minded to them. We have been under assault for a long time, and I simply did not take it to heart!

I have always, always, always tried to see the good in people and give them the benefit of the doubt. It's time I see some of these people as they want to be seen! Until recently, it never crossed my mind that you can spend years talking to people who will come around, 'sit' and hold long daily comment sections with you and walk away never having any intention to internalize a damn thing communicated between two or more people.

I see that now. There are "no good will" people in this world and they want nothing but the worse or separation from me and mine. Despite 'sitting' in my presence and 'talking' my eyes and ears off metaphorically speaking.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.145  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.143    2 years ago
It is malicious intent. These people, eat with us, sit with us, share some of our beds, but have no use for us politically. That is, they do not want to be us in any form, fashion, or "packaging." That is why they stake out positions and stances to oppose "us" on issues of diversity and "live and let live."

Conservatives have no use for liberals and liberals have no use for conservatives.   People who are so mired with an ideology or party have a hard time accepting other viewpoints as valid (they do not have to agree to accept as valid).

Many in my family and friends are not hard core ideologues or partisans.   Although almost exclusively conservative / Republican, they (most of them) do not spend their energies trying to be malicious against ideological / partisan opponents.

Look at Drakk as an example that both you and I know.   Drakk did not support Trump in order to be malicious against liberals / Ds.   He supported Trump because he agreed with what Trump said he would do.   Now there are others in this forum who I believe do indeed harbor malicious intent ... they actually focus more on doing harm to 'them' (the other side) than in trying to do what is best for our nation.   They care about their 'team' winning as priority #1.   

I say ... do away with 'teams' and the damaging group-think they nurture.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.146  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.145    2 years ago

Drak believes "progressives" or liberals will destroy this country, and that is in fact why he says he voted for Trump. That makes him a borderline extremist, paranoid about the "socialism" takeover. 

Trump had some policies that could crossover and be acceptable to both the right and the moderate left. But "trumpism", the white nationalist, anti-multi culturalism, anti-progress ideology of MAGA, is not something that can be accepted. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.147  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.146    2 years ago
Drak believes "progressives" or liberals will destroy this country, and that is in fact why he says he voted for Trump. That makes him a borderline extremist, paranoid about the "socialism" takeover. 

Did Drakk vote for Trump to be malicious against liberals or because he so disagrees with liberal views?    

But "trumpism", the white nationalist, anti-multi culturalism, anti-progress ideology of MAGA, is not something that can be accepted. 

I most definitely agree with you here.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.148  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.141    2 years ago

you claim evangelicals told Trump, but offer only your opinion.

And look here, not everyone who holds a different opinion than yours is detracting or deflecting.

I didnt "confess" anything, so I don't know why you invented it and are now trying to argue it. skip it next time

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.149  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.145    2 years ago
 Look at Drakk as an example that both you and I know.   Drakk did not support Trump in order to be malicious against liberals / Ds.   He supported Trump because he agreed with what Trump said he would do.

Drakk @2.1.33 

But, you need to listen to what I am telling you. Stop imagining that I do not see what is obvious to you. [In 2020] I voted for Trump for no other reason than I oppose what the Dems want to do to this country. I did not vote for either candidate in 2016 because I found both candidates to be loathsome. I voted for Trump in 2020 because, in my opinion, he genuinely tried to do what he promised he would do in the runup to the 2016 campaign and that was good enough for me.

By illustration of what Trump did best: I oppose what[soever] the Dems want to do to this country.

I think I have stayed within the parameters of the quoted comment, yes or no?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.150  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.149    2 years ago

Opposing the D agenda is not malicious intent.   It is very common for someone to vote for one party because they are against the agenda of the other party.

You want to see malicious intent?   Observe those who frequently seed hit pieces that attack Ds or liberals.   I am not talking about seeds that promote a particular idea or issue; I am talking about seeds designed to spread hatred about a party / ideology or the people of a party / ideology.   You will not find anything like that from Drakk.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.151  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.145    2 years ago
Objectively speaking.... interesting that you think so much of what is only your opinion. Subjectively speaking, Trump, effectively or not, did things I approved of. The border and China for example.
If nothing else, he was a block toward what the Dems wanted to do. That is something you seem to refuse to comprehend. I voted for Trump because I wanted to oppose what the Dems wanted to do, not because I thought Trump was a stellar individual. 

Example 2 of Drakk, being spiteful to his 'opponents' democrats who in large part as a party want what is best for a country full of diversified people, not just a select white, heterosexual, Christian populace. Conservatives are working hard to change state laws to suit themselves and not the  entirety of the diverse citizenry. Conservatives are making it more strict to vote even though they have no other cause than being self-serving. Conservatives are trying to re-grant themselves every religious freedom they can indulge themselves in while refusing your right to have power and influence as a secularist. Conservatives are acting to end legal precedence nationally to an abortion in every state even in the case of rape.

Liberals want more access to freedoms and conservatives supported by Drakk, want liberals to have less (freedoms)! Moreover, did not even get to LGBTQ and Trans-people rights that are being planned by conservatives for claw-back.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.152  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.151    2 years ago

Do you think that Drakk is trying to be malicious to LGBTQ people?    Is there a difference in your mind between disagreeing / not accepting a particular orientation / lifestyle and malicious intent?

Malicious intent, IMO, involves some form of hatred and actions that serve to satisfy that hatred.   Do you think that Drakk hates homosexuals, for example?    We know he does not believe homosexuals can be proper Christians (go figure) but is that hatred?   When he applauds politicians who oppose LGBTQ issues, is he trying to bring pain to this group of human beings or is he supporting actions that he opposes?

Tease this apart.   Malicious intent requires some form of hatred and desire to act on this hatred.  One can oppose LGBTQ issues without hating people who fall under LGBTQ.     ( Remember also that Drakk opposes LGBTQ at least partly due to his religious beliefs. )

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.153  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.150    2 years ago

Friend Tig, I can not make it any plainer. But, you may have to be a minority of some sort (secularists not enough apparently) to feel 'slighted' and 'spited' by somebody who has explicitly stated he is out to frustrate, stifle, remove democratic policies and in their place 'restore' conservative policies which are exclusive of what he labels liberal 'whims' and 'dreams' for our country.

We, on the other hand, are fatigued holding the line while some of us get onboard the right side of the political seesaw to equity for all in our (not any one groups) country

Let me hasten to make clear, I have nothing personal against conservatives, trump conservatives, trump evangelicals, or anybody, but we are getting old trying to wait these people out to do right for right-sake!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.154  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.153    2 years ago
Friend Tig, I can not make it any plainer.

I am not having any trouble understanding what you wrote.

But, you may have to be a minority of some sort (secularists not enough apparently) to feel 'slighted' and 'spited' by somebody who has explicitly stated he is out to frustratestifleremove democratic policies and in their place 'restore' conservative policies which are exclusive of what he labels liberal 'whims' and 'dreams' for our country.

Feeling slighted does not determine malicious intent of the inflictor.    One can feel slighted as a homosexual merely by having others who genuinely express their belief that homosexuality is a bad choice.    The bigotry alone is all that would be required, right?

I am saying there is a difference between believing something to be 'bad' and maliciously trying to cause pain to the 'bad' people out of spite.

I have nothing personal against conservatives, trump conservatives, trump evangelicals, or anybody, but we are getting old trying to wait these people out to do right for right-sake!

I think the wait will be longer.   Given so many of them still support Trump it seems almost hopeless that they would be able to climb out of their caves and recognize that people do not fit into neat little buckets that are approved by the preacher.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.155  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.152    2 years ago
Malicious intent, IMO, involves some form of hatred and actions that serve to satisfy that hatred.   Do you think that Drakk hates homosexuals, for example?    We know he does not believe homosexuals can be proper Christians (go figure) but is that hatred?   When he applauds politicians who oppose LGBTQ issues, is he trying to bring pain to this group of human beings or is he supporting actions that he opposes?

Malicious intent could be, spite yes? Is scheming to remove civil rights for people of color spiteful? Is passing laws that trans-people can't serve in the military or get help they require from their government (which they help fund like other citizens) spiteful? Is applauding potential removing of SCOTUS existing precedents and Texas and other red state legal actions against girls and women to allow for their the birth of children these women do not want, can not afford, or born of rape-spiteful?

Yes!

If these and other frustrating activities being executed and setup for future executions by conservatives are not malicious intent (spiteful) then the definitions are outdated and the dictionaries need reworking!

These are a 'handful' of the policies on Trump conservatives and evangelical 'wishlist' -will they cause "pain" of course they will. My 'ass' is aging out just thinking about seeing homosexuals having to go back to sub-set culture activities  and substandard living arrangements, because the public general perception regresses to that of better not see and not heard in public.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.156  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.155    2 years ago
Is scheming to remove civil rights for people of color spiteful?

It certainly could be.   Why is the schemer scheming?   Is it because the schemer hates these people or because the schemer believes that the schemer's actions are for some greater good?    It depends, right?

Same answer for the other questions.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.157  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.156    2 years ago

No, the schemer has a 'happy' life already. Majority status. Churches 'galore' (on nearly every corner). Spouses. Children. Homes. Cars. Boats. (Galore.) Wealth. Jobs with first preference. A government that listens to their complaints and renders aid when disasters inevitably strike.

And still the truth of schemer's is they're not content (malcontents!) until you and I believe as they do (my faith has been questioned though I quote scriptures to their faces if they reply to it at all); birth children they want to 'see,' marry according to their 'prescription,' and hold to second-class statuses across the board under their 'leadership.'  To this end, they plan to stifle legislatures and courts (if need be) to pass nothing that advances a progressive system of government as they undermine what has already passed back to a time when they felt they were in total control of original constitutional intent.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.158  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.154    2 years ago
I am saying there is a difference between believing something to be 'bad' and maliciously trying to cause pain to the 'bad' people out of spite.

I recently discovered I have a close relative who 'despises' me for my 'bad' choice of being a homosexual even though (and she knows it) I have been celibate for decades. That is, she has not had to see it, feel it, or touch it. She evidently resents my past 'life.' See and feel through my eyes and experiences just how remarkably silly this 'shit' is and can get.!

Do I want to see it creep back into our culture again?!  The stigmatizing, torture, bullying, the hiding, and coup de grace: states and federal governmental systems regressing to a backward state as people who give sway to bigots and homosexuals denial of services and lack of inclusion.

It matters little or not at all what conservatives think they are doing, because what they will 'rain down' on people of color, women, LGBTQ, and Others will be miserable.

I grew up and served my country in the military service, was willing to lay down my life (it did not come to that), and all the while my government official policy was I was to be treated as a 'thing' to be kept away from other servicemembers. (Thankfully, rank and file servicemembers of the time were better men and women than the policy makers!)

Lastly, consider this. There are many, many, homosexuals who can not get into the activity of marrying 'for life' because they GREW UP kept away from the concept of marriage and having been forced to live alone for over x years of their lives have no 'essential' affection for being enclosed or respected for their relationships (legally) by law (and the same can be extended to formerly enslaved people who are fucked up generationally because of slavery and all the poverty and being left at the lower end as a people in our society since, too.)

It will take generations to normalize all the spited and disaffected peoples by government decrees and policies written with SPITEFUL (or we don't care about you) intent.

And now conservatives are on the move to set up back to 'f-king' behind every bush and bus-stops homosexually man to man. Just as those men were working on a achieving futures of moving indoors and away from 'beastly' mannerisms!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.159  CB  replied to  CB @2.1.158    2 years ago

If conservatives want others to do better and learn to live respectable normal lives as 'gentlemen and ladies' then let them alone to 'be' who they are within the confines of their beings and characters, when within reasonable bounds of law. Do not outlaw their liveliness and ability to thrive and evolve and then poo-poo these boys, girls, men, and women for being crude and indecent disturbances in the background.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.160  Ender  replied to  CB @2.1.158    2 years ago
I have been celibate for decades.

Ok, we are going to fix you up...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.161  CB  replied to  Ender @2.1.160    2 years ago

HA! Oh you! :)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.162  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.156    2 years ago

I will let you in on a public secret: The schemers and planners in the conservative ranks seeking to turn back the clock on well, us, are fully aware of what they are asking our society to do when they pass laws that won't allow the teaching of proper past history, discussion of homosexual and genderism in school, or critical race theory (all in red states): They want to hide their shame in plain sight through ignorance and lack of people devoting time (from their 'hand to mouth' efforts at survival and raising a family) to go search out the shortcomings within American society of the 21st century.

When somebody, group, or organization learns from mistakes and errors 'of its ways' - it doesn't do the same things again. It seeks repentance and goes in the other direction. That is not happening with Trump conservatives and evangelicals. These people 'double-down' and go on the attack and never apologize, because they are not sorry and they meant and mean to do 'it.'

Always scheming, you see. Unrelenting, fierce, 'beasts' they are. Always dreaming 'up' new ways to thwart and hold back 'us.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.163  CB  replied to  Ender @2.1.160    2 years ago

What it does plainly illustrate is how messed up it is to have some people passing judgements and state and federal laws on other people lifestyles simply for racial, sexual identity, and gender classifications reasons. I am technically minding my own business and harming noone by hook or crook and still I get stymied and stigmatized by some self-righteous relative who thinks she knows what is right for me (and I don't) even when I am living its experiences—daily!

One more thing meant for the comment above: Conservatives don't want to talk about feelings. Why? Because they want to dehumanize, demonize, and otherwise ignore the humanity of liberals while they destroy our lives. They want to do in abstractly and dispassionately. That way they can claim it is impersonal and not about people but "good" - as though life is being lived and people are not emotion in every thing we do!

It may sound doable to think that people can live without displays of feeling, but it is a deception. We are all affected emotionally by one thing, one person, and/or another. Even and especially conservatives! How else could they lie about their own compatriots when caught red-handed?!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.164  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.145    2 years ago

If I may, I think that CB is upset that Drakk, because he voted for Trump, and for precisely the reasons that Drakk stated, he is de facto enabling the Cult 45 to continue with his full support. In other words, Drakk, though not through malicious intent, is espousing the not just the policies, but the principles behind and supporting those policies.

In CB's view, he is being attacked for who he is and those attacks are coming as a direct result of the support of Trump. Basically, if you support a liar for president, in CB's eyes, you don't have much ground for rebuttal when he lies.

Or, to put it in the terms of this conversation, if you support someone who has malicious intent, then you have no moral ground to stand on when that malicious intent is evidenced. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.165  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.156    2 years ago
It certainly could be.   Why is the schemer scheming?   Is it because the schemer hates these people or because the schemer believes that the schemer's actions are for some greater good?    It depends, right?

Not when the end result is the same. Think of, say Native Americans. The settlers did not need to have any malicious intent to move out west and start their homestead, except that the activity of homesteading did indeed cause the NA harm. So, the participants in homesteading may or may not have had any direct antipathy for or malicious intent against the NA population, but the government nonetheless did, and as a direct result of those settlers moving to those lands.

Does it really matter if the reason for denying someone's civil rights is considered to be good to one group or another? I, for one, think not.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.166  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.152    2 years ago
Do you think that Drakk is trying to be malicious to LGBTQ people?   

Yes. 

Is there a difference in your mind between disagreeing / not accepting a particular orientation / lifestyle and malicious intent?

Yes. 

Malicious intent, IMO, involves some form of hatred and actions that serve to satisfy that hatred.

One need not 'hate' to have malicious intent.Malicious intent is an intent to HARM. There can be little doubt that many of Trump's policies harmed people, especially women and minorities, including the LGBT community. 

Do you think that Drakk hates homosexuals, for example?   

I think that Drakk has clearly expressed religious animus against homosexuals and supports using the government to deny them Constitutional rights. 

We know he does not believe homosexuals can be proper Christians (go figure) but is that hatred? 

Perhaps not but is sure is harmful. 

When he applauds politicians who oppose LGBTQ issues, is he trying to bring pain to this group of human beings or is he supporting actions that he opposes?

I do not think that Drakk CARES if his religious animus brings pain to the LGBT community. In fact, since his position is based on his interpretation of the bible, bringing pain to the LGBT community is inherent. 

Tease this apart.   Malicious intent requires some form of hatred and desire to act on this hatred. 

It doesn't TiG. None of the definitions of malicious intent that I have reviewed state it is predicated on 'hate'. Rather, they cite the intent to harm. 

One can oppose LGBTQ issues without hating people who fall under LGBTQ. 

Yet in reality, whether it's hatred or intent to harm, the result on the lives of those in the LGBT community is the same. 

   ( Remember also that Drakk opposes LGBTQ at least partly due to his religious beliefs. )

The vast majority of those that oppose the rights of the LGBT community cite religious beliefs as their reasoning. 

During the decades long litigation, for and against LGBT equality, almost all of the court rulings state that the 'argument' against equality boiled down to religious animus, which the courts confirm isn't a legitimate reason to deny people's Constitutional rights. 

If you support a politician because their policies will deny people's Constitutional rights, you have malicious intent. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.167  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.166    2 years ago
Malicious intent is an intent to HARM.

An intent to harm is not based on liking your victims.    I used the phrase malicious intent to connote a person acting to intentionally harm another out of spite.   So substitute whatever language you wish for that idea.

I think that Drakk has clearly expressed religious animus against homosexuals and supports using the government to deny them Constitutional rights. 

Drakk has stated that homosexuality is wrong per the Bible.   It is his religious belief, not personal hatred.

I do not think that Drakk CARES if his religious animus brings pain to the LGBT community.

He might  not care.  That I cannot tell from his comments thus far.

None of the definitions of malicious intent that I have reviewed state it is predicated on 'hate'. Rather, they cite the intent to harm. 

You already stated this.   Again, if someone intends to do harm to someone, are they doing that because they like the person or dislike?   If 'hate' is too strong a word then pick dislike or equivalent.   My point is the same.   I do not sense that Drakk hates / dislikes / detests / etc. homosexuals but rather holds a religious belief that homosexuality goes against the Christian God's will.

Yet in reality, whether it's hatred or intent to harm, the result on the lives of those in the LGBT community is the same. 

Correct, but clearly that is not the point and clearly I have not suggested otherwise.

The vast majority of those that oppose the rights of the LGBT community cite religious beliefs as their reasoning. 

I agree.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
2.1.168  1stwarrior  replied to  Thomas @2.1.165    2 years ago

That civil rights thing - Native Americans didn't have any civil rights until 1968, and even then, we weren't given the same civil rights the Constitution gives U. S. Citizens.

Why doesn't the Constitution give Native Americans civil rights?  'Cause the Constitution "intentionally" excluded Native Americans because we are/were "SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATIONS" who were invaded and denuded of all their lands and rights.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.169  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @2.1.165    2 years ago
Not when the end result is the same.

Thomas, I was not arguing that it is okay to be a bigot as long as there is no malicious intent.    I was arguing that I do not see malicious intent in Drakk's comments.

The result of bigotry is of course the same whether or not there is malicious intent.   But that was not the question.

The fact that the results are the same does not mean that a person who hates homosexuals one who believes their God considers homosexuality bad.    

Do not recast my point into a perception that I am defending bigotry.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.170  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @2.1.164    2 years ago
If I may, I think that CB is upset that Drakk, because he voted for Trump, and for precisely the reasons that Drakk stated, he is de facto enabling the Cult 45 to continue with his full support.

Correct.   And he thinks that Drakk hates homosexuals.   My history with Drakk suggests that Drakk believes homosexuality goes against the will of the Christian God but that he personally has no animus towards homosexuals.

In CB's view, he is being attacked for who he is and those attacks are coming as a direct result of the support of Trump. 

And others.   And CB is being attacked by these individuals.

Or, to put it in the terms of this conversation, if you support someone who has malicious intent, then you have no moral ground to stand on when that malicious intent is evidenced. 

Correct.   And what I have stated about Drakk remains the same.   I do not believe Drakk hates / dislikes / etc. homosexuals.   Drakk is in many ways driven by his religious beliefs.   The fact that some of these beliefs are wrong-headed IMO does not change the fact that his position is religious and is not (based on my years knowing Drakk) based on hatred / dislike / etc.    And the fact that the results are the same also does not change that fact.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.171  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.167    2 years ago
 It is his religious belief, not personal hatred.

I'm not the one insisting that anything is based on hatred, you are.

I used the term 'religious animus' as cited over and over again by the court. There is no doubt, IMHO, that Drakk has a religious animus toward the LGBT community for the reasons I have already stated. 

Again, if someone intends to do harm to someone, are they doing that because they like the person or dislike? 

Your comments have all included 'hate' prior to this so there is no 'again' in question. 

If 'hate' is too strong a word then pick dislike or equivalent.   My point is the same.   

TiG, you stated that Mallicious intent 'involves some form of hatred and actions that serve to satisfy that hatred.' You chose that 'strong' word not I.

'Dislike' is benign in comparison and hardly an equivalent to 'hate' or 'hatred'. 

I do not sense that Drakk hates / dislikes / detests / etc. homosexuals but rather holds a religious belief that homosexuality goes against the Christian God's will.

I don't know what more Drakk could say to convince you then. 

You seem to be trying to differentiate between the act and the actor. Drakk makes no such differentiation when supporting policies that affect homosexuals based on the act of homosexuality. 

Correct, but clearly that is not the point and clearly I have not suggested otherwise.

What is 'the point'? 

Surely you can't claim that those who support denying people Constitutional rights have NO intent to harm. 

Drakk does just that, therefore, he has malicious intent. The fact that he claims to have 'righteous' reasons doesn't change that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.172  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.170    2 years ago
My history with Drakk suggests that Drakk believes homosexuality goes against the will of the Christian God but that he personally has no animus towards homosexuals.

The ONLY way that could be true is if Drakk didn't support political policies that harm homosexuals. He DOES. 

Demanding that his religious beliefs be codified is an intent to harm those that do not share them. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.173  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.169    2 years ago
Do not recast my point into a perception that I am defending bigotry.

I had no intent to do so. In this case, I definitely did not post out of malice. jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

Your point, ie, that one need not hold malice towards a group of people that one disagrees with on a philosophical level, is taken at face value and believed to be true by me. I do not believe that Drakk has malicious intent towards members of the LGBTQ community. That said, he did indicate that (some of) the reasons he voted for Trump included the policies that would take away the rights of the LGBTQ community. Therefore, Drakkonis, though bearing no malicious intent himself, is still supporting a policy which does indeed bear malice for the LGBTQ community and is ipso facto being malicious to the LGBTQ community.

I see no way to split this hair. Either you support the policy and it's intended consequences, or you do not. I see no way to support the removal of rights from the LGBTQ community (which does bear animus in the reduction of rights) and at the same time support the inclusion of the LGBTQ community. Maybe I am missing something, but it would seem like the two ideas are diametrically opposed. 

I do not feel comfortable talking about Drakkonis in the third person, so I am going to end my discussion of his contribution here. Any further comment will be made in general and not of other members of this forum.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.174  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.167    2 years ago
Drakk has stated that homosexuality is wrong per the Bible.   It is his religious belief, not personal hatred.
I do not think that Drakk CARES if his religious animus brings pain to the LGBT community.
He might  not care.  That I cannot tell from his comments thus far.

First thing, I would like to note that I am 'observant' of using Drakkonis as a 'model' of his ideology in his absence. I will try not to be abusive or presume too much about his belief system beyond what he has written.

Second, I thank those commenters who have 'filled in' this discussion with Tig. I appreciate what you are sharing and it is heartfelt.

Third, Tig, I appreciate your openness to ask these questions and help make substantial headway into this, because for a longtime this subject has skimmed the surface. Time for NTer to talk 'face-to-face' on this. As some would put in in the 70's: "Get down to the nitty-gritty."

Lastly, where is the line of demarcation for a belief that homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, "hating" sin, and being unfeeling towards homosexuals - to the point of being outcasts and stigmatized for the duration of their existence? I repeat, where should we draw the stepping off line?

People, in their self-interest, or 'driven' desire to please (God), say and do things that are legalistic. That is, they adhere to an approach that says we are compelled to do this (to some others) by the standards we set and adhere to. Therefore, they turn off the 'spigot' of their emotions toward those they perceive as outsiders. They refuse to engage from the heart with outsiders. The obvious effect is one can put on display a great many 'mean-spirited' actions and exhibit coldness to people they do not value—intentionally or unintentionally.

What matters to Drakkonis from his repeat statements is, and here I turn to Trump supporter narrative, is policies that hasten the 'return of the king' - to some people Jesus can not return until a 'complete' collapse of world societies (and that man of great evil is revealed - that Son of the Devil - the Anti-Christ). Some people want to bring this to past. To that end, they seek to compel confrontations between good and evil—even so it captures innocent people in the middle. (As God can not be forced to 'do anything' not God 'ordered.')  It will be folly on their part, but they don't know this, for now.

I have attempted to convey across 'lines' what is 'real' in practice to Drakkonis and others who are injuring and ruining lives of people and groups they "otherize." Citizens following the constitution in the modern sense and trying to find 'common ground' with conservatives who will not allow themselves to be meet honestly. Instead, conservatives 'hire' a villainous man to do their bidding in Donald J. Trump. And, he exacts his pound of flesh from them by pushing all manners of insincerity and generally make a mockery of their own beliefs about God.

They ignore what every human is: emotional beings. Because they want to deal with abstract rules for 'others' while reserving their feelings towards and for themselves!

It is intentional. It is done with understanding of what is occurring. It is done in the light of day. People who do this kind of 'activity' to others are only as 'blind and unfeeling' as they wish to be or delude themselves into becoming.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.175  Thomas  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.168    2 years ago
That civil rights thing - Native Americans didn't have any civil rights until 1968, and even then, we weren't given the same civil rights the Constitution gives U. S. Citizens.

That was within tribal jurisdiction , was it not? In non-tribal lands, the US constitution and its guarantees applies to anyone, regardless of citizenship, within the land of the USA.  

Please, if I am wrong, correct me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.176  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.171    2 years ago

Good grief Dulay, stop with this absurd nit-picking.    I stated my openness to pick words that are suitable to you and you continue to argue as if the words I used are the ONLY words that can express my point.   My point is very simple.   I will phrase it using different language that hopefully does not include any trigger words for you:

I do not believe that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

That has been my point.    Forget the specific words and go with the concept.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.177  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @2.1.173    2 years ago
Either you support the policy and it's intended consequences, or you do not.

The same results do not ipso facto mean a single intent.

We are talking religion here.  So let's try a different example: abortion.   There are people who are against abortion for religious reasons.   They will vote for anti-abortion politicians.   Is their intent to do harm (even though denied abortions do indeed cause harm) or is their intent to follow what they think is the Word / direction of the divine creator?

Drakk, based on my years talking with him, has yet to write a sentence that suggest to me that he personally dislikes (use whatever word you wish to express a personal, negative attitude) homosexuals.    He has, however, several times noted that he believes homosexuals go against the word of the Christian God.

I see a distinction.   And per that, I do not believe Drakk dislikes (much less hates) homosexuals.   I think Drakk believes he is simply noting the position of the Christian God (as he perceives this).

In short, my point is and remains this and nothing more than this:

I do not believe that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.178  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.174    2 years ago
Lastly, where is the line of demarcation for a belief that homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, "hating" sin, and being unfeeling towards homosexuals - to the point of being outcasts and stigmatized for the duration of their existence? I repeat, where should we draw the stepping off line?

I distinguish between an individual who personally harbors animosity (use whatever word you wish) towards homosexuals simply because they are homosexual and an individual who is expressing what s/he religiously believes is the word of God.

The former is bigotry.

The latter is religious belief.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.179  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.172    2 years ago
The ONLY way that could be true is if Drakk didn't support political policies that harm homosexuals. He DOES. 

Yes he does but no your ONLY condition is dead wrong.   It is entirely possible for a person to not personally harbor dislike for homosexuals but act to follow the will of his God.

If there is one thing I can offer to you as a result of my many religious debates it is that cognitive dissonance is routinely nullified by faith.   That religious people can easily hold conflicting positions and it is 'faith' that enables this.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
2.1.180  1stwarrior  replied to  Thomas @2.1.175    2 years ago

It applies to any Native American living on a reservation and in any crime involving NA vs NA or a crime involving NA vs non-NA on the reservation or within any jurisdictional NA area.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.181  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.177    2 years ago
I do not believe that (Member) personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

I understand this. This is not the point that I was arguing for. Perhaps we are at cross-purposes. 

I was maintaining that whomever the supporter of anti LGBTQ policies be, whether they realize it or not, are supporting a policy that is, by its very definition, anti LGBTQ. By doing such they are supporting the discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Though personally bearing no animosity towards the LGBTQ community,  whomever is wishing to cause a policy that has as its stated intent animosity towards the LGBTQ community to be carried out.

In other words, they had better carefully examine their motives for pursuing such a policy, because it is, by definition, anti-LGBTQ rights, and as such is discriminatory.

To be clear: I know you are not defending bigotry. But if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck, sounds like a duck, chances are it's not a Pittsburgh Penguins Mascot.  

 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.182  CB  replied to  Dulay @2.1.172    2 years ago

I agree with you!

Because Drakkonis has been explained time and times again that forcing people into an outcast status (and not just homosexuals, but 'us') is damaging to our diverse society and shared culture, for the sake of some 'comfort' of the mind for conservatives. That is, by the time some of these people are done:

Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral persons, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

This is 'rough talk' non-pc rhetoric from the biblical perspective of early first century Christianity. Nothing 'uncleansed' by God's spirit will be allowed to enter the kingdom of god. That's okay, biblically-speaking.

The danger lies with conservatives who are attempting to  'bring God down' in the here and now through their own actions and controlling power and influence over our mutually shared nation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.183  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @2.1.181    2 years ago
This is not the point that I was arguing for. Perhaps we are at cross-purposes. 

Yes we are.   In these forums I am careful to keep the focus on points I make.   If not then the replies can implicitly suggest that I am supporting the opposite of said replies.



Let's start with your point afresh and clearly distinguish it from the point I made:

I was maintaining that whomever the supporter of anti LGBTQ policies be, whether they realize it or not, are supporting a policy that is, by its very definition, anti LGBTQ.

Of course.

By doing such they are supporting the discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

Yes

Though personally bearing no animosity towards the LGBTQ community,  whomever is wishing to cause a policy that has as its stated intent animosity towards the LGBTQ community to be carried out.

Indeed, they can support an initiative that harms the community without personally holding animosity against LGBTQ individuals.   There are reasons why this seemingly contradictory action can occur.   One of them is religious belief.

In other words, they had better carefully examine their motives for pursuing such a policy, because it is, by definition, anti-LGBTQ rights, and as such is discriminatory.

They should, but in my experiences religious belief is one of the most powerful shapers of opinions and mere reason is not going to be sufficient to change behavior.

To be clear: I know you are not defending bigotry. But if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck, sounds like a duck, chances are it's not a Pittsburgh Penguins Mascot.  

"The Lord does not approve of homosexual behavior;  the Lord works in mysterious ways.   I do not question the Lord;  I obey and trust that He is ultimately right."

"I understand why it sometimes makes sense to abort a pregnancy.   But the Lord does not approve of abortion;  the Lord works in mysterious ways.   I do not question the Lord;  I obey and trust that He is ultimately right."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.184  CB  replied to  Thomas @2.1.173    2 years ago
Therefore, Drakkonis, though bearing no malicious intent himself, is still supporting a policy which does indeed bear malice for the LGBTQ community and is ipso facto being malicious to the LGBTQ community.

Drakkonis, has demonstrated by his statements and desires a willingness to diminish the liberties and freedoms (livelihood) of LGBTQ persons and otherize still more groups, by supporting policies which strip these groups of their power and influence in our country. Thus, he participates in relegating these people to being  'subsets' level and making groups he support (conservative ideological groups) superior and their "superiors." 

This can be caused by (either): commission or omission

That is, one can participate in tearing down others by enhancing activities in the process, or by standing idly by not lifting a finger to stop the actions which do the harm!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.185  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.184    2 years ago
That is, one can participate in tearing down others by enhancing activities in the process, or by standing idly by not lifting a finger to stop the actions which do the harm!

Do you recognize that some religious people will trust in their God to be right and will defer their own personal views to that of their God?  They will thus act in a manner that goes against what they would normally do because they believe God's view is superior to theirs.   

I could use an example closer to home but I will not.   Instead, consider the honor killings where a father / brother will kill a daughter / sister who has dishonored the family (yes, talking about the cases where this is a result of religious views).

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.186  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.71    2 years ago

We already did in Biden.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.187  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.178    2 years ago

Let me give you a demonstration of where conservatism met homosexuality in practice inside me.

Again, this is personal, and I do wish it to be more than just academic in nature (for the reader):

As a Christian I have been personally celibate (yes I have to qualify myself for the point I am making later on) for nearly three decades straight non-stop to date (that is, non-sexual contact with any person). I demonstrate a devotion to my beliefs. However. . . .  Now,

(The "nitty-gritty"):

(I have shared this story at least once before on NT over the several years I have been here.)

I remember vividly the night in California when Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages was passed. For me, it was a conflicting moment. Why? Because as a practicing Christian, living traditionally, I came face to face with the realization that "my people afar off" were not going to be able to marry, love, and legally visit each other in emergency settings where family spoke up in objection.

I literally stopped what I was doing and reflected on how I felt about the proposition (8) ban going into effect.

I felt sad. Here's why: As somebody who grew up with homosexual tendencies, lived the homosexual lifestyle for twenty years nearly to the day, and having CHOSEN to turn and walk away from active practice of my lifestyle-I was yet again being compelled to fully turn aside from supporting the homosexual community (of my youth and all those friends, associates, and lovers) and give my SUPPORT to conservatives working to stop homosexuals from living free and loving each other for life in a legal union within my state.

I digress for a moment to state here to state that I did not mark yes or no on the ballot that year for proposition 8. (Additionally, it was the year Barack H. Obama became the first black president. He did not support same-sex marriages.)

I thought about it long and hard. And I reasoned like so: I may not wish to engage in an active homosexual lifestyle, because I felt that I had moved on to something spiritually superior and I wanted to pursue that for the duration (it continues to date), but who was I to demand and applaud the dashing the freedom to love and develop long-term relationships possibly for life and further to be able to visit their beloved in a time of medical crises or death against the wishes of hostile family members?

Being that I understood both sides of the issue: How could I be so cruel? Would I be so cruel?

I decided then and there I would not stand by what conservatives were 'asking' me to do by supporting their same-sex ban. (The Family Research Counsel, literally had sent me 'mailers' on the campaign to support Proposition 8.)

Being that at the time I was on NewsVine social media site, the following day I wrote a comment about my 'view' and support FOR same-sex marriage on a message board and that support continues online and in the real world to this day!

(Why I wrote this.)

What I believe as a religious person, specifically of the Christian 'branch,'  has little to no bearing on the constitutional freedoms and liberties of my fellow citizenry.

It needs to be pointed out that not all believers know what it is to love man-to-man or woman-to-woman, but for those of us who have done so. To walk away and deny what we took delight in (for a long time) would be to deny and call our past a lie. I would not do this. I chose not to lie about my past. It was and is what it is.

Someone, me, in this case,  has to tell the story of what it is to be caught in-between the two 'titan' ideologies. I won't ever run from that.

Homosexuals have stood up for themselves and gained the acceptances, rights, and freedoms constitutionally afforded them. And they pay their taxes like heterosexuals. They deserve respect, as a result of following established law(s).

I can not in sincerity, oppose or do harm to people who are simply being themselves legally and in the process not harming others. I can not, will not support people in the Christian community who will protest and seek to end their actions to be free of oppression and suppression.

Finally, as it is in my case, if God wants a specific individual from the homosexual community to "join-up" spiritually, I venture God can work effectively to 'call' that person, that group, or groupings to serve. There is no role for me in trying to deny the constitution (a man-made document that governs our governance) to people who have no part or interest in what religious texts say should be.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.188  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.184    2 years ago
Drakkonis, has demonstrated by his statements and desires a willingness to diminish the liberties and freedoms (livelihood) of LGBTQ persons

That would be incredibly out of character for him.   Citation?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.189  CB  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.188    2 years ago

You can read the various threads for 'background.' (Hint: Look for, Drakkonis' avatar and read.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.190  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.179    2 years ago

 "Love the sinner, but not the sin."

As I explained above @2.1.158 I recently concluded that a close 'love one' does not approve of my (past) homosexual existence and is actively holding my past again me. That is, it is thrown up during 'flash points' so much so that I finally get it - this is not just a momentary issue. It is 'chronic' with this person. For her, it is irrelevant that I am celibate 'forever' - she holds my past again me. It is nonsensical. It is 'fatalistic.'  Now, it has ruined a familial relationship. She has demonstrated time and time again, she is not genuine in her love. Oddly enough, I have determined that the 'throw-back' word, "homophobic," does not define her level of contempt and facade of caring for 'the sinner' who no longer 'sins.'

I shall show (you) a new way!"

(That title is biblical in nature: I Corinthians 12:31.) What is the more suitable way to handle 'the sinner"? Give honest and forthright love. And if you can not then bow out of the situation where interacting with someone you find contemptible may cause you to be abusive. That is, don't 'use' the person and when upset throw up their past insultingly or in vulgar passion.

Learn diversity. That is, I apply this across the philosophy across the board, learn to be open to all people who are of goodwill and who follow the rule of law. It is not necessary to understand EVERYBODY, to do EVERYTHING, in order to 'LET LIVE.

We have this big 'old' country empowered by God and humanity to steward and we ought to be able to find peace with everybody who is looking for a proper measure of peace and happiness—no matter their habits or set of public/private proclivities. (Especially when 'tested' through our governing bodies.)

We don't have to restrict the liberties and freedoms of those who do not think like-minded to us, only accept the differences and though that process-expand our own minds!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.191  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.188    2 years ago

This discussion is subtle.

Drakk votes for people who, among other things, actively vote against favorable LGBTQ initiatives.

Drakk does not, in my opinion, personally hold animosity against an individual simply because s/he is LGBTQ.

So while I do not believe Drakk seeks to do harm as a result of a personal animosity (use whatever word one wishes here), his political / religious views do indeed cause harm to these individuals (effectively by denying equality in many dimensions).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.192  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.187    2 years ago
As a Christian I have been personally celibate (yes I have to qualify myself for the point I am making later on) for nearly three decades straight non-stop to date (that is, non-sexual contact with any person). I demonstrate a devotion to my beliefs.

Okay, since you introduced this specifically, I am going to take the opportunity to offer a point.

I presume you would prefer to freely express your sexuality but have chosen to suppress because of religious views.

If this is correct then this would be an example of an individual (you) choosing to harm (denying freedom of sexual expression) an individual (yourself) because of religious beliefs and not because you dislike the individual (yourself).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.193  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.185    2 years ago

What I would say to this is God has given us a mind to understand, and reconcile, what is good and I will end with this (because it comes to mind - it is a doxology shared from Saint Paul):

Paul’s Prayer for the Ephesians

14 ... for this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I ask that out of the riches of His glory He may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.

[and here is the portion of interest to this comment]

Then you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 will have power, together with all the saints, to comprehend the length and width and height and depth 19 of the love of Christ , and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

The length, the width, the height, and the depth of love. .  of Christ and to know this love surpasses knowledge . . . taking one to ' fullness ." There is not 'honor' killing or any other formulation for killing found acceptable through Jesus Christ, the lord who brings peace. Mature Christians do not just read the words on the page woodenly and then go off to try to live 'wooden' lives. The practice of faith is to walk in spiritual understanding (agreement) by reconciling 'all things' to mete out what is good and lovely and so, live that.

Unfortunately, this world still has an 'overwhelming' contingent of immature, shallow believers in our Christian faith, who simply can not be compelled to read deeper, "leaving milk and turning to the meat of this 'word.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.194  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.192    2 years ago

Interesting. But no. It could be that I have already expressed my sexuality and similar to a man (widower) or woman (widow) have moved on to acceptance of a 'greater' love—spirituality.  Of course, 'denial' can be of anything one chooses to let go, but for any number of qualified reasons find impractical, un-doable, or unessential.

I profess to being homosexual at this point, because evidently, sexually (and I have shared this before on NT you may recall) I still find greater 'comfort' and attraction for the male form, frame, attitude, and dare I say, soul. Also, on those rare occasions where I dream about such matters. . . a male is. . . in "presence."

(BTW, after so many decades, I muse that I don't know where 'up' or 'down' is sexually anymore. That is, which 'tools' are still equipped were I to pursue such a course?  Just a musing, mind you.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.195  CB  replied to  CB @2.1.194    2 years ago

Incidentally, let me be clear, this is not about me expressing my celibacy out of pride. My purpose for recounting (the narrative) is to get across that I could just have easily taken the 'easy' way out and denied 'myself' my past history of love and lost or vice-versa. Instead, I made a deliberate and intentional decision to 'go deeper' and respect while separating constitutional law policies from religious doctrinal teachings. And by doing so, I began to see 'deeper' into a systemic problem the Church-at-large (specifically 'moral majority' self-styled evangelicals) is creating out of whole cloth for itself by attempting to delude itself and its succeeding generations of their youth into believing the constitution and a belief in biblical 'directives' are bestcomplied and treated as one.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.196  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.195    2 years ago

If your religion supported homosexuality (implicitly this means you would believe that God supports homosexuality), would you have chosen celibacy?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.197  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.196    2 years ago

Interesting question! Its answer is complex. Why? It requires me to recall what apart from sex I was looking for (at the time) and what did I find (or was 'called' to be as a religious person) to replace its 'drive' in my life.

(Remember, same-sex marriage is relatively  new on the national stage.  It was not even a thing to be hoped for, anymore than a black president imagined with a name like "Obama.")

To use an example you might relate: Catholic priests and nuns are called to service in their faith upon where these heterosexual boys, girls, women, and men abandon sexuality and devote themselves to spirituality (and its mission).

Your question: If your religion supported homosexuality (implicitly this means you would believe that God supported homosexuality), would you have chosen celibacy?

This is a difficult thing to imagine. Because, as you are well aware, our culture literally was not built for homosexuals (to thrive) and so, I would have to try an IMAGINE what kind of world would 'surround' me had the Bible supported homosexuality and scores generationally of Christians—other faiths populating society culturally supported homosexuality (me) as well.

Can I envision such a place or time with me 'dropped' down in it? Feeling really loved with abandon? I'm sorry. Growing up and living as I have done. . . I can only picture a world of 'frustrations' of one sort or another.

For example, there is a 'world' of sex-related cancers out there. Would I want to avoid those cancers instead of gratification - I think I might. Yet, how strong would natural attraction be in such a time and place?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.198  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.176    2 years ago
Good grief Dulay, stop with this absurd nit-picking.

That's pretty ironic considering your comments in this seed TiG. 

You've done some 'absurd nit-picking of your own on the definition of words. 

Rebute and downplay come to mind.

You are the one that brought the terms malicious and malicious intent into the discussion. 

You then insisted that Malicious intent requires some form of hate and a desire to act on that hatred. 

After I pointed out that malicious intent is about HARM, not hate, you changed your tune without acknowledging that what you've been insisting all day was false. 

You also used the term hate all day TiG.

I stated my openness to pick words that are suitable to you and you continue to argue as if the words I used are the ONLY words that can express my point. 

Now you want to insist that 'dislike' or something else 'suitable' works just as well. It doesn't because of your day long argument. 

I do not believe that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

Do you think he likes homosexuals TiG? 

I for one have never seen him say one positive thing about the LGBT community.

Nor have I ever seen him state that he acknowledges their right to equality under the Constitution.

He supports Trump because he believes Trump will turn back the clock and codify his religious beliefs, to the detriment of others. 

You know the saying: With 'freinds' like that, who needs enemies?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.199  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.198    2 years ago

I do not know what prompts you to pick petty fights and then refuse my attempts to get past specific words in favor of comprehending the concept I expressed.   And now not only do you continue this crap, you pile on with invented bullshit and exaggeration.   

This was and is my point:

I do not believe that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

Drop it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.200  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.199    2 years ago

TiG, I suggest that you review your comments in this seed. You have been unwilling ALL DAY to 'get past specific words' for ANY reason. 

Characterizing my comments as petty is hypocritical on your part. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.201  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.200    2 years ago
You have been unwilling ALL DAY to 'get past specific words' for ANY reason. 

What utter bullshit.   Why do you engage in this crap, Dulay?

I asked you repeatedly to pick whatever words you wish because what I care about is the concept I was expressing.   It is pointless to engage in petty debates over individual words like downplay for example.   Downplay, ignore, downplay the significance of, lessen the priority of, set aside, etc. are all ways of expressing the concept.   When it was clear that Drakk and I were going to wind up debating 'downplay' I attempted to get past the word and to the concept.   As with you, I asked Drakk to pick a different word.

With rebut, I was being told that merely making a comment is a rebuttal.   I provided the dictionary definition for obvious reasons.  You even voted up my comment.   Yet now you attempt to spin this and call me a hypocrite as if simply citing a dictionary definition is ipso facto focusing on a single word and refusing to budge.

Debating how one person interprets a single word choice (one that has various usages) is utterly pointless and petty.    If a word is hanging things up then move above the word and focus on the concept.   Note that as soon as you expressed your concern with 'hate' I ceased using the word and from then on expressed my point without it.   But even still you harp on it and pretend that I am the one refusing to get past a word; you insist on being antagonistic on petty nonsense.  

I have repeatedly focused your attention on my position.   This is it in a nutshell:

I do not believe that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

Why is it that you cannot focus on the position?   What compels you to pick petty fights and then increase the intensity by tossing in exaggerations and lies about factors that are entirely irrelevant?   Just do not understand what motivates people to behave this way.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.202  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.201    2 years ago
I asked you repeatedly to pick whatever words you wish because what I care about is the concept I was expressing. 

What utter bullshit. You never asked me pick whatever word I wish.

Why do you engage in this crap, TiG?

It is pointless to engage in petty debates over individual words like downplay for example.

Yet you did just that, did you not? 

Note that as soon as you expressed your concern with 'hate' I ceased using the word and from then on expressed my point without it.

Actually, I didn't express my concern, I pointed out that malicious intent did NOT require one to hate, as you insisted it does, over and over again. You harangued CB with that shit all day.

But even still you harp on it and pretend that I am the one refusing to get past a word; you insist on being antagonistic on petty nonsense.  

False. You're desperate to get past 'the word' TiG. After using the terms all day, NOW they're suddenly verboten because YOU say so. 

IMHO, you ceased using the word hate because you recognized that the argument about malicious intent being about hate that you made all day long was based on your misunderstanding of the definition of malicious intent. 

You realized that because I posted that FACT. 

Perhaps you finally looked up 'malicious intent' or you had an epiphany, it matters not. 

Why is it that you cannot focus on the position? 

Because your position has changed multiple times throughout the last 20 + hours.

Malicious intent, hate, dislike...

What will it be next? 

Peeved? 

What compels you to pick petty fights and then increase the intensity by tossing in exaggerations and lies about factors that are entirely irrelevant? Just do not understand what motivates people to behave this way.

Fuck off.

You can take supercilious bullshit comments like that elsewhere TiG.   

BTW, I notice that you didn't answer my question. 

Do you think he likes homosexuals TiG?

You have also refrained from commenting on the effects of Drakk's political agenda on the LGBT community.

How about YOU focus on this concept:

I really don't give a fuck what Drakk believes, I DO care about the laws he wants to codify that effect MY rights. 

I don't give a fuck whether Drakk wants to deny my rights because he loves me or hates me. The result is the SAME, he wants my rights denied. Period full stop. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.203  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @2.1.202    2 years ago
What utter bullshit. You never asked me pick whatever word I wish.

Right off the bat:

TiG @2.1.167An intent to harm is not based on liking your victims.    I used the phrase malicious intent to connote a person acting to intentionally harm another out of spite.   So substitute whatever language you wish for that idea.

And I ceased using the language you objected to as soon as you objected.


I am ignoring (not even going to read) the rest of your comment, because I am done wasting time dealing with you;  no matter what I write you come back with bullshit and just keep escalating the animosity on each turn.   This is why I avoid replying to you on the forum in general.


How many times have I used the following extreme method to encourage you to focus on the opinion/point I made;  how many times have I posted this?:

I do not believe that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual.

This is the opinion I have offered.   You disagree.   Fine.   If you have persuasive evidence that Drakk personally dislikes people simply because they are homosexual then provide it.    If not, you have expressed your opinion and I have expressed mine.   

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
2.1.204  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.203    2 years ago
And I ceased using the language you objected to as soon as you objected.

Again, I did NOT 'object' to the language you used, I CORRECTED your misinterpretation of a term that you harangued other members with for HOURS.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2    2 years ago
The problem with this vid is that he doesn't identify what constitutes a Trump supporter.

For me, I narrow that group down to those who, after seeing the totality of Trump in office —and especially how he so clearly punctuated his narcissism and outrageous dishonesty during his Big Lie campaign— continue to treat Trump as the GoP leader and especially those who want to see him again hold public office.

Also, he doesn't actually ever speak of what Trump accomplished. He really only speaks of emotional reactions to things.

He spoke categorically.   But given you saw the entire video, it is clear why he did that.   I think the purpose of the video is to illustrate that Trump played his supporters (still does) and used a very well-established playbook to do so.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2    2 years ago
For me, I narrow that group down to those who, after seeing the totality of Trump in office —and especially how he so clearly punctuated his narcissism and outrageous dishonesty during his Big Lie campaign— continue to treat Trump as the GoP leader and especially those who want to see him again hold public office.

I didn't narrow it down in such a fashion. To my mind, he was speaking historically, hence, what were Trump's accomplishments. You can only speak of such things in the past tense. 

He spoke categorically.   But given you saw the entire video, it is clear why he did that.   I think the purpose of the video is to illustrate that Trump played his supporters (still does) and used a very well-established playbook to do so.

Complicated. I agree that Trump plays a segment of his supporters but even saying that much oversimplifies the situation. Anyone who attempts to portray Trump supporters as a single homogenous group is either a propagandist or a fool. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.1    2 years ago
Anyone who attempts to portray Trump supporters as a single homogenous group is either a propagandist or a fool. 

Technically there is no such thing as a homogeneous group of people; there are always differences.

But one can indeed identify defining characteristics of Trump supporters.   The most obvious starting characteristics are:

  • Agree, predominantly, with Trump's policies
  • Downplay significance of (or do not see) Trump's abysmal character
  • Wish Trump to continue as a highly influential politician
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.2    2 years ago
The most obvious starting characteristics are:
  • Agree, predominantly, with Trump's policies
  • Downplay significance of (or do not see) Trump's abysmal character
  • Wish Trump to continue as a highly influential politician

Can we add; "Willingness to accept anything Trump says at face value"?

Watching some of his rabid followers trying to justify their belief of some of the things he has said, is truly terrifying.  Seriously, because Trump said it, many of his followers actually believe you can get cancer from the sound of windmills....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    2 years ago

Good addition.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.5  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.2    2 years ago
But one can indeed identify defining characteristics of Trump supporters.   The most obvious starting characteristics are

I voted for Trump in 20. I assume that would make me a Trump supporter in the mind of some. I did so because, in spite of his obvious character flaws, I considered them more tolerable than what the Dems wanted to do, policy wise. I was not alone in that. Not by a long shot. For those like myself, it wasn't about Trump, the person. It was that the platform he promoted being preferrable to what the Dems were promoting. In other words, many of us voted for Trump for the same reason people on the left would have voted for a bowl of Tapioca pudding if they thought it had a shot at beating Trump. 

This would be in contrast to other Trump supporters who want to have his baby. And even then, those types don't fall into one category. Some like him because they like the idea that Trump speaks his mind rather than hiding what he thinks in politispeak or just outright lie. Some like him because they think he supports, or at least will advance in some way, their national socialist ideas. There are other categories as well. 

That's why I disliked what Beau did with the video. I think it would have been better if he had not said he would list six good things and one bad but, rather, that he would list six things Trump supporters thought were good and one bad. Because he obviously didn't consider them good. That said, it doesn't mean I think his vid was useless. When I understood what the vid was really about I understood that this would be a good message for people who think a certain way. Such people may not realize that their own positions and views might be leading them toward fascism. 

I get the point you're trying to make, but I think trying to make it does bad things. As far as I can see, attempting to do so can only be for the purpose of not having to think. One doesn't have to think if they can just say, Trump supporters are X and have done with it. Too many people dismiss the other because "Oh! You voted for Trump?" or "Oh! You voted for Biden?" and then dismiss anything they have to say because of it, assuming they're "that" kind of person. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.5    2 years ago
For those like myself, it wasn't about Trump, the person. It was that the platform he promoted being preferrable to what the Dems were promoting.

That has been my explanation of Trump voters to date.   I have argued repeatedly for years now that the main reason people vote for Trump is that they like his rhetoric and are willing to ignore the abysmal character of the speaker lying to them.   And, I suspect many saw through his lies but voted for him anyway because ... they like the lies.

Mostly, the motivation to vote for Trump in 2020 was likely partisan and group0-think (and ill-informed at that);  Trump's policies were red meat GOP and his rhetoric was of course right down the middle of the plate for what they wanted to hear.   

The integrity of the candidate and the disgrace he brought to the office of the presidency was just not a big enough concern for these folks.

That's why I disliked what Beau did with the video. I think it would have been better if he had not said he would list six good things and one bad but, rather, that he would list six things Trump supporters thought were good and one bad. Because he obviously didn't consider them good. 

But that is what he said:

Here is how Beau set the stage immediately before he listed his 14 ' things ' ( @mark   0:47):

I'm going to in good faith try to outline things that his supporters really liked about him but since it is my channel I'm gonna do it.  Six good things and then I'm gonna say one bad thing that I think all of his supporters will be like yeah he he totally did that and then I'm gonna name six more good things and then one bad thing watch to the end okay his supporters loved the fact that under Him …  
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.7  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.6    2 years ago
That has been my explanation of Trump voters to date.   I have argued repeatedly for years now that the main reason people vote for Trump is that they like his rhetoric and are willing to ignore the abysmal character of the speaker lying to them.   And, I suspect many saw through his lies but voted for him anyway because ... they like the lies.

Except that quite a large segment of those who voted for Trump did not like his rhetoric, nor when he lied or exaggerated. We liked his policies and he actually tried to carry them out. He didn't lie about what he said he would do. We understood perfectly well what his character is but found it more acceptable than what the Dems wanted to do. What the Dems are actually trying to do now, now that they are in power. The BBB bill, for example. In my opinion, Trump's faults pale in comparison to that monstrosity. 

Mostly, the motivation to vote for Trump in 2020 was likely partisan and group0-think (and ill-informed at that);  Trump's policies were red meat GOP and his rhetoric was of course right down the middle of the plate for what they wanted to hear.

Perhaps, but you present this as mere manipulation of his stooge supporters. It wasn't simply ""what they wanted to hear". He actually tried to do what he said he would do. That isn't manipulation. 

But that is what he said:

Okay. I missed that. My bad. Thanks for the correction. I remove my objection concerning that. However, I still think he stretched and shaped what he said about Trump supporters in order to fit his point. Undoubtedly, there are Trump supporters for which this vid would apply to perfectly, but I think it would be a very small portion of them. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.7    2 years ago
We liked his policies and he actually tried to carry them out.

Yes, you liked his policies (or at least what he claimed he was going to do) and downplayed his lying, childish quips, unpresidential behavior, absurd ego / narcissism, etc.   I understand that.   That is consistent with what I have heard for years from my circle.

He didn't lie about what he said he would do. 

It started with the wall that he would force Mexico to pay for and ended with "I won the election".   Drakk, please.

It wasn't simply ""what they wanted to hear". He actually tried to do what he said he would do. That isn't manipulation. 

It was a combination of the above.   

Undoubtedly, there are Trump supporters for which this vid would apply to perfectly, but I think it would be a very small portion of them. 

No way to know with certainty.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.9  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.8    2 years ago
Yes, you liked his policies (or at least what he claimed he was going to do) and downplayed his lying, childish quips, unpresidential behavior, absurd ego / narcissism, etc.   I understand that.   That is consistent with what I have heard for years from my circle.

No, not quite. I didn't downplay them. I simply ignored them. I have always understood and stated, in this place, that Trump had an abysmal character. I never once defended the man's character or the nasty things he said. I completely recognized that he was not a very nice person. I have never made an excuse for something he said. I have repeatedly said that the best thing Trump could have done for his presidency was to shut up and stay off Twitter. I don't know how you can consider that "downplaying." 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.9    2 years ago
I don't know how you can consider that "downplaying." 

You seem to have already illustrated downplaying in your reply.   Downplay means to reduce the significance of something.   By ignoring these problems with Trump you downplayed their significance.

To be clearer, I consider Trumps abysmal character to be an active negative given he was PotUS.   I did not downplay the significance of same.

And I am not intending to be critical of you, just explaining what I mean by 'downplaying'.   You, for your own reasons, believed his abysmal character was something that did not really matter in the big picture.   I saw the opposite.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.10    2 years ago
You seem to have already illustrated downplaying in your reply.   Downplay means to reduce the significance of something.   By ignoring these problems with Trump you downplayed their significance.

I just don't quite get it. How peoples bias's can allow others to buy asses, and insert them into our leadership, as stated, for the main purpose of sinking the other ship, for floating an agenda that doesn't go a splenda with their own ideas, for that which they feel would be ideal, but when the 'Art of the Deal' becomes the Heart of which they a tempt to beat, beat down the FACT, that it became the ART OF THE STEAL, that which has pumped the Iron into the wooden ship, could now NOT BECOME the basis for which there WAS NO OTHER OPTION, than to abandon the wrecked SHIP badged as Trump ! When the LifeBlood of our Republic, is attempted STOLEN , BUY WON GIANT LYING LOSER, i just can Know longer comprehend the actual justification for supporting A DICK, who could/would aspire to think his lowly warn out sole, was something HIGHER than the Dreams of our Forefathers who gangbanged an idea, and that their ideal ideas, after intersection, produced an intercourse from a hard joining, that was the basis behind forming, their broad strokes, attempting to paint a perfect nation by respecting virtually all of its members,( well,except for the Truly Indigenous, non White, poor, and or, non Male Man) delivered surprisingly well through reign, sweat, and sknow, to grow a nation that was a visionary futuristic phenom, far ahead of its time, in their version and vision of a perfect Union that did head South on occasion, but overall, quite the persuasion, for US to keep it together, and NEVER allow our De Mock Crazy, to be abandoned by a peace of Ship, not worthy enough to be wiped off a shield of wind that protected the sold and worn out shin atop of the shoed and a skewed, who s soul, not by accident, had a solo sole purpose into our highest office         blowing as Put in blowing, a horn sew aloud  allowed buy those who can No Longer be Proud, of what their selfish Pride, almost denied. Lying in wait, for a True DIVIDE, in our once great, Nation, Defied,  for the more i read, from peep holes views the less i know about peoples i thought knews, watt the real deal was, for when i witness inteligent eduecated people give reason why, and rationalize the rationale for one who had proven he could Not, ration LIES, the more i despise those who should know other, wise women and men are bound to fail when justifying LIARS who should be denied the Bail to salvage that piece of ship for sinking the Dreams of our Forefathers now all wet, for the amount of ignorance allowed aloud in this Nay Shunn to Rule, i doubt i will ever get, Asz it is "i", who must obviously remain the Fool,

who once thought IGNORANCE, would NEVER EVER, become the RULE.....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.11    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.12    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.13    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.14    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.15    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.2.17  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.14    2 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.17    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.17    2 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.19    2 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.21  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.10    2 years ago
 Downplay means to reduce the significance of something.

Then we seem to have a different understanding of what downplaying means. I understand downplaying to mean, essentially, make excuses for. 

To be clearer, I consider Trumps abysmal character to be an active negative given he was PotUS.   I did not downplay the significance of same.

Nor did I, which was my point. I have never, ever shied away from acknowledging that Trump has an abysmal personality. I freely admitted it as often as I felt it relevant. To my mind, that is not downplaying anything. To my mind, it is simply acknowledging Trump, on the persona level, is an asshole. 

And I am not intending to be critical of you, just explaining what I mean by 'downplaying'.   

Understood.

You, for your own reasons, believed his abysmal character was something that did not really matter in the big picture.   I saw the opposite.

The reason, to my thinking, is pretty simple. Imagine all of us in NT are in a burning building. There are two of us that put forth differing solutions for saving ourselves. Who are you going to follow? The guy/girl you find most personable or the one you think has a better idea, even if they're an asshole? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.22  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.20    2 years ago

i might suspect, that they donut wish the seed derailed just because you enjoy flying into bridge abutments. i find it fascinating, the amount of fascination, , one can draw with a crayon, and am curious what color does my crayon appear to be, for i state in black and white, my thoughts of that which you obviously think. little of, which is fine, but the weigh you bring your own self down, a tempting for me to drown, only confirm that i am a lower intelligence form out of a norm you wish not to delve, so asz why you bring attention to my "Word Salads" , which to me are just release vents, for frustration toss, which occasionally gets pent, and whence Pence, i have advice that i wish not to follow, ass i need knot add to my vices, for i grip reality slightly different than around here many, and am not shore how my view, often moored to more than sometimes many can't, or choose to, ore not to, sea, is just who myselfish shallow thoughts ever allow me to be, cause your attempted insults can get costly, where from me, they are free, but how free do you wish for me to allow you to be ? CauseTex, i'm not sure you are comprehending the image reflecting when i wish to be directing the image refl;ected , and really don't wish to be directing or directed. I just wish to occasionally vent, and possibly to once in a while enlighten, but since you and your like minded, rtarely seem to find it, the least bit comprehendible, perhaps , just leave what i say B, and we will both improve our refractive imagery that like perception, will always be unique to the individual and not at all, for all.

 In conclusion, i ask for this comment, and of course, if you choose, your reply to stay and remain without removal. As i do not wish to be the whole in your do not  list, i just wanted to possibly get across my point that on the rare occasion , my "giberish" makes sense to some one, N please realize, i will not be making change. 

I just wish, like you (i sorta due, and not in that extra happy way) to be able to voice my incomprehensible reprehensible shit, just like everyone else here with an as a whole different opinion, than say, some others, or say something other, cause i truly am, trying to throw you some cover, cause i don't always need 3 sheets to set me on sale, or fire. As that will usually fall on the one who wishfully does desire, my over ample supply , of  ire          So 

con seeder and mod, please consider my plea, to allow this and if they so should desire,one other last appropriate or not,  reply, to my post, to remain as i will refrain from any further distractions, for distractions slip the grip of the designated disscussion, and derail seeds like a germ i ate, but only due to fac i nate me, as people sometimes over due, but of course, Seeder and Mods, totally up to you.

Everyone have a swell weekend now , cuz off to earn sum fun tickets, so i can remain redeemable 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.21    2 years ago
I understand downplaying to mean, essentially, make excuses for. 

I used the word as defined:

Downplay ( Oxford ):  Make (something) appear less important than it really is.

Hopefully we are now clear.

Nor did I, which was my point.

Note that you agree Trump is an abysmal character but you do not agree that this is an active negative for the nation given he was PotUS.   And that was my point!

Imagine all of us in NT are in a burning building. There are two of us that put forth differing solutions for saving ourselves. Who are you going to follow? The guy/girl you find most personable or the one you think has a better idea, even if they're an asshole? 

Your analogy does not correlate with my understanding of the reality at hand.   The reality is not so clear cut.   I understand that people who focus on policy would vote for Trump over Biden and downplay the significance of the abysmal character (Biden has his own, albeit lesser, issues in this area).   So let's skip the analogy because I fully understand the policy-centric thought process and have explained this to others on this site.

The problem is that in reality a PotUS is much more than simply the individual directing executive policy.     The machinery in Congress is going to largely operate the same regardless of PotUS.   So policy sounds good but ultimately the balance of power is what makes the difference.

However, on the world stage, the PotUS is the defining individual.   The PotUS represents our nation and in that regard the character and demeanor of the individual is paramount.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.24  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.23    2 years ago
Hopefully we are now clear.

Unfortunately, we are not. Look at the definition you provided: 

Downplay ( Oxford ):  Make (something) appear less important than it really is.

What or who determines what is important? 

Note that you agree Trump is an abysmal character but you do not agree that this is an active negative for the nation given he was PotUS.   And that was my point!

That isn't correct. Trump being an asshole is obviously a negative for the nation. I'm not sure what led you to believe I though otherwise. 

However, on the world stage, the PotUS is the defining individual.   The PotUS represents our nation and in that regard the character and demeanor of the individual is paramount.

Disagree. Germany, or the the rest of the EU, didn't increase it's defense budget due to either Trump or Biden. They did so because Russia metaphorically stuck a gun in their face. 

Further, the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that the US is schizophrenic as hell. The more time goes by the less we stand for. Thanks, postmodernism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.24    2 years ago
What or who determines what is important? 

No, Drakk, I am not going to play semantics games.   Use whatever word you want to connote the idea that you not only deemed Trump's abysmal character less important than policy but you actually dismissed it entirely from consideration (ignored it).   I do not care what word you use.

I'm not sure what led you to believe I though otherwise. 

This:

Drakk @2.2.9No, not quite. I didn't downplay them. I simply ignored them.

You ignored Trump's bad behavior.    That pretty much connotes into you not finding the negatives of his bad behavior significant enough for your consideration.

If that is not what you meant I suspect you can see how a rational read of your words would match my interpretation.

So do you find Trump's character significant in the big picture or insignificant.   Where do you stand?

Disagree. Germany, or the the rest of the EU, didn't increase it's defense budget due to either Trump or Biden. They did so because Russia metaphorically stuck a gun in their face. 

What?  LOL   Drakk, the fact that you can put forth a specific situation where the US PotUS did not control another nation has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.   Look, read again what I wrote (and you quoted):

TiG @2.2.23However, on the world stage, the PotUS is the defining individual.   The PotUS represents our nation and in that regard the character and demeanor of the individual is paramount.

I have no idea how anyone could possibly deny that the PotUS is the defining individual who represents our nation on the world stage and thus the character and demeanor of the individual is paramount.

Did you think I was saying that the PotUS is the defining individual for the planet?   If so, no the defining individual for the USA on the world stage.   And also, if so, why leap to such a ridiculous interpretation?   Clearly you know that I know the PotUS does not rule the planet.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.26  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.25    2 years ago
No, Drakk, I am not going to play semantics games.

If that is what you reduce my comments to, I see no reason to continue this  discussion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.27  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.26    2 years ago

Your parsing of the English definition for the word 'downplay' is what I (clearly) deemed as semantics games.

I did not even remotely hint that about the balance of your comments.

If you are done that is certainly your call but don't leave by taking my comment on parsing an English word and applying it to your comments as a whole.   That is incorrect and dishonest.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.28  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.27    2 years ago
Your parsing of the English definition for the word 'downplay' is what I (clearly) deemed as semantics games.
If you are done that is certainly your call but don't leave by taking my comment on parsing an English word and applying it to your comments as a whole.   That is incorrect and dishonest.

Complete crap. I asked you: 

What or who determines what is important?

To which you replied:

No, Drakk, I am not going to play semantics games.   Use whatever word you want to connote the idea that you not only deemed Trump's abysmal character less important than policy but you actually dismissed it entirely from consideration (ignored it).   I do not care what word you use.

This completely avoids the question. If we both agreed character was important (speaking of politics) then you would be right and this portion of the conversation would never have existed. I would not have objected. But I have made it clear that what a person does trumps what their character appears to be.  Apparently, for you, it is character rather than promises kept. Normally, it would be for me as well, but politics is, in my opinion, an entirely different reality. I truly don't care about a person's perceived character (politically. That is because I always assume that politicians lie as a matter of course). I only care about what they do. Hence, my question. What or who determines what is important? To me, what a person does trumps perceived character. I do not "downplay" Trump's character. I have always stated as plainly as possible that Trump is an asshole. That doesn't mean his policies are wrong. 

So, dismiss what I say as merely semantic games. To me, that simply says you don't have a valid argument against what I've said. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.29  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.28    2 years ago
What or who determines what is important?

This is you parsing the definition of the English word:  downplay .   You were starting to split semantic hairs to argue that you were not downplaying Trump's negatives.   My reply to you is that I am not interested in playing semantics games.   (That is, I do not want to waste our time with yet another petty argument over an English word.)   I thus suggested that we forego parsing the definition of ' downplay ' by you picking a different word of your choosing .

Instead of moving on with a word of your choice you come back with this nonsense where you argue that I am dismissing your main point.   That is both entirely false and ridiculous.    

If we both agreed character was important (speaking of politics) then you would be right and this portion of the conversation would never have existed. I would not have objected. But I have made it clear that what a person does trumps what their character appears to be. 

Yes, that is what you wrote and what I acknowledged.

Apparently, for you, it is character rather than promises kept.

It is not either/or, it is all of the above.   The character of the PotUS along with demeanor, integrity, etc.  are all factors along with the quality / correctness of policy and the ability to keep promises.   It is not apparent in any way that my priorities for a PotUS are so simply stated.    It is clear, however, that I value character/demeanor/etc. in a PotUS more than you do.

Normally, it would be for me as well, but politics is, in my opinion, an entirely different reality. I truly don't care about a person's perceived character ( politically. That is because I always assume that politicians lie as a matter of course ). I only care about what they do.

Again, that is how I interpreted your words and have acknowledged it.   But I engaged in the horrible act of phrasing this as you downplaying the importance of character in favor of promises kept.    

Hence, my question. What or who determines what is important?

When you asked that in your earlier comment it was in direct context of your focus on the dictionary definition for 'downplaying'.   So naturally I interpreted it as you parsing the dictionary definition.

If you are trying to ask who determines what are important factors for a PotUS and the priority of those factors then the OBVIOUS answer is that each individual voter does that for themselves (or simply accepts what another has stated).    But if this is what you meant, why ask such an obvious question?   It is not as though we were debating who has the right to determine what is important in a PotUS.

To me, what a person does trumps perceived character. I do not "downplay" Trump's character. I have always stated as plainly as possible that Trump is an asshole. That doesn't mean his policies are wrong. 

Your use of 'downplay' makes your sentence incoherent.   You start off saying that you prioritize ('trump') what a person does over their perceived character and then immediately state that you do not downplay Trump's character.   So A > B but A Trump is not greater than B TrumpjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

This is why I asked you to pick another word because clearly you have a very special meaning for the word 'downplay' and I do not want to engage in a debate over how you choose to define the word. 

In English, the very easy to understand thought you expressed is that you are more concerned about what Trump does in terms of policy than his character.    I understood that from the beginning.   Note how a fine discussion went South because you, oddly, object to me referring to that as downplaying character over policy promises kept.   

I am not going to walk on eggshells to communicate with you Drakk.   Lighten up.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.30  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    2 years ago

If a person has, say a parent, that is crazy, cantankerous, dishonest, thieving, mean etc. , but provides well for his family, at some point the community's disapproval of him/her is going to overwhelm their productive qualities. Everyone on this earth gets judged on their character by others. It is basically the only thing that determines if someone is fit to live in civilized society. 

Character comes first. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.31  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.30    2 years ago

Character / demeanor/ etc. are very important factors for a PotUS.   Intelligence / executive acumen / diplomacy / ... are other important factors.   And, of course, policies / promises / actions are also quite important.

In Trump's case, his abysmal character / terrible demeanor / narcissism / pathological lying / etc. are so extreme that they negate out all of his potential good.    IMO of course.   The USA should never have as its representative on the world stage someone who is so clearly a flaming asshole whose words are gratuitously acerbic/antagonistic and untrustworthy and whose focus is on himself rather than the nation.

While I do understand the thought process of those Trump voters who will overlook/downplay/lessen/(whatever word one wishes) Trumps profound character negatives in favor of his policies, I disagree with their priorities.   We do substantial damage to our nation having such an asshole as PotUS.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.32  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.31    2 years ago
And, of course, policies / promises / actions are important too.

Its all important, sure, but character comes first. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.33  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.32    2 years ago
Its all important, sure, but character comes first. 

The problem with that position is that character flaws range from minor to major.   Trump's character flaws are major (extreme).   Thus for Trump it is easy to state that his character should make him ineligible to hold office.

But character also includes individuals who are duplicitous, pander, etc.   These are more minor flaws that are inherent in most every politician on the planet.   

I will elect a liar to office if I believe the liar will accomplish things that I seek.   But the liar would be on the mild side of the scale ... not on the extreme.

So, as with everything in life, the specifics matter.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.34  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.33    2 years ago

I suppose.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.35  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    2 years ago
Instead of moving on with a word of your choice you come back with this nonsense where you argue that I am dismissing your main point.   That is both entirely false and ridiculous.

But you are dismissing my main point. You insist in making this about Trump's character. That's fine. I'm not going to tell you what your opinion has to be. But you are ignoring/dismissing mine. I don't care about Trump's character. I only care about what his stated policies were and did he try to carry them out. In order to downplay Trump's character I would first have to acknowledge his character as important and then try to sell you on the idea that his character isn't really that bad. That would be "downplaying."

As I have already stated elsewhere, I didn't vote in 2016 because character was the only thing to go on. In 2020 I had four years of objective evidence that, in spite of Trump personally being an asshole, he genuinely tried to do what he said he would do. That is all that should matter to anyone who agreed with his policies. That isn't downplaying anything. I freely admit that Trump is an asshole. I completely agree that his character is abysmal. But I also submit that this is as irrelevant as the person who is a child molester managing to get the door open to the escape route in a burning building. I'm not going to refuse to go through the door because the guy who got it opened is a child molester. 

It is not either/or, it is all of the above. 

Disagree. It would be nice if it could be that, but it isn't. Reality is, it's the choice between the shiniest of two turds. 

It is clear, however, that I value character/demeanor/etc. in a PotUS more than you do.

You're probably right. I prefer to judge a person by what they say they stand for, backed up by what they do, rather than perceived character. 

Again, that is how I interpreted your words and have acknowledged it.   But I engaged in the horrible act of phrasing this as you down playing the importance of character in favor of promises kept.

Then don't blame me for your word choices. We are discussing politics, not your or my everyday life. Politics is a swamp. I know you agree with me that our government is a clown show. Politicians say whatever they want and it gets recorded in the Congressional Record, but those politicians can edit that record any way they want to. In politics, character simply doesn't matter. What matters is a proven record. That is all that can confirm character. 

When you asked that in your earlier comment it was in direct context of your focus on the dictionary definition for 'downplaying'.   So naturally I interpreted it as you parsing the dictionary definition.

Then you misunderstood my question. 

If you are trying to ask who determines what are important factors for a PotUS and the priority of those factors then the OBVIOUS answer is that each individual voter does that for themselves (or simply accepts what another has stated).    But if this is what you meant, why ask such an obvious question?   It is not as though we were debating who has the right to determine what is important in a PotUS.

You are speaking generally. I'm speaking specifically. As I have stated, I didn't vote in 16 because all I had to go by was perceived character. I voted in 20 because I had empirical evidence. Given this information, I asked you the question "What or who determines what is important?" because you seem to think character is paramount in a president and apparently have been arguing on that basis. My opinion is that proven performance and policy matter more. The question was asking, who are you to determine which is more important? 

Your use of 'downplay' makes your sentence incoherent.   You start off saying that you prioritize ('trump') what a person does over their perceived character and then immediately state that you do not downplay Trump's character.   So A > B but TrumpAis not greater than Trump

Uh, okay... So, you're saying you don't understand the concept that what a person does is more important than what a person says? 

This is why I asked you to pick another word because clearly you have a very special meaning for the word 'downplay' and I do not want to engage in a debate over how you choose to define the word. 

No, that isn't why you asked me to pick a different word. You asked in order to emphasize the point you wanted to make. Nor am I applying a special meaning to the word "downplay." I have never downplayed Trump's character. But that isn't what you mean. You mean that I am downplaying character as important. To my mind, character registers slightly above what color tie a politician wears. This is because they are politicians. My default setting is to assume they are lying until they prove by action otherwise. 

In other words, that you apparently think "character" is important in a politician, and therefore, anyone who doesn't engage you on that level is "downplaying" the issue is simply a fantasy on your part. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.36  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.32    2 years ago
Its all important, sure, but character comes first. 

So one would think, but what do you think Hillary would have done as President?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.35    2 years ago
That is all that should matter to anyone who agreed with his policies.

Absurd. 

Your position speaks extremely poorly of the American people (who are trump fans). 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.38  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.35    2 years ago

I skipped the first part of your comment because you continue to argue the meaning of ‘downplay’.    How utterly petty and pointless!

The question was asking, who are you to determine which is more important? 

Not once did I even mildly imply that I get to determine what is important for anyone other than myself.   Given that, your question was offensive and antagonistic.   Note how you alone have yet again turned a nice discussion into bullshit.

Uh, okay... So, you're saying you don't understand the concept that what a person does is more important than what a person says? 

Yet again …

No, that isn't why you asked me to pick a different word. You asked in order to emphasize the point you wanted to make.

And again with this petty, meta crap.   Now you are telling me my intentions and simultaneously calling me a liar.   What is your problem?

And again with this obsession on ‘downplay’.   I moved past it as soon as you started getting ridiculous but you flat out refuse to let it go.   Unbelievable.

Finally, you totally ignore this and comments like this:

TiG@2.2.29 ☞ In English, the very easy to understand thought you expressed is that you are more concerned about what Trump does in terms of policy than his character.    I understood that from the beginning.

Instead of hooking to clear points of communication, you ignore them all and instead invent petty controversies and then complain of same endlessly.   How do you find that to be rewarding or worth your time?

There is nothing to argue about.   You have your priorities and I have mine.  Arguing about an English word and inventing positions for your interlocutor is pointless and dishonest.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.39  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.37    2 years ago

What is being discussed by Drakkonis is this: A monarch, a president, a so-called "god" amongst men capable of wielding the 'axe' that hews down the tree built and sustained by liberals is an ASSHOLE he can bend his 'knee' to. Once that "god" loses power and the man behind begins to come into focus, Drakkonis will rise up, remember himself, and request to walk away. "Transactional politics" is all about those exchanges being fulfilled.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.2.40  Thomas  replied to  CB @2.2.39    2 years ago

Gosh, that sounds very much like you are equating Drakk with something a lot like secular humanism ...

A consequentialist ethical system

Secular humanists hold that ethics is  consequential , to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority. “No god will save us,” declared  Humanist Manifesto II  (1973), “we must save ourselves.” Secular humanists seek to develop and improve their ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women.

I am sure he won't appreciate that....

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.41  CB  replied to  Thomas @2.2.40    2 years ago

I am sure he won't appreciate (you) pointing out this fine distinction either. It is clear however that Trump is being made a "god" of sorts empowered by Trump supporters to do the 'nasty' biddings of right-wing ideology (that lesser politicians can't or won't bring themselves to do).

And that is something I have been trying to explain to Drakk. If he believes in God (of the Bible), then he should remember to be a lovely person following after peace with all men (as instructed) instead of trying to 'rain down fire' on those whom he demonizes and dehumanizes for the purposes of taking what rightly belongs to them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.42  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.2.41    2 years ago
And that is something I have been trying to explain to Drakk. If he believes in God (of the Bible), then he should remember to be a lovely person following after peace with all men (as instructed) instead of trying to 'rain down fire' on those whom he demonizes and dehumanizes for the purposes of taking what rightly belongs to them.

You are dealing with religious belief now and you know better than most that religious beliefs vary.    And you know that I have argued in the past that it is flawed logic to base one's specific beliefs on the Bible because the Bible is contradictory and wildly open for many directly conflicted interpretations.

Too bad Christianity did not write its own Bible focusing mainly on Jesus and the parts of the OT that do not translate into moral directives.  (What I described is essentially what Catholics teach nowadays.)   Keep the creation story, etc. and skip all the ancient Hebrew laws.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.43  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.42    2 years ago

What has been done to and with the Bible is beyond my control to correct. Of course, you know this and I mean no offense by stating it.

In its present form/s it has stood the test of time. That being said, there are reprints of the Bible that only contain the New Testament!  Many churches still prefer to know their Jewish history (of how we can to have a need for a New Testament). One might even say that having a "new" testament begs the question for knowledge of the "old" testament and especially its prophetic utterances.

Subsequently, this is where we, the believers, find ourselves in faith. What we do is reconcile (make friendly) difficult passages, incomplete 'writings,' and partial 'thoughts' to get as best we can an understanding of what 'thus saith the Lord' using verbiage of the King James Bible. Of course, we have interpretations because of the many languages in the world, which are ever changing in texture, nuances, and additions and subtractions.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
2.2.44  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    2 years ago

I would also add...continually sending him money when he is a known grifter and a con man.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2    2 years ago

Valid point, but to many Trump supporters his characteristics double as accomplishments.  Every time he called something an accomplishment (in the eyes of Trump supporters) I winced a little like I just got hit with a bad smell.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2    2 years ago
Someone who wants to have his baby or someone who, no matter how terrible a person they thought Trump might be personally, it would still be better than where the left wanted to take us. 

I wasn't going to do it, I probably shouldn't do it, but what the "h" its Thursday and the 31st! This is a shit sentence: As who is "his" that is having a baby? Moreover, there are clashing themes in the 'bitching' subject matter. Because having Donald Trump leading this country with upward escalation of 30,000 plus and counting lies, misinformation, and obfuscations can not be better than 'any' liberal with less under these circumstances.

It's gibberish, for sure. Can we get a redo? Yes, no, maybe?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.4.1  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @2.4    2 years ago
It's gibberish, for sure. Can we get a redo? Yes, no, maybe?

Sorry, CB. I promised Perrie I would do better. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.2  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @2.4.1    2 years ago

Where is "better" - I'm waiting.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3  Sparty On    2 years ago

A not so clever attempt to make some of Trumps positions seen as positive by supporters, negatives, as seen by the TDS afflicted.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
3.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @3    2 years ago

[Deleted]  Perhaps you could try to refute any of it.  A point by point takedown would mean 100% more than a TDS bumper sticker.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1    2 years ago
Spoken like a true fascist.

Lol .... you are projecting again.    A very bad habit you have.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
3.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.1    2 years ago

Go ahead and list the 14 examples of how I am a fascist then.  That should be a fun exercise for you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1.2    2 years ago

You first, you started it.     I’ll destroy all the faux points you try to make accusing me of being a fascist.    One by one ..... easily.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
3.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.3    2 years ago

I’ll destroy all the faux points you try to make.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif   A legend in your own mind.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.1.4    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @3    2 years ago
as seen by the TDS afflicted.

I will be a bit surprised if you don't get a response or two saying TDS (like CRT) does not exist

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2    2 years ago

Nothing surprises me here anymore ..... nothing .....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2    2 years ago

That's correct - neither of them exist.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.2    2 years ago

Thank you.  I knew I could count on you for a little projection, deflection and denial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.3    2 years ago

Just repeating my words over and over again doesn't make you clever.  You give yourself far too much credit.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.4    2 years ago

I have been using that phrase for years, ask my kids.  You thinking it is yours is giving yourself far too much credit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.5    2 years ago

Sure you have!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    2 years ago

I know. That is why I said it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3    2 years ago
A not so clever attempt to make some of Trumps positions seen as positive by supporters, negatives, as seen by the TDS afflicted.

I do not see you making any thoughtful rebuttal.   If all you have is nuh'uh and snark, do not participate in this seed. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    2 years ago

Opinions do vary.    

My post you quoted made a good rebuttal.    That you don’t think so holds the same weight with me as my opinion does with you.    That is too say none.

And your accusation of snark etc might hold more water if your comments weren’t clearly worse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.1    2 years ago
My post you quoted made a good rebuttal.

A rebuttal is a refutation of a claim.   What claim did you refute?   All you did was characterize the seed content as TDS.

To rebut this seed one would need to show how the claims made by Beau are wrong.   That does not mean merely claiming them wrong, but rather making a fact-based, logical argument as to why they are wrong.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.1    2 years ago
A not so clever attempt to make some of Trumps positions seen as positive by supporters, negatives, as seen by the TDS afflicted.

The fourteen points in the video are either signposts of fascism or they are not. 

The fact that a group of people "like them" isn't relevant to whether or not they are fascist. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 years ago
That does not mean merely claiming them wrong, but rather making a fact-based, logical argument as to why they are wrong.

Hell will freeze over first. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 years ago

I love how you tend to play the disingenuous word definition game.    So a rebuttal or to rebut is defined as follows by my Merriam Webster:

1 : to drive or beat back : REPEL
2 a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof
b : to expose the falsity of : REFUTE
To expose the falsity of.    Which I did in 3.0.   How did he put it more than once, liberals won’t agree with that positive but Trump supporters do.    So is it a positive or a negative.
The video is disingenuous at best.
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.3    2 years ago

What some loons on the left call Fascism gets crazier and crazier by the minute.  Amazing!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.5    2 years ago
I love how you tend to play the disingenuous word definition game.

I wrote:

TiG @ 3.3.2 ☞ A rebuttal is a refutation of a claim. 

Oxford defines Rebuttal as:

Rebuttal ( Oxford ):  A refutation or contradiction.

There is nothing disingenuous in using English words as they are defined.   You are trolling.


A rebuttal is a refutation of a claim.   What claim did you refute?   All you did was characterize the seed content as TDS.

To rebut this seed one would need to show how the claims made by Beau are wrong.   That does not mean merely claiming them wrong, but rather making a fact-based, logical argument as to why they are wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.4    2 years ago
Hell will freeze over first. 

Seems you are correct.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.7    2 years ago

Bullshit, not trolling, my definition came directly from Merriam Webster as noted.

Stop lying

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.9    2 years ago
my definition came directly from Merriam Webster as noted.

Mine came from Oxford.   No bullshit, no lying.   I gave you the link.

Also, your definition includes refutation: " to expose the falsity of  :   REFUTE ".   So clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.


Cease trolling this seed.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.9    2 years ago

You should stop because you really can't go up against TiG. Most of here see what's happening and while I won't speak for anyone else, I'm embarassed for you

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
3.3.13  pat wilson  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.12    2 years ago

Amen.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.12    2 years ago

[deleted]

[more meta]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.14    2 years ago

People like TiG

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    2 years ago

That's easy regarding whatshisnames' accomplishments

ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO, SQUAT

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 years ago

Obviously you weren't paying attention for four years.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2    2 years ago

[deleted]    Now they like paying more for everything because of the guy they voted for.     After all, many of them are on the dole and not paying for it anyway.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.1    2 years ago
The triggered were to busy hating to pay attention

They still are.  Look at how many Trump articles based in fiction we see here on NT on a daily basis.  This is just one of MANY.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.2    2 years ago

Where, specifically, is the fiction in this seed?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.3    2 years ago

You didn't read it or watch the video?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.4    2 years ago

Contribute something thoughtful or leave the seed.

I asked you a question.   If you have no answer then silence will do nicely.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.5    2 years ago

One could say the same to you.    

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.5    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.5    2 years ago
I asked you a question.   

Question answered.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.8    2 years ago

That is false. 

How very adult of you. /s

Why do you and yours play that game Jeremy?

Every member here can see for themselves that you did NOT answer the question. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    2 years ago
That is false.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's false.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.10    2 years ago
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's false.

What's false is your claim that you answered the question Jeremy. You didn't. 

In short, there is NO answer to like or dislike. 

Again, why do you and yours play that game? All it does is hack away at what little credibility you may have enjoyed. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @4.2.11    2 years ago

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.  That's something you're just going to have to work out on your own.  [deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
4.2.13  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    2 years ago
Every member here can see for themselves

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 years ago

That's easy regarding whatshisnames' accomplishments

ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO, SQUAT

Hate to say it, but that is not entirely true.  There have been things accomplished, under Trump, most of which just required his signature to get done. 

As to specific accomplishments that Trump, personally, spearheaded.  That would be closer to your ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO, SQUAT.  Many of Trump's personal agendas either reflected on him increasing his personal wealth, punishing those who opposed him, blocking any ongoing investigations of Trump interests,  or pushing more of his racist policies.  Anything else he just signed off on.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 years ago
That's easy regarding whatshisnames' accomplishments ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO, SQUAT

The article isn't about Joe.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
5  Right Down the Center    2 years ago

When someone starts with "in good faith" the last thing you will see from them is anything in good faith.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6  mocowgirl    2 years ago

I am providing a link to Trump Administration Accomplishment as of January 2021.

It is an extensive list.  

Overall, the list points to an economic boom for most US citizens.  

I am including just a small part of the list for consideration for the argument of what Trump's administration accomplished.  It would take years to research this (or any other) list of "accomplishments" claimed by a president. 

This is why most people seem to find a few emotional issues to nitpick and conversations/debates begin and end with the same partisan bullshit that they began with. What is even more frustrating (and time wasting) are the emotionally motivated people who attack other people instead of the issues.

Economic issues (where the meat is) are ignored because it seems few citizens are knowledgeable about US budgets to even begin a coherent conversation about government fiances.  This is probably why our nation is 30 trillion dollars in debt and growing.  Our politicians have been on a spending spree for ??? years and kicking the can down the road because our elected reps are largely lawyers who don't know enough to be in charge of US spending.

Want to know why people supported Trump - more money in their pockets via jobs instead of welfare.  

Currently the Dems are working on more welfare handouts to address oil profiteering instead of addressing the real problem - oil profiteering.  It is the same old, same old as usual because it is the playbook they wrote, and they aren't going to change it now unless the US citizens make them.

Trump Administration Accomplishments – The White House (archives.gov)
  • Unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those without a high school diploma all reached record lows.
  • Unemployment for women hit its lowest rate in nearly 70 years.
  • Lifted nearly 7 million people off of food stamps.
  • Poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans reached record lows.
  • Income inequality fell for two straight years, and by the largest amount in over a decade.
  • The bottom 50 percent of American households saw a 40 percent increase in net worth.
  • Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue collar workers – a 16 percent pay increase.
  • African American homeownership increased from 41.7 percent to 46.4 percent.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
Overall, the list points to an economic boom for most US citizens.  

Trump benefitted from a growing economy.   As PotUS, he is given credit for that.   If one wants to net Trump support into its most basic form then it is:   "a good economy".

This seed looks at the Trump phenomena from a sociological / historical perspective and argues that much of Trump's appeal is a result of historically proven methods that rally support.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 years ago
This seed looks at the Trump phenomena from a sociological / historical perspective and argues that much of Trump's appeal is a result of historically proven methods that rally support.

Is Trump the only politician that uses this method?  If not, how does his method differ from the method that his opposition uses?

I am not being flippant.  I am really curious and hope that you can provide some nonpartisan insight on how politicians gain and keep power - some of them for decades.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.1    2 years ago
Is Trump the only politician that uses this method?

Of course not.   The seed does not claim that Trump is the only politician to intentionally claim what they think will appeal to their base (e.g. 'religious' Trump).  Rather, the seed illustrates how Trump used these historical methods and, in so doing, offers an explanation for how someone with such an abysmal character and unsuitability for office could be elected PotUS and remain popular almost no matter what he did.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    2 years ago
Rather, the seed illustrates how Trump used these historical methods and, in so doing, offers an explanation for how someone with such an abysmal character and unsuitability for office could be elected PotUS and remain popular almost no matter what he did.

So is this method still be used by politicians currently in office and running for office?

If so, is this just another partisan hack piece on Trump because his methods have more support than the other side using the same methods?

How is Trump more slimy than the other politicians?  Is the goal to paint his supporters as slimy or less than?

Are articles about fiscal policy avoided because there aren't any in US mainstream media and/or the majority of people couldn't understand them if there were?

This is why there should never be bills passed for even 1 trillion dollars.  There is no way to monitor where the money really goes.

Yet, year after year (since the early 2000s), Trump has been the butt of jokes/ridicule in US media.  Why?   Trump has at least had a business other than being a professional politician making a living bilking US citizens' tax money.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - In politics, nothing happens by... (brainyquote.com)

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.3    2 years ago

I have explained the purpose of this seed.   It is a perspective on why Trump appeals to his supporters given he has an abysmal character, is a malignant narcissist and pathological liar.

I find it amazing that so many overlook these profoundly negative qualities for an individual holding the office of PotUS.    Especially given how Trump punctuated this with his Big Lie con-job after losing the election.

You seem to want to dismiss these points because Trump is not the only politician who has used them.    That misses the point of the seed.

Why is Trump so popular given his demonstrably abysmal character?   This seed offers an answer to the question.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.3    2 years ago
How is Trump more slimy than the other politicians? 

Holy christ !

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.6  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    2 years ago
Why is Trump so popular given his demonstrably abysmal character?  

Why is "........." so popular given his/her demonstrably abysmal character?  

This seed offers an answer to the question.

The real answer is that beauty (or lack thereof) is in the eye of the holder.

It is personal bias - some a person is born with, some are created by society they are raised in, some may not have an explanation that can either be found or accepted if they were.

I doubt it is possible for a person to explain the biases they were born with.  

I doubt that most people want to recognize and explain their societal biases.

I doubt that most people can reject the majority of their biases because they would have to give up their individuality, at least on some level.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 years ago
Trump benefitted from a growing economy. 

Is that what the US GDP graph shows?  Is this graph inaccurate?

U.S. GDP 1960-2022 | MacroTrends
 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Ender  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.7    2 years ago

That is what it shows to me. It shows where there was the recession and it started growing again under Obama.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.6    2 years ago
It is personal bias

I disagree.   Trump is unique among US presidents (and candidates).    No candidate for the office has come even remotely close to the level of lying, disruption and abuse of authority that Trump engaged in during his Big Lie campaign.   And I focus on that because it is a single moment that absolutely lays clear the abysmal character and narcissism that is Trump.

It is sad that instead of tossing Trump out of the GOP that many, even today, support this miserable individual as the leader of the GOP and candidate for office of the PotUS.

It is a failure of critical thinking to dismiss criticism of Trump as mere bias.  Trump demonstrably should not be the leader of the GOP and should not be allowed to get anywhere near the office of PotUS.   What IS bias are those who, in denial of what is in front of their eyes, continue to support / defend Trump.

This seed offers an explanation for why people would continue to support an an abysmal character such as Trump regardless of what the man does (or did).   

So why do (did) people support Trump IN SPITE OF his narcissism, lying, demeanor, etc.?

  • He inherited a great economy and was, as PotUS, given credit for it.
  • The argument presented in this seed.
  • His words, policies and decisions were exactly in line with his base.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.7    2 years ago

How are you reading this from your link?:

  • U.S. gdp for 2020 was $20,936.60B, a 2.32% decline from 2019.
  • U.S. gdp for 2019 was $21,433.22B, a 3.98% increase from 2018.
  • U.S. gdp for 2018 was $20,611.86B, a 5.47% increase from 2017.
  • U.S. gdp for 2017 was $19,542.98B, a 4.26% increase from 2016.

While Trump was PotUS (until the pandemic) the economy was in growth mode.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.11  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.10    2 years ago
How are you reading this from your link?:

The graphs below the info at the link.

The little green bars that were red in 2008 and 2009 (-2.54 growth) that reflected the Wall Street debacle and the economy that Obama inherited.  I thought that Obama did a good job considering where he began.  According to the little green bars growth went from to 3.08% in 2015 to 1.71% in 2016.  Which is why I said that the GDP was in decline at the end of 2016.

Am I misreading the graph?  Had the GDP not declined in 2016?

Clinking on the next header at top of page next to GDP button is an even better graph of the GDP growth rate.  It does show that the 2020 -5.65 to be second to the -7.19 we experienced in 1974 which I barely remember.  The ones that most affected me were Carter's back to back years (1979-80) of negative growth.  This is probably why he only won two states in the 1980 election after barely winning over Ford in 1976.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.12  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    2 years ago
 Trump is unique among US presidents (and candidates).    No candidate for the office has come even remotely close to the level of lying, disruption and abuse of authority that Trump engaged in during his Big Lie campaign.   And I focus on that because it is a single moment that absolutely lays clear the abysmal character and narcissism that is Trump.

 Maybe, maybe not.  I believe that a person would have had to live in the time period to evaluate that claim accurately.  The evolution of what we hold to be our morals and ethics as a society have evolved drastically since the 50s.  Drastically.

Politicians lie.  That seems to have always been expected of politicians in the US.  Claiming that one politician lies more than another is also acceptable.  

Maybe some people believe that Trump is (or could be) less corrupt because he made his money as a business rather than a career politician?  What do career politicians do to make millions when their salaries are so low?  

Trying to paint Trump as more heinous that a career politician is really counterproductive to getting people excited about voting.  If our political process is so corrupt that our politicians are not properly vetted in the first place, then how is a working person going to find the time to spend countless hours fact checking who to support?

People, who support Trump, are probably weary of being abused by authority.  Turnabout is fair play to their way of thinking.  It is kind of like enjoying seeing the bully get his ass whipped even though a person might be really opposed to violence.  I believe the term might be cognitive dissonance, but I could have my terms mixed up.  I don't know that I will ever be able to keep it all straight, but I do my best.  

This issue has been hashed and re-hashed.  Maybe, some people just can't understand why it is time to drain the swamp even if it means that some bottom feeders are still going to be elected until we make it safe enough for someone who isn't a bottom feeder to hold political office.  Or maybe no one except a bottom feeder wants to be a politician?  How have political outsiders been treated in DC?

Maybe Trump will make the list of 10 Most Corrupt Politicians on someone's blog.  I suppose it will depend on who writes the list, their criteria and their bias.  Whether it is accepted will depend on a person's biases.

I am going to link a biased blog that tries to explain why people chose Trump over Clinton.  It is probably the same reasons that Trump supporters will continue to support Trump over an inner circle, status quo, warmongering politician for POTUS.

10 Most Corrupt US Presidents in History - Insider Monkey

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.13  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.11    2 years ago
Am I misreading the graph?  Had the GDP not declined in 2016?

Trump was elected in 2016.   He was inaugurated Jan 20, 2017.    The Trump economy, at the very earliest, would need to start in 2017.

People give the PotUS credit for the economy.   That is largely ridiculous, but that is the way people think so let's go with it.    Look again at your data:

  • U.S. gdp for 2020 was $20,936.60B, a 2.32% decline from 2019.
  • U.S. gdp for 2019 was $21,433.22B, a 3.98% increase from 2018.
  • U.S. gdp for 2018 was $20,611.86B, a 5.47% increase from 2017.
  • U.S. gdp for 2017 was $19,542.98B, a 4.26% increase from 2016.

2017 (Trump's first year) shows an increase.

2018 (Trump's second year) shows an increase from his first year.

2019 (Trump's third year) shows an increase from his second year.

2020 (Trumps last year) shows a decrease from his third year.

As I stated, Trump had the benefit of a growing economy during his presidency until the pandemic hit.   His last year saw his growing economy go South and with it most of the momentum that would have given him a second term.

Are you hung up on my comment that Trump inherited a growing economy?    If so, note that I do not automatically give credit/blame to the PotUS for a good or bad economy.   Thus the fact that the economy grew in 2017 was what I was referring to as a growing economy.   Clearly (right?) Trump did not magically reverse the GDP trend.   The economy is an incredibly complex system that human beings are still woefully unable to control (we can at best influence positive although we can easily do harm).   And our influences are indirect and take time (years) to realize.  It did not even cross my mind to think that the 2017 change could be considered a result of Trump.

Trump took office as the economy was starting to grow.   He was lucky like Bill Clinton.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.12    2 years ago
The evolution of what we hold to be our morals and ethics as a society have evolved drastically since the 50s.  Drastically.

Never in our history has a sitting PotUS (or even a candidate) engaged in a two-month outrageous lying campaign designed to discredit our electoral system and thus disenfranchise the electorate in order to steal an election.

Not only did Trump lie repeatedly and outrageously, he continue the same lie today.   And not only did he lie, but he suborned his own V.P. to engage in the unconstitutional tabling of certified votes from select states who, if omitted from the count, would give him the presidency.   And beyond that he attempted to coerce election officials and state legislators.   All this while 61+ frivolous lawsuits were unleased on our court system.

One can argue about historical assholes in office and it is true we cannot possibly know the details of these assholes to accurately compare to the asshole level of Trump.   But we absolutely can compare historical events and what I just offered is so off the charts as to historically and profoundly distinguish Trump from all of his predecessors (in a very bad way).

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.13    2 years ago
Trump took office as the economy was starting to grow.   He was lucky like Bill Clinton.

Got it.  Thank you for your patience.  I was taking it as Trump grew the economy from a lower point.  Whereas Obama inherited a bad economy that was on a downtrend trend.  The GDP bottomed out in 2009 and eventually grew through some ups and downs over 8 years.  The GDP had declined 2016 but was on an upward trend by January 2017 when Trump took office.

 Again, thank you.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.16  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    2 years ago
Not only did Trump lie repeatedly and outrageously, he continue the same lie today.

Sincerely, this fight was picked in 2016 when the Clinton campaign tried to smear Trump with lies about Russia.  Mainstream media ran with those lies for years without one shred of evidence.  The Democratic party has only itself to blame because it lost the trust of so many people in the US.

Clinton, her supporters and the media tried to overthrow an elected president in 2017 and kept it up for years.  They just tried a different tactic.

Never in my life had I been so frightened that I was going to witness a government overthrow.  I had already seen what they had done to change the nomination rules to make Clinton the nominee and the smears against Sanders.  I had researched the tactics used against Obama in the 2008 campaign.  There is absolutely nothing that I would not put past these people to gain control of the office of President of the United States.  Nothing.  

I never even considered the possibility that a handful of radical Trump supporters were going to overthrow the US government. They had about as much chance as the Bundy bunch or even the Brady Bunch.

If the Democrats ever break the hold of the Bush/Biden/Clinton party and nominate someone with a broader appeal (like Obama) then I expect the Republican party voters also be more supportive of a centrist type candidate.  At least, I hope they will.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.16    2 years ago

Good grief.

Russia was doing its damnedest to help Trump.  Our elections were influenced by Russia and Putin.

And still, there was no call from Hillary or Democratic party leadership to overturn the election results.  No attempt whatsoever.

Bernie Sanders was an independent right up until he wanted DNC money to campaign.  Why is he entitled to funds from a party to which he belonged only during campaign season?  He was an independent before running, and went back to being an independent afterward.

The attempted insurrection, with the support of some legislators, had way more chance of being successful than a government overthrow by Hillary that was never even attempted.  Sorry, but being frightened of one (that didn't even happen) and not the other is misplaced paranoia.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.16    2 years ago

I give you credit for having the strength of your convictions, but you are just out there. 

The FBI has told everyone what the prod was for the investigation of Trump's 2016 campaign, and it wasnt the Steele Dossier. Trump was already being investigated at that point. 

In June of 2016 the Trump campaign attempted to collude with what they believed to be a representative of the Russian government.  Trump Jr. was led to believe that the Russian government wanted to help his father win, and he was ready to listen. About six weeks later , at a press conference, Donald Trump asked Russia to help him by finding Hillary's "missing" emails.  Flash forward to 2022, right now as a matter of fact. Trump has just asked war criminal Vladimir Putin to help him discredit the family of his biggest political rival, President Biden.  This turn of events absolutely solidifies the belief that Trump asked Russia to help him in 2016. 

In 2016 the investigation was predicated on something that George Papadopolous blabbed about to a third country diplomat. 

Trump was not unfairly treated in 2016. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.17    2 years ago

The disinformation social media campaigns by Russia, Jr setting up a meeting with Russian people to get dirt on opponents, donald asking Russia for help, Russia hacking the DNC and releasing info, etc.

Nope, nothing to see here folks....

I agree about Bernie. He switched parties when he thought it would propel him forward and when he lost switched parties again.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.20  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.16    2 years ago
Sincerely, this fight was picked in 2016 when the Clinton campaign tried to smear Trump with lies about Russia.

I disagree.   Clinton did not cause Trump to behave as he did and she certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the key point I raised which is Trump's inexcusable and historically profound bad behavior after losing the 2020 election.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.21  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.18    2 years ago
I give you credit for having the strength of your convictions, but you are just out there. 

I feel the exact same way about the people who support the Clintons.  Isn't that what the division in politics is about?  I can understand why over 90 million eligible voters don't even bother.  After 2016, I have had my doubts that I will ever vote again unless a party nominates a candidate that I can vote for instead of vote against.  I did not even bother to vote for or against either presidential candidate in 2016.  I looked at my ballet and just could not fill in the little circle for anyone on the ballet.  I wrote in Sanders even though I knew it would not count.

Probably, a large part of my biases stem from being raised in Arkansas and I was living there in the 1980s/90s when Clinton was our POS governor.  

I can honestly say that I doubt that Bill ever had a policy that I supported because the policies were detrimental to women and children in Arkansas.  

My father-in-law (raised in New Mexico), who was a lifelong Democrat, said that voting for Clinton in 1992 for POTUS was the only vote he ever regretted.  At least, I will never have that regret.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.22  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.20    2 years ago
Clinton did not cause Trump to behave as he did and she certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the key point I raised which is Trump's inexcusable and historically profound bad behavior after losing the 2020 election.

I heartily disagree that Clinton was not part of the problem.  

All I see are two narcissists who are willing to say or do anything it takes to gain power and stay in power.

Clinton had the career politicians and media on her side.  Trump had enough voters to try to take them on for a short while.

It feels like there has been an ongoing civil war in the US since 2016 and is likely to continue until at least 2024 as people continue to fight over the 2016 election results.

Looking at the history of the electoral map maybe at least one political party will choose a nominee that can unite instead of divide.

Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2020 - 270toWin
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.22    2 years ago
I heartily disagree that Clinton was not part of the problem.  

My position is that Trump was Trump well before he even met Hillary Clinton.   Trump would have behaved as he did regardless of who was running against him.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.24  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.23    2 years ago
My position is that Trump was Trump well before he even met Hillary Clinton.

I agree.  As was Clinton.

Trump would have behaved as he did regardless of who was running against him.

The question is would another candidate have run the same type campaign?  What candidate has ever smeared their opponents to this manner?

Did you forget or just not pay attention to how Clinton tried to smear Obama in 2012 with Muslim BS before Bernie was her challenger in 2016? 

As to Bernie, the following link is from 2015. 

Clinton seemed to be always smearing her challengers with ties to terrorists or communists or Russians.  The tactics rarely changed much.   Her supporters did not care how many lies or how dirty the tactics, a win was all that mattered.

I don't know how Obama and Bernie have coped with such outrageous smears against their character as well as they have.  Obama has had vindication by winning the nomination and two presidential elections.  There is no telling what Trump would have done if he had won his second election.  We do know what happened when he didn't.  As we know that Clinton wrote a book and went on a blame everyone else tour that few people attended.  Unfortunately, no one could convince Trump to do the same.

Hopefully, we can put Clinton and Trump in the political rearview mirror in the very near future and find people more worthwhile, innovative and peaceful to lead the US into the future.

Bernie Sanders Goes On The Attack After Pro-Clinton Super PAC Launches Smear Campaign (politicususa.com)

Bernie Sanders Goes On The Attack After Pro-Clinton Super PAC Launches Smear Campaign

Bernie Sanders is firing back after an obviously panicked pro-Clinton super PAC launched a smear campaign against the rising Independent challenger.

The Huffington Post   received an email from pro-Clinton super PAC Correct The Record that tried to connect Sanders to dictators and terrorists:

.....

Sen. Sanders responded with an email to supporters, “Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent Super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously. They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator. It was the kind of onslaught I expected to see from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson, and it’s the second time a billionaire Super PAC has tried to stop the momentum of the political revolution we’re building together.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.24    2 years ago
The question is would another candidate have run the same type campaign? 

Trump's smear tactics were rock bottom;  worse than any other candidate in my memory.   But that is not my big concern.   My big concern is that Trump himself is a terrible human being.   We should not be electing malignant narcissists (especially those who are also pathological liars) to the office of PotUS.

Anticipating your reply, no I do not see other politicians operating at the level of narcissism and lying that is quintessential Trump.   He makes them look humble and honest by comparison.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.26  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.24    2 years ago

I must call it a night.  I have errands that should be done shortly after daylight, and it often takes hours to fall asleep after being online.  I am going to find a somewhat boring book on Kindle.  All the best and pleasant dreams.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.27  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.26    2 years ago

Best to you Missouri Cow Girl!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.1.28  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.25    2 years ago
I do not see other politicians operating at the level of narcissism and lying that is quintessential Trump.   He makes them look humble and honest by comparison.

And that somehow makes them worthy of support if they are somehow more of a covert narcissist that an openly malignant narcissist?  

Please give details on what you see as the different levels of narcissism and how their traits differ to the point that any level of narcissist has any capacity to be trusted in the highest levels of leadership.

Consider this:  All psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are psychopaths.

Would warmongers be psychopaths?  That would be a whole different level of toxic.

If you have the time and interest, then research and seed some articles and/or videos on narcissism and psychopathy.  I have spent the better part of two years learning why some people attract narcissists and remain devoted to them for all kinds of reasons. 

On the political side, I haven't done any research into why people worship their narcissistic politicians.  I was briefly a Reagan supporter.  And then supported Obama because I thought that he had the ability to move the US into the future.  I seem to have far more in common with the 90+ million people who don't vote for various reasons.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.29  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.28    2 years ago
And that somehow makes them worthy of support if they are somehow more of a covert narcissist that an openly malignant narcissist? 

No, that is not what I was saying.   I was trying to make it clear that Trump is a historic, profound exception (in a bad way).

Please give details on what you see as the different levels of narcissism and how their traits differ to the point that any level of narcissist has any capacity to be trusted in the highest levels of leadership.

Uh, no.   You can understand my point without that exercise.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago

So much for the rumor that you are liberal or progressive.  Oh well, we all make mistakes. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.2.1  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 years ago
So much for the rumor that you are liberal or progressive. 

Us vs them is an ingrained human behavior.  Sides change depending on the issue.  My side is trying to understand both sides and societal benefit.  It is what independent thinking is all about.  It can be damned lonely, but it is physically & emotionally safer than dealing with partisans who believe the world revolves around them.

Oh well, we all make mistakes.

I may, but there are very few people who have enlightened me on what mine are when it comes to facts and figures.

However, this is not about me is it?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  mocowgirl @6.2.1    2 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago

Well done!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.4  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago

Gig economy.  Trump's unemployment numbers benefited from the development of the gig economy. Very few of those were good paying jobs. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4    2 years ago

Trump had nothing to do with it. / S


 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4    2 years ago

Stats listed above prove you wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.5  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago

I'm not surprised you support him with your hatred of the Clintons being so well known.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.6  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
Trump Administration Accomplishments – The White House (archives.gov)

I looked at that site, the one you used. It does not have a single piece of supporting documentation for its assertions. For all we know it is all Trumpian propaganda. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.6.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.6    2 years ago

What you said sounds much more like the case here John.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.6.2  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @6.6    2 years ago
It does not have a single piece of supporting documentation for its assertions. For all we know it is all Trumpian propaganda. 

I agree.

I don't understand why you are wasting time discussing my personality instead of proving the assertions wrong.

Is it because you can't prove them wrong?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.6.3  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6.6.2    2 years ago

Why should I spend my time proving your assertions wrong? They are your assertions. 

You repeated information from a Donald Trump website, information that does not contain even a scrap of supporting evidence. 

I looked up the claim that Trump got 10 million people off of welfare. The fact checking site Politifact gave that a HALF-TRUE rating. Half true is not that good. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.6.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  mocowgirl @6.6.2    2 years ago

Donald Trump’s modus operandi is to use a flood of unsubstantiated or marginally true claims, as well as outright lies, to cloud every issue that he engages.  He wants fact checkers busy spending their time focusing on a landfill of bogus information to throw everyone off the trail of his true narcissistic intentions.  Believing anything this pathological liar says is your first mistake.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.6.5  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @6.6.3    2 years ago
Half true is not that good. 

I agree.

I am impressed that you took the time to verify instead of just arguing.

Sincerely.  Kudos to you.  

It takes a lot of time and effort to verify information in the news.  After years of research, I can't keep track of what I have read.  I spend more hours researching than I ever do commenting on the internet anywhere.  These days, I have to take long breaks from commenting because it is impossible to provide links to everything that I have read that has shaped my viewpoints.  I only want people to do their own research.  Maybe, they will occasionally be surprised at what they find.

One of my granddaughter's high school assignments was to take a news article, choose a position and verify the facts.  I was impressed that her school seemed to be trying to make their students argue from research instead of conceding all authority to whomever wrote the news article.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.6.6  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6.6.5    2 years ago

Fair enough. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.7  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration - Wikipedia

The following table summarizes real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth for "All Employees" and "Production and Non-supervisory Employees." The latter group excludes higher-paid managerial employees and is referred to as "blue collar" workers by President Trump. The data is listed by year and grouped for the last three years of the Obama Administration (2014–2016) and the first three years of the Trump Administration (2017–2019). In 2014 and 2019, blue collar employees had faster real wage gains than "All employees." For both groups of employees, real wage growth averaged 1.3% under Obama for 2014–2016 and 0.8% under Trump during 2017–2019. [264] [265]

Real Wage Growth (YOY Avg. % Chg) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Avg 2014–2016 Obama Avg 2017–2019 Trump
All Employees 0.4 2.1 1.3 0.4 0.6 1.5 1.3 0.8
Prod & Non-Supervisory 0.7 2.0 1.2 0.2 0.5 1.7 1.3 0.8

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.7.1  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @6.7    2 years ago

Obama inherited a nothing economy.  Wall Street had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. The wealthier got wealthier.  Jobs gains were largely low paying jobs in the service sector.  Wage gains from minimum wage to $10 an hour did little to impact poverty levels in the US.

For anyone interested in the wiki version of Obama Administration economic policy drawbacks and benefits.

Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration - Wikipedia

The reference (264) has an interesting slide graph.  Wages (adjusted with CPI) plunged in 2010, regained for a few months, plunged again, regained significantly in 2015 and were beginning to fall in 2016 before Trump took office.

Average earnings in the US rose to their highest levels from 2018-2019.  July 2019 is the end of the graph.

FRED Graph | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Reference (265) is an opinion piece from the New York Times and is behind a paywall.  It is difficult to verify something that is impossible to read.  I certainly have no reason to consider it a trusted source, but my criteria for trusted sources may be unreasonable.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.8  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
U.S. GDP growth under Trump was substantially below the U.S. GDP growth achieved by other presidents, [268]   Trump presided over the slowest economic growth of any U.S. president since the Second World War. [269]

In the first three years of the Trump administration, U.S. GDP growth was 2.3% (2017), 3.0% (2018) and 2.2% (2019), [269]   a middling record among recent U.S. presidents. [270]   Growth in Trump's peak year, 3.0%, was surpassed in 17 of the preceding 39 years under presidents from Reagan to Obama.

Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration - Wikipedia
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.9  Dulay  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
I am providing a link to Trump Administration Accomplishment as of January 2021.

The 'accomplishments' you cited have a HUGE caveat which predicates all of those claims. 

The list starts with this statement:

Before the China Virus invaded our shores, we built the world’s most prosperous economy.

So, as you can see, Trump is abdicating any and all responsibility for the US economy after Jan. 2020. Pretty convenient little trick right there. 

Oh and of course, Trump didn't build the 'world's most prosperous economy'.  In fact, we've been @ around 17th on the prosperity index for decades. 

Of course, Trump supporters will try to hang their hats on US GDP but then they'll have to admit that the US had the highest GDP for GENERATIONS before Trump took office. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
Currently the Dems are working on more welfare handouts to address oil profiteering instead of addressing the real problem - oil profiteering.  It is the same old, same old as usual because it is the playbook they wrote, and they aren't going to change it now unless the US citizens make them.

What was the Republican plan again to combat oil profiteering ? A Canadien enriching Pipeline, permission to ruin our pristine National Parklands(none of which could or would have affected the price of oil to date), and to not pursue Greener alternative Fuels, so as Big Oil could continue to fck US All ? Or, Perhaps getting cozier with Putin while he provided US with intel on Hunter Biden while Bombing The Red Cross in Ukraine  ?  I just dont understand how people can be manipulated  so easily by the sleazily,  and Never Will !

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.10.1  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.10    2 years ago

It appears to some that the republicans can do no wrong and the Democrats can do nothing right and we're supposed to believe those folks are independents, or right down the center??????????????????????

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6.10.2  mocowgirl  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.10    2 years ago
What was the Republican plan again to combat oil profiteering ?

Unacceptable.

I was a fan of Jimmy Carter when he put solar panels on the White House.  He is also the only president since 1980 to build houses for others instead of himself.  That has made me even more of a fan.

I realized that Reagan/Bush were in the pockets of the oil barons when Reagan had them removed.

Every president since Jimmy Carter has done very little to wean the US from dependence on fossil fuels.  Remember Obama's "clean coal"?  

Who really believes in "clean coal"?

Wouldn't more than $5 billion dollars have been better spent developing alternative energy sources?

Obama Administration Announces Clean Coal Research Awards for Universities Across the Country | Department of Energy

“Advancing the development of clean coal technologies is an important part of President Obama’s strategy to develop every source of American energy and ensure the United States leads the world in the global clean energy race and continues to take advantage of domestic resources here at home,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.  “These university research projects will help build on extensive progressive made by this Administration to promote innovative technologies that help make coal-fired energy cleaner and more cost-competitive, while training the next generation of scientists and engineers in cutting-edge clean coal technologies.”

The projects announced today at the nine universities will each receive approximately $300,000 to spur the next generation of trained scientists and engineers from universities across the nation to focus on the development of high-temperature, high-pressure corrosion-resistant alloys, protective coatings, and structural materials for advanced coal-fired power plants and gas turbines. Research projects will also develop new processes and computational design methods to develop these materials, improve efficiency and reduce the costs of cleaner power generation systems. The Energy Department’s $2.7 million investment will be leveraged with additional funds from the universities to support $3.1 million in total projects.

Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.
 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  mocowgirl @6    2 years ago
Unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those without a high school diploma all reached record lows.

Black unemployment rates dropped from 14.4% when President Obama took office in January 2009 to 7.3% January of 2017 when President Trump took office. When Trump left office January of 2021 it was at 9.4%. There was about 10 months during 2019 when the black unemployment rate hit its lowest but of course shot right back up under Trump.

Unemployment for women hit its lowest rate in nearly 70 years.

Same thing was true for women's unemployment rates. Under Obama it dropped from 8.6% to 4.3% by 2017, then under Trump it temporarily dropped by 1 additional percentage point till jumping back up to 8.3% in 2020.

Lifted nearly 7 million people off of food stamps.

Again, a trend started under President Obama that few bitter conservative bigots would give him credit for but now apparently credit all to the Mango Mussolini for some reason.

There were 8.5 million fewer people on food stamps in 2018 than in December 2013 Ten states — North Carolina, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Kansas, Utah, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arizona — saw the share of SNAP recipients fall by more than 30 percent between 2013 and 2018.

Poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans reached record lows.

Again, dropped from 15.1% down to 12.3% when Trump took office and was at 13.2% by January 2021 when he left office.

Income inequality fell for two straight years, and by the largest amount in over a decade.

The income inequality between whites and minorities fell dramatically not because of anything Trump did but because of the 2008 great recession that dropped the average white wealth from their peak in 2007 of just over $200k to under $150k. From 2013 through 2020 the wealth of minority Americans rose at almost the same rate as white wealth but had little to nothing to do with Trump or his policies.

The net worth is tied to those numbers on income inequality and show the exact same trends started under Obama but continued under Trump.

Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue collar workers – a 16 percent pay increase.

Another cherry picked façade. The reality is that that spike occurred after the pandemic began.

Companies are in desperate need of workers across the country as the economic reopening collides with a tight labor market, but the boom in manual labor job wage growth pre-dates the pandemic.

African American homeownership increased from 41.7 percent to 46.4 percent

Just more cherry picked numbers showing a brief moment of the Trump Presidency that was riding the gains made by President Obama after the housing market crash that occurred under the prior Republican administration that then crashed back down to 43.4% in Trumps last year in office.

If you're just reading the supposed " Accomplishment's" that have been carefully worded by Trump and his minions to contain just enough truth, no matter how fleeting the gains were, to make it seem like dirty Donald actually did something worth celebrating, then sadly they have you right where they want you, stuffed headfirst in the right wing conservative alternate universe aka Trumps metaphorical colon.

Just because a doctor can claim he removed all the cancer from his patient, should it really matter if hours later the patient dies from sepsis due to the bacteria introduced during surgery? I think the answer is clear, and hopefully his future patients will research all the actual outcomes instead of just regurgitating the doctors own website that does nothing but sing his praises before signing their own child up for his supposed miracle cancer cures.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
7  pat wilson    2 years ago

Meanwhile the former president is actively begging one of the U.S.A.'s biggest enemies to provide dirt on our sitting president. No matter what your political affiliation you can't find this acceptable.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
7.1  pat wilson  replied to  pat wilson @7    2 years ago

Sorry for the off-topic post TiG.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
8  afrayedknot    2 years ago

At some point, it becomes necessary to delineate ‘accomplishments’ (an arbitrary valuation at best) and character (an absolute). 

Let trump run on his accomplishments as he and his followers may cite, but his character flaws are beyond reconciliation, and that is too far a bridge to cross. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @8    2 years ago

I had a supervisor who once told me that one "oh shit" wipes out all accumulated "atta boys"

Well....I do believe that trmp had more oh shits than atta boys...but that's just my hyper partisan, TDS driven opinion

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
8.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    2 years ago

“…my hyper partisan, TDS driven opinion“

…and that will certainly be the focus of the coming wave of rebuttals conveniently ignoring the salient point; either personal character matters or it does not…

Looking forward to the day when ‘TDS’ is no longer used as a bromide.

It is so, so lazy. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.2  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @8.1.1    2 years ago
when ‘TDS’ is no longer used

don't count on it. the people that use it most only have a 33% chance of spelling it out correctly.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9  devangelical    2 years ago

trump's only accomplishment was to create a political coalition among the white supremacists, neo-nazis, and mentally challenged.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10  Ender    2 years ago

Seriously have to disagree on him with donald and national security.

He let us know who the bad guys were? How so, by saying he was writing letters to the North Korean dictator?

Not buying that.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11  Transyferous Rex    2 years ago
  1. Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
  2. Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, and long incarcerations of prisoners.
  3. The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists…
  4. Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
  5. The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation.
  6. Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation or by sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Government censorship and secrecy, especially in war time, are very common.
  7. Fear of hostile foreign powers is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
  8. Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
  9. The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
  10. Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
  11. Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
  12. Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
  13. Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
  14. Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

My issue with this guy's characterization of the "conservative's view of Trump's accomplishments" is this. Most everything he mentions, of which are reflected in the above list, are glass half full/empty issues, depending on which side of the aisle you tend to stand on, and which side of the aisle is promoting or "accomplishing" anything on the list. 

If anyone here can explain what is wrong with recognizing a national symbol, I'll listen. Each olympics, I see athlete after athlete proudly stand in recognition of their nation's anthem and colors. They're all fascists? No. There is nothing wrong with the flag or the eagle folks, and I'm certain nobody in Trump's admin was mandating that you flew the flag. Talk about Kaepernick all you want. He wasn't arrested and thrown in prison. If Kaepernick is free to kneel, which he is, then everyone else is free to have an opinion on the kneeling.

We just spent all of 2021 ignoring rights on the notion of "need" for a vaccine that did not prevent the spread of a virus. I guess Biden's a fascist. 

Trump is clearly the common unifying threat the left has been focused on. Per the list, people portraying him as such...fascists.

As soon as the military starts goose stepping through the streets, talk to me. We are a far site away from glamorizing the military here. Here, simple respect for our men and women in service is out of fashion, and what is considered fascism today. Not even close.

Male dominated? Stop already. Trump's admin and staff was 48% female. 

Media? Shit, the left can't say a damn thing about this one.

Fear of hostile foreign powers? Fascist, apparently, if it is a threat promoted by the right. Any foreign power promoted as a threat by the left? That's different apparently. But let's be serious. There are threats, acknowledging them is not fear mongering or fascist, it's reasonable. 8 years ago, Russia was allegedly a dead horse, and the left even poked fun at the right for suggesting Putin was a threat. 

Neither party can claim itself free from the overarching control of money. Somehow, the party that decries wealth the most, is also the party supported by the wealthiest people though. I seriously doubt these people are biting the hand that feeds them.

Unions? Read an article recently, describing Mussolini's affinity toward trade unions, and use of the same. Mussolini...not fascist?

I don't recall the government arresting a professor for espousing any political views under the Trump admin. Free expression is under attack, but only if it doesn't align with the left's views. Funding of the arts? Beau talks of Trump's attempt to defund the National Endowment for the Arts in this respect. As I understood, Trump's issue was whether or not that was something better left to the respective states. Fascist? Again, half empty or half full? 

Police power. It's one thing to support the police. It's another to promote a national police force. One party respects state's rights, one does not. One party favors federalism, one party is leaning to a centralization of everything, including the police power. The latter is more akin to fascism, and not a conservative or Trump supporter's view of the ideal situation. 

Appointing friends and associates? Well, that's all Washington is, on both sides, and one of the reasons Trump was so hated there in the first place. He wasn't one of the good ol' boys. How'd we end up with Biden? He's the current biggest good ol' boy of them all. He damn sure was not the best the dems had to offer, but somehow gaffed and hair sniffed his way through. 

Sham elections? Millions across the US are feeling the bern, from the past two democratic primaries. Trump won the primary, in spite of the lack of support from the party. Biden? As indicated above, he wasn't the fastest or strongest horse, he just happened to be the oldest and best connected horse. Thankfully, nobody really needs a horse, just a name to promote and throw money at. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11    2 years ago
If anyone here can explain what is wrong with recognizing a national symbol, I'll listen.

Did you interpret the list of 12 items (disregarding the two bad) as all bad?   That is, do you think Beau was arguing that recognizing the national symbol is bad or wrong?

When I watched this video I saw the question:

Why would anyone support Trump for PotUS given all we know about him and especially after he so clearly demonstrated his narcissism, dishonesty and willingness to trash even the nation to get what he wants?

To me Beau gave an answer to that question from the perspective of those who support Trump.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.1.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    2 years ago
Did you interpret the list of 12 items (disregarding the two bad) as all bad?   That is, do you think Beau was arguing that recognizing the national symbol is bad or wrong?

I don't know who Beau is, nor have I ever seen or heard him before this. 

To your questions. No, clearly I don't consider them as all bad, as they are painted by Beau while he is reeling in the Trump supporters that may be watching. 

Nobody had to be ashamed that they loved the American flag, or the bald eagle, those symbols of the nation. He brought nationalism back, he made it okay.

That's what Beau said, as the hook. Then, at the end, in his "gotcha" moment, he claims that the reason liberals hate Trump is because the above quoted sentiment is #1 on the list of 14 characteristics of fascism. The logical conclusion is that having a sense of pride in the flag, the eagle, or a sense of nationalism is fascist. Anyone promoting those, e.g. Trump, is fascist, and those that support said Trump are either fascist, or moronic.

There is a canyon between loving the American symbols, and the brainwashing through mottos and propaganda employed the Nazis. The insinuation that the two are equivalent is BS, which he does, because he makes no distinction between loving the flag or eagle and the first characteristic of fascism. He simply leaves it with his "gotcha" moment. Everything you love about Trump is in reality in the Fascists Handbook. I have a problem with such broad strokes and the ignoring of the blatant examples we can find everywhere else, if we are going to equate any level of action to fascism. What he is doing is akin to saying that, because I had sex with my wife, I am a pedophile. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.1.1    2 years ago
I don't know who Beau is, nor have I ever seen or heard him before this. 

Beau stated in the video that he was going to present 12 points that are considered good by Trump supporters and 2 points that he considers to be bad.   So you need not know him to know his stated intent.

Anyone promoting those, e.g. Trump, is fascist, and those that support said Trump are either fascist, or moronic.

Do you really think that he was arguing that he believes taking pride in one's nation is inherently bad?    If so, you are being too literal and definitely missing the point.

I have a problem with such broad strokes and the ignoring of the blatant examples we can find everywhere else, if we are going to equate any level of action to fascism.

If this were an argument that Trump is a fascist then I would agree with you.   But that is not the argument that I hear.   His fascism punchline, as I interpret the video, brings home the point that Trump used historically successful methods to rally support — methods that have worked even for the worst characters in history.

In short, this is not an argument that Trump is a fascist.   At least that is not my intent in seeding this piece.

Rather, it is a very good explanation as to why Trump supporters did and do support such a miserable character like Trump regardless of what he does.   It explains why —even after Trump so clearly demonstrated to the world that he will gratuitously lie no matter how much harm he brings to others even if the lie is simply to preserve his ego— people continue to support this abysmal character.   Trump used methods that work extremely well at a societal level.


In short, how is it possible that so many people (and essentially the GOP) support Trump (even now)?

Beau's answer (at least in this video) is that Trump used a great playbook;  one that has proved successful for even the most miserable historical figures.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.1.1    2 years ago
No, clearly I don't consider them as all bad, as they are painted by Beau while he is reeling in the Trump supporters that may be watching.
That's what Beau said, as the hook. 

You may want to note that the video has been up for over a year and there isn't ONE 'dislike' vote and over 40K like votes. There are also over 8k comments. 

If Trump supporters were 'reeled in' they decided to STFU after watching. 

The logical conclusion is that having a sense of pride in the flag, the eagle, or a sense of nationalism is fascist.

FALSE.

Pride in the flag or the eagle are NOT inherently 'nationalism'. 

Trump USED them symbolically as a way to promote blind nationalism, which, as the list states, IS inherent in fascism. 

Anyone promoting those, e.g. Trump, is fascist, and those that support said Trump are either fascist, or moronic. There is a canyon between loving the American symbols, and the brainwashing through mottos and propaganda employed the Nazis. The insinuation that the two are equivalent is BS, which he does, because he makes no distinction between loving the flag or eagle and the first characteristic of fascism. Everything you love about Trump is in reality in the Fascists Handbook.

Wow, that's some hyperbolic bullshit right there.

You must have watched a different video than I did. 

I have a problem with such broad strokes and the ignoring of the blatant examples we can find everywhere else, if we are going to equate any level of action to fascism.

Obviously NOT since in the next sentence you use some pretty fucking broad strokes. 

What he is doing is akin to saying that, because I had sex with my wife, I am a pedophile. 

Now that's not only hyperbolic, it's delusional. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.4  Ender  replied to  Dulay @11.1.3    2 years ago

Imo there is a difference between having pride in a flag and having someone's face imprinted over it...

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.1.5  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.2    2 years ago
So you need not know him to know his stated intent.

I only offered background to express that I had no preconceived biases. 

His fascism punchline, as I interpret the video, brings home the point that Trump used historically successful methods to rally support — methods that have worked even for the worst characters in history. In short, this is not an argument that Trump is a fascist.   At least that is not my intent in seeding this piece.

That's the problem with communication, isn't it? If I called you a fascist, using that term, to your face, there'd be little doubt. This guy isn't doing that, he is leaving his motive and intent up for interpretation. 

Here is why liberals and leftists were so opposed to this. These 14 points, are the 14 characteristics of fascism. (6 seconds of silence) You were nodding your head throughout the whole thing, I imagine….The 12 points, that I just mentioned, that were great things for Trump, and the two negative things that they would concede, are the 14 characteristics of fascism. Yeah, you were holding a monkey’s paw, when you asked me to do this video.

It follows that promoting pride in the nation and it's symbols is fascist, along with the other "12 good things" that someone might nod their head with here. Again, there is a canyon between promoting pride in the nation and our symbols, and what the Nazis did. 

Beau's answer (at least in this video) is that Trump used a great playbook;  one that has proved successful for even the most miserable historical figures.

You can say the same with what the liberals are doing, which is, again, my problem with this. Instead of attempting to get conservatives to feel bad for supporting an alleged fascist, maybe he should have simply said that liberals hated the donald because he was possibly the most caustic guy that's held the position. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.1.6  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @11.1.3    2 years ago
Now that's not only hyperbolic, it's delusional. 

Not really. "nobody had to be ashamed that they loved the American flag" is leagues away from the propaganda employed by the Nazis. Yet, simply saluting the flag is likened to fascism here. If you are comfortable with that logical leap, then it is no step to make the leap associating sexual gratification with a consenting adult to getting your jollies off with a minor. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.1.7  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @11.1.3    2 years ago
FALSE. Pride in the flag or the eagle are NOT inherently 'nationalism'. 

I never said they were. You want to badger me about noting shit, then note the conjunction in my sentence you referring to. 

Obviously NOT since in the next sentence you use some pretty fucking broad strokes. 

I didn't post the video using the broad strokes, I commented on it. The broad painting I did was clearly an example of how broad I perceive his to be, which is plain on the face of my comment of "What he is doing is akin to saying that, because I had sex with my wife, I am a pedophile." So, the take away here is that, you apparently have no problem with the broad strokes of Beau, but you do with mine, which is but an example of Beau's. Hmmm?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.1.6    2 years ago
"nobody had to be ashamed that they loved the American flag" is leagues away from the propaganda employed by the Nazis. 

No such comparison was made. Propaganda is mentioned in the video OR the linked list.

You're just throwing crap at the wall. 

Yet, simply saluting the flag is likened to fascism here.

Where? 

No need to reply, since your comment is just more hyperbolic BS. 

 If you are comfortable with that logical leap, then it is no step to make the leap associating sexual gratification with a consenting adult to getting your jollies off with a minor. 

You're the only one making that leap Rex and it isn't logical because you fabricated the pretext. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.1.9  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @11.1.8    2 years ago
No such comparison was made. Propaganda is mentioned in the video OR the linked list.

If you won't acknowledge that a comparison is made, then the conversation is over. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.1.7    2 years ago
You want to badger me about noting shit, 

Tissue? 

then note the conjunction in my sentence you referring to. 

I DID.  'or' is a coordinating conjunction Rex. 

I didn't post the video using the broad strokes, I commented on it.

Yes, I know. 

The broad painting I did was clearly an example of how broad I perceive his to be, which is plain on the face of my comment of "What he is doing is akin to saying that, because I had sex with my wife, I am a pedophile."

Your perception lacks pretext. 

So, the take away here is that, you apparently have no problem with the broad strokes of Beau, but you do with mine, which is but an example of Beau's. Hmmm?

Again, you try to justify your comment by conflating it with Beau's. It's a false equivalency. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
11.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.1.9    2 years ago

If you won't acknowledge that propaganda wasn't mentioned and therefore NO comparison was made to 'propaganda employed by the Nazis', that's for the best. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.1.12  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @11.1.10    2 years ago
DID.  'or' is a coordinating conjunction Rex. 

Which is why I used "or" instead of "and." They are independent, and the truth of one doesn't depend on the truth of the others. Thanks for the lecture though. In your next lesson, break down your sentence, and exaggerated use of "or" in the following:

Propaganda is mentioned in the video OR the linked list.
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2  Sparty On  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11    2 years ago

Never thought I’d say this but I’m becoming a big fan of soccer.

Most countries players stand and proudly sing their national anthems.    

Most countries ....

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.2.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Sparty On @11.2    2 years ago

Sparty, the fact that I am trading comments with people, who refuse to acknowledge that the dude is equating having pride in the nation and our symbols to the first characteristic of fascism, is telling. From what I am reading here, and seeing elsewhere, patriotism is being conflated with nationalism, as that term is understood to apply to nazi germany. I don't know anyone that claims to be a patriot, that does not also see room for improvement. The two are not mutually exclusive; yet, the current mantra is that they are.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.2.1    2 years ago

Who do you see saying these things? I call myself a patriot and take pride in the Flag. I get quite irritated when I see a torn, dirty, ratty flag flying. I hate seeing it defamed with someone's photo or someone wearing it as a bikini. I spent 10 years saluting that flag every morning and afternoon. So this is one patriot that can see improvements needed in our country, but I'm damn proud to be an American...and a liberal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.2    2 years ago

How about a flag with Trump's face on it? 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
11.2.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.2    2 years ago

“…but I'm damn proud to be an American...and a liberal”

Never, ever mutually exclusive, and any comment otherwise is to be taken for what it is worth.

Your words and demeanor are an example all of us should emulate. Always welcome and appreciated. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.3    2 years ago

That's unethical, immoral, and disgusting. I would say the same if someone put a photo of someone I loved on a flag

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @11.2.4    2 years ago

Aww....thank-you.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
11.2.7  afrayedknot  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.3    2 years ago

“How about a flag with Trump's face on it?”

An abhorrent aberration. The most base (emphasis on base) abuse of symbolism imaginable. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.2.8  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.2    2 years ago

I hate seeing flags in the beds of trucks.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.2.9  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.2    2 years ago

Not you Trout, but it's out there. And, my comment is not limited to conservatives claiming to be patriots, which is why I did not qualify it. I don't remotely believe that patriotism is reserved for one political ideology over another. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.2.9    2 years ago
I don't remotely believe that patriotism is reserved for one political ideology over another. 

Neither do I.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.2.1    2 years ago
From what I am reading here, and seeing elsewhere, patriotism is being conflated with nationalism, as that term is understood to apply to nazi germany.

I think you are reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into this.

I seeded this video because I think Beau offers additional considerations on the question of why people support Trump in spite of his abysmal character.

What Beau has shown is that Trump used methods that historically have been very successful in garnering support from societies —even some of the worst leaders in history have been successful with these methods.

I have explained this repeatedly and am about done with it.   Some people seem to want to leap to the extremes and argue there and even when the seeder's intent is clarified repeatedly they ignore that and continue on the extremes rather than actually discuss the intent as described.

In short, the intent has been clarified but some refuse to even consider the intent and remain focused on the fringe and extreme interpretations of this video.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.12  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.11    2 years ago
In short, the intent has been clarified but some refuse to even consider the intent and remain focused on the fringe and extreme interpretations of this video.

Lol ..... opinions do vary on that.    Mine is that I consider yours and others like your opinion on this to be “fringe and extreme.”

His intent is clearly to demean and minimalize anyone who supported Trump in any way.    Triggered if you will.    Like so many others here on NT when it comes to Trump.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.2.13  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.12    2 years ago

Do you think that a political "fringe" whooped Trump by seven million votes? Explain That!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.14  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @11.2.13    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.15  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.12    2 years ago

My position is that Beau's 14 points are accurate.    

If that is fringe and extreme then make a case as to why his points are inaccurate.

My position is NOT that the Trump is a fascist but that Trump used methods that have historically proved successful for even the worst characters in history.

In short, my position is that this video offers part of the answer to the question:  "Why do people still support Trump as the leader of the GOP and PotUS especially given his behavior post-election-loss?"

So deliver an argument rather than drop in with unsubstantiated allegations.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.2.16  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.14    2 years ago

Trump is still asking Putin for help winning the 2020 election, and he is running for 2024...

This article is about Trump and here you are!

Maybe you and Trump should finally concede.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.2.17  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.15    2 years ago

Why have I never seen you as far left fringe?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.18  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.15    2 years ago

Sorry pal, like usual your “positions” are nothing more than opinions.    Like my opinion you ignored in the post you are responding to.    Nothing more, nothing less.

As usual you are over analyzing, probably because of an anti Trump bias.   It’s pretty simple really.    Most people I know who supported him did so simply because they agreed with many of the positions he took and unlike most politicians he kept his promises.    Much to the consternation of the triggered left.

14 points, 140 points, 1400 points, it would make no difference.   It’s simply as noted above.

Now we have a babbling fool in the whitehouse who lied to get in and gets a complete pass from the same triggered fools.    A total joke, just like this guys video.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
11.2.19  afrayedknot  replied to  JBB @11.2.16    2 years ago

“Maybe you and Trump should finally concede.”

Concession is not in the playbook…too many syllables…just as procedure, acceptance, Constitution, et.al are concepts that alas, are not easily put on a bumper sticker and cannot be chanted at a rally without an interpreter. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.20  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @11.2.17    2 years ago

Trump is running in 2024?    I missed that announcement entirely.    

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.18    2 years ago

In short, you have nothing to offer other than bullshit.    Take your trolling elsewhere.    You are not welcome on this seed.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.22  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.21    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11    2 years ago
Sham elections? Millions across the US are feeling the bern, from the past two democratic primaries.

I am one of the millions.  I will never forget (or forgive) the smear campaigns against the only candidate I would have considered voting for in the 2016 presidential election.  

And I still did not vote for Trump contrary to the constant attacks I have endured both online and off from Clinton supporters -even though I seriously considered it in 2020 because of all of the uncalled-for bullying and harassment I've put up with.  But I just could not vote for Trump any more than I could vote for Clinton or Biden.   

I don't know why, but most professional politicians have the same appeal to me as ambulance chasing lawyers.  

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.3.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  mocowgirl @11.3    2 years ago

Love him, or hate him, (and it's apparently one or the other) Trump is, at the very least, an example of the power the electorate does have. The republican elitists tried their damndest to marginalize him, and to parade their dog and pony show. Unfortunately for them, the republican primaries allow for a dark horse. Otherwise, we'd have had a Bush/Clinton choice. (and it would have been Clinton over Bush, again, no pun intended) Democratic primary? I think it's set up to crush whoever the powers that be see fit to crush. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.3.1    2 years ago
Trump is, at the very least, an example of the power the electorate does have.

Indeed.   Trump's power comes from his supporters.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Quiet
11.3.3  Transyferous Rex  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.2    2 years ago

Double edged sword, no doubt. But, as double edged swords do, it cuts both ways. Just as he is able gin up support, he also has a habit of turning people away. So long as the power is in the people, we will have the ability to make mistakes, and to correct them. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11.3.3    2 years ago

I agree but my disappointment is that the correction was not made.   The perfect time to distance the GOP from Trump was when he left office.   He had just illustrated in crystal clear terms just how miserable a human being he is in his Big Lie con-job.   Everyone should see that this is not a person who should be PotUS or be the leader of a major party.

Yet, here we are more than a year later and Trump remains the leader of the GOP and a potential candidate for PotUS.

This monstrous mistake continues without correction and continues to degrade the GOP.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.5  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.4    2 years ago

And these Trump supporters lavish in the degradation. They are right where they wish and intent to be!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.3.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.3.5    2 years ago

Many of them acknowledge that Trump's character is abysmal but they are able to hold their noses on that aspect because they like his policies.   I frankly find it amazing given Trump's character is so bad and after he proved to the world in such clear terms that he is willing to —at a grand level— lie, cheat, coerce, suborn, etc. in an attempt to steal an election to soothe his bruised ego.

Trump supporters, thus, ultimately consider Trump's character / demeanor / integrity / etc. to be not as important as his policy.   They prioritize the qualities low.  Given how profoundly bad these qualities are with Trump, the priorities they assign have to be at the point of insignificance.

I just cannot wrap my head around that except to factor in partisan blindness where they imagine the other guy to be so unacceptable that they are willing to actually support a horrible human being like Trump as the leader of the GOP and potential candidate for PotUS.

shake-my-head-snoop-dogg.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.3.7  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.3.6    2 years ago

It is clear to me. Trump's policy are exclusionary. And these people love him for that alone. There is little to no daylight between Trump and his new version of the republican political 'wing.'  What some of these people want is 'us': people of color, white liberals, and secularists  (everybody they speak out against, demonize, and dehumanize) to know and stay in our places inside a white evangelical coalition of like-minded citizenry-led society.

It is all they are writing about and complaining about ad-nauseam. They do not buck one iota. Trump uses their whims (against 'us) to keep them aligned under his 'leadership.' They are only complaining about 'us.' Everything we value as humans and Americans (on balance) is an offense to their worldview.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
11.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Transyferous Rex @11    2 years ago
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

This is the linchpin that holds the lie about fascism together.  Patriotism and nationalism are NOT the same things.  But it's necessary to equate the two for the lie about fascism to hold together.

Patriots do not attempt to dominate the world; nationalists do attempt to dominate the world.  Patriotism manifests itself as 'love of country' and is used to rally people to meet national challenges.  Patriots defend a country, defend national identity, and defend a national way of life. 

Nationalism manifests itself as a 'love of ideology'.  Nationalists unify people around an ideology of superiority to create national power and then use that national power to dominate other countries and impose their ideology onto other countries.

Nationalists attempt to undermine and subvert patriotism.  Nationalists replace national unity with ideological unity.  Nationalists speak in terms of 'we as a people' rather than 'we as a country'.  And nationalists justify their actions in terms of ideological superiority as 'the right thing to do'.

Nationalists use patriotic symbols to represent an ideology of superiority that must be imposed on all countries.

The 'leader of the free world' represents an ideology of superiority that justifies imposing that ideology on all countries.  The 'leader of the free world' is more fascist than patriot.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
12  Dig    2 years ago

I think I have to take issue with some of the things Beau says Trump actually did.

- Made national security paramount? LOL. By shitting on allies, especially NATO?

- Called bad guys bad guys? LOL. Like Putin and Kim?

- Made things run on time? LOL. Like the Post Office?

- Big on law and order? Holy friggin' Moly! He's about as legally corrupt as they come, and operates with the dishonorable character of a Mob boss.

Was Beau trying to say those were things his supporters just believe about him?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
12.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @12    2 years ago

I think Beau was trying to consider things from Trump supporters' point of view.  In their eyes, he did those things.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @12    2 years ago
Was Beau trying to say those were things his supporters just believe about him?

Yes!

As Sandy noted, this was intended to explain why Trump supporters liked Trump.    With Trump he did not have to actually do anything.   It seems that all he had to do was claim he did something (or did not do something) and most of his supporters would run with it.

I found this video interesting because it gives a perspective on why so many people continue to want Trump as the leader of the GOP.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
12.2.1  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @12.2    2 years ago
It seems that all he had to do was claim he did something (or did not do something) and most of his supporters would run with it.

Trump keeps making false claims about his 'achievements' to this day. Trump claimed that he filled the national reserve [crude oil] to 100%. The data proves that during his term, the number of barrels of crude oil went DOWN by over 50 MILLION. 

If Trump's lips are moving, he's lying. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
13  Nerm_L    2 years ago

So, six minutes to deliver a damn lie about fascism.  How very unsurprising.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
13.1  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @13    2 years ago

What is the lie?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
14  bbl-1    2 years ago

Trump's accomplishments?  Would cleanly skating through the Clifford/McDougal sagas count?

 
 

Who is online

Ronin2
Outis


87 visitors