An Examination Of Trump.

[GAHD]

 

Ok I see your point about quote out of context, but:

also if I were to take only the tweets (which btw are fully reprinted on bbc usually) you would still say I took the single tweets out of the context (which is the only way of highlighting one ;-)).

 

I'm going to quickly re-step here to be sure we're on the same page:

 

I'm fairly certain I asked for direct proof of racism and you claimed his Charlottsville comments/tweets are proof of racism. You were unable to actually verify your claim, and actually self-identified a major telltale of illusory truth. The only evidence Re: Charlottsville shows nothing at all what you claim, but DOES reflect 3rd party libel and hearsay.

It's unfair of you to presume that IF you can provide what I indicated I'd say something like that. I set those goalposts, I have not moved them once in this exchange. I HAVE pointed out that you are not meeting those goalposts, and I'm glad that you finally seem to understand WHY you were not. When you say there is "proof" you should probably actually have "proof." The lack thereof and the latest deflection attempt directly reinforces what I've said regarding cognitive dissonance and Illusory truth effect being in play on your position. I sincerely hope you will think deeply on those and how they are causing you to make false claims and develop a negative view based on falsehood.

 

 

 

Congo: it is fun you fall exactly into the trap I did not say here, but did when I posted this article on facebook. I said someting like "of course, there is a lot people who say the additional money is just/mainly going to corruption. Thing is that is probably right, but local people can do something about that, while against money disappearing in a foreign company they can't do much". So thanks to this, the blaming if nothing changes moves more and more to locals.

Come'on Gahd, in the discussion we are having there is a logical chain which led here. Yeah, of course,  out of context like you like to point out ;), it has nothing to do.

 

See,  this is how our system is sick...I know if somehow a law is passed worldwide that minimum wage has to increase and maximum work hours reduced with the end product at same price it only implies a lot of people lose their job...Another fun example of this: I had a friend you doing civil service (instead of army in Switzerland, one of the 2 is compulsory) he went to Madagascar to teach physics, when he got there the school director told him that he can have a private cook, he said wtf this is colonialist bullshit, then director said that she has 4 kids and no income otherwise, so my friend had a private cook for a year...

Anyway that is why I am advocating for fair trade along the whole chain, implying that we have to pay more....

On the other hand:

You know slavery, also tends to make people not die (as long as they a re fit to work at least). This is where your argument breaks down and where it shows how sick the system is. Because such that we can live in our excess and afford it (eg. always last iphone), many are forced to work in conditions close to slavery (forced because as you say otherwise they die). This is what I say is wrong. This is why I say we should pay more for our excess such that it goes down the whole chain of production.

So no, sorry, it is not a partial thought and neither irrational conclusion.

 

Wrt to your sportscar example:

1) I prefer the decadent rich people to the non-decadent because they put money back in circulation.

2) Of course, it helped feed people along the whole production chain, what I am saying is not enough gets to the ones at the bottom (see previous paragraph).

 

 

 

 

Re Congo: Without foreign investor would the mining operation and it's revenue exist at all, yes/no? This directly relates to the infrastructure/excess chain I talked about earlier. I challenge you to consider foreign investment in your native country and trade related to that, as well as your own country's foreign investment practices. Since the topic of thread is an examination of Trump; it might even be good to use one of his companies as an example. Eg hotel chains and/or resorts, rather than a completely unrelated one (AFAICT).

This is  once again deflection from the root of the "logical chain which led here." AFAICT it's another move/expand of goalposts to avoid reconciling simple facts about Immigration(and finance, and infrastructure) in the western world(in relation to Trump and his presidency). It appears to be an ideologue form of reasoning rather than a rational and/or fruitful one. Can you see why I'm viewing it as such?

 

[Moronium]

There can't be any legitimate debate about the stone-cold fact that Trump is a raving racist.

 

They've told me so on CNN hundreds of times.  MSNBC too.  In fact, every major news outlet has repeatedly reported this fact.  I mean, like, just ask anybody.

 

And we're not just talking some Grand Wizard with a bullhorn here.  We're talking HITLER.

 

At this moment, Trump is constructing death camps for all races, religions and creeds that are not Aryan.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Donald Trump's paternal ancestry is traceable to Bobenheim am Berg, a village in the Palatinate, Germany, in the 18th century. Johann Trump, born in Bobenheim in 1789, moved to the nearby village of Kallstadt where his grandson, Friedrich Trump, the grandfather of Donald Trump, was born in 1869.This German heritage was long concealed by Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, who had grown up in a mainly German-speaking environment until he was 10 years old; after World War II and until the 1980s, he told people he was of Swedish ancestry.  Donald Trump repeated this version in The Art of the Deal (1987)...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Donald_Trump#Ancestry

 

A  fanatical German, posing as an innocuous Swede, see?

 

Says it all, know what I'm sayin?

Edited February 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Turns out that CNN identified the Governor of Virginia, a Democrat, who admitted to overtly racist sentiments, as a "Republican," eh?

 

Like, whooda thunk, I ask ya?

 

CNN -- the network that promotes the hashtag #FactsFirst -- mislabeled embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam as a Republican on Friday during a segment about the Democrat's apology for his racist 1984 medical school yearbook photo.

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnn-chyron-falsely-identified-ralph-northam-as-republican-during-segmen

Edited February 2, 2019 by Moronium

[sanctus]

You know Gahd, I hope you are right. But my gut-feeling tells me not. I m not able to give you a proof you would like it seems. I do not think the link I gave you is out of context but if you think so...just note  on the link I gave you also have this follwoing tweet from him :

Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

 

 

And in post 31 I say:

Ok, I admit that I have no proof he is racist in the way you want and maybe he even isn't. But as I said in an earlier post, of course there is no such proof, he is too smart for that. About being manipulated: who isn't? Anyway my dislike of him is the sum of all things he does/tweets/says...

 

So I already admitted twice I have not the proof you want, and even left space in my head that maybe he really is just an idot, but not racist.

 

Re Congo: most likely yes. And it would be a booming industry since we all want smartphones...why do they need foreign investment if the whole world screams for that product?

 

 

Lastly this part

 

 

This is  once again deflection from the root of the "logical chain which led here." AFAICT it's another move/expand of goalposts to avoid reconciling simple facts about Immigration(and finance, and infrastructure) in the western world(in relation to Trump and his presidency). It appears to be an ideologue form of reasoning rather than a rational and/or fruitful one. Can you see why I'm viewing it as such?

 

 

i am not sure I get/understand this. That Congo example is an excuse to not have to concile simple facts? What is an ideologue form of reasoning, like an ideologist? And why is it not fruitful? You make me think about things, and I hope I make you too.

[GAHD]

And in post 31 I say:

 

So I already admitted twice I have not the proof you want, and even left space in my head that maybe he really is just an idot, but not racist.

My point was even if you "admitted it" you have continued deflecting/etc(but my gut feeling tells me), which leads to me pointing out how you seem to be taking things that are "not evidence" as "evidence". I want to be sure you are aware of that. If you actually want to discuss that trump tweet in the first quote it might be a good example: what is actually said, and what have you personally added in to that meaning. What did the bbc editorial(assumption) you read that brought it to your attention add-on as meaning? Is it in response to some other comment?

 

Also that it was unfair to say I "would still say (you) took the single tweets out of the context." I'm honestly hoping you looked up a bit on that deflection and illusiory truth thing. It's a pitfall that seem to be hard-wired into us as humans and can be very dangerous.

 

Re Congo: most likely yes. And it would be a booming industry since we all want smartphones...why do they need foreign investment if the whole world screams for that product?

What kind of development do you think has occured in the Congo over the past say, 40 years? What do you think their industrial base is like? Their employment rate without forign industry and investors? Do you think they are/were capable of that kind of resource extraction? Think on those points and write a note to yourself before you click the little link here: link

 

I'm no expert on The Congo, but just a cursory examination tends to make me think they need the investment(s) to "bootstrap" them out of poverty index and actually develop an infrastructure. One of the things a lot of(pardon this term) "bleeding hearts" using ideology fail to recognize is that Infrastructure takes education, work and technology to both develop and maintain. And only by seeing and experiencing what the "foreign evil investors" can do will they be likely or able to do the same.

 

I'm pretty darned sure they do not have the local infrastructure for that, nor an understanding of why the material is useful to others, yet. It's like the water plants and general "foreign devil" infrastructures Boerson used to talk about with locals unable to operate after they evicted the "forigner interests". Can't really find that section of talks around here to reinforce(we need to fix the search index I think), but it's probably related to the Zimbabwe "white eviction" things you can look up if you play the google game. Only minorly important in that it's a host of examples where 1st-world Ideology and 2nd-3rd world reality clash. Another example One Laptop Per Child: ideology driven, vs reality outcome.

 

They probably don't know what cobalt is, probably can't use it themselves, and laugh at the foreigners who trade valuable food and power and cars and what not  for "dirt." It might just be "giving a fish a bicycle" until education and infrastructure catch up, but is it really better to leave them stagnant?

 

Again, examples like say Resorts and hotels and whatnot might be better to look at (particularly from this thread title/topic.)

 

i am not sure I get/understand this. That Congo example is an excuse to not have to concile simple facts? What is an ideologue form of reasoning, like an ideologist? And why is it not fruitful? You make me think about things, and I hope I make you too.

In this case, the ideologue reasoning is that "we have too much"  "we set our bars too low" "we don't need this comfortable life" It's as you answered-by-rhetorical-question yourself;  Reasoning from beleifs and feelings instead of facts and evidence. It doesn't HELP, it just makes general assumptions (like those above) without examining the outcomes of those assumptions. Ideology in action is not generally fruitful because it doesn't often think of consequences. EG: without the mines in the first place the congo would have their own mines and have booming industry. -> Mines that had to be invested in to get operational, require constant investment to maintain and investment in transport infrastructure to make useful, and have buyers for the materials produced, etc... If that were anywhere near true, there WOULD BE a/many local competitor(s) in any of the areas where there can be other mines, would there not?

 

It's "an excuse to not reconcile simple facts" because you've moved from "how much excess is available in the USA" (or Sweden, or the UK, or Ireland, or Italy, or France, or Tukey, or Russia, or China, or whatnot) to be able to "make immigrants functional in the society" -> "foreign operated cobalt mines in the congo supply china with cobalt at a cheap price"  which is not of substance or fruitful(AFAICT) in that previous discussion. It does not follow to me. Please, walk me though step by step how this relates. And seriously: "If there was ZERO trade for those resources, would the congo be better off?" is a question I think must come up in relation to any such link.

 

I'm glad I make you think, you DO make me think. I think that's the point of discussion.

[montgomery]

My apologies for starting a thread and then abandoning it due to being out of Canada for a while. I'll try to catch up and I hope that anyone who is expecting a reply from me, will let me know. Otherwise I'll pick up on the last few posts.

 

As to the ongoing examination of Trump? Last night's circus performance should have told us more about his psychopathy and narcissism. 

 

It's hard to imagine that all this Trump nonsense can end well, but in fact it likely will end with a whimper as opposed to a big bang. Mueller and the FBI are not intent on bringing down the Republican party, they are only intent on ending the horror story. Trump will be stopped one way or another before he does too much irreparable damage to the US. Be it the Kennedy solution or otherwise.

[Moronium]

Trump will be stopped one way or another before he does too much irreparable damage to the US. Be it the Kennedy solution or otherwise.

 

Monty, it seems pretty clear that you would fully approve of a "Kennedy solution" if that's what it takes to "end the horror story."

 

Trump aside, what does this say about you, your personality, your motives, your agenda, etc, ya figure?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[montgomery]

Monty, it seems pretty clear that you would fully approve of a "Kennedy solution" if that's what it takes to "end the horror story."

 

Trump aside, what does this say about you, your personality, your motives, your agenda, etc, ya figure?

Thanks for the reply and question Moronium! 

I don't really know for sure what it says about me. I like to think that it suggests that I'm concerned about the future of humanity if Trump isn't stopped. And not to try to escalate the issue unduly but I'm equating Trump to Hitler in the sense of there being great urgency to stop him for the sake of world peace.

 

And then on the other hand, it could be that the evil in wishing somebody dead, isn't trumped by Trump's potential to do evil.

 

So I'll ask your opinion! And the opinion of others too if they want to pursue the issue?

 

I'll also add that I believe the world is at a critical point in time in which the world's greatest superpower is beginning to decline and other superpowers are rising to take it's place. Being such a critical point in time, it's alarming to have to suffer a psychopath having his fingers close to the red button! 

 

What would your god do?

[Moronium]

. Being such a critical point in time, it's alarming to have to suffer a psychopath having his fingers close to the red button! 

 

 

Please don't take this as a personal insult, but there are those who would argue that people who feel "entitled" to kill someone because they disagree with their political views are exhibiting "psychopathic" and "narcissistic" tendencies.

 

Fanaticism can sometimes explain that.  Hitler, and his fellow-traveling nazis, felt quite justified in exterminating jews because they posed an imminent and dire threat to civilization itself.  Under those circumstances, I guess it becomes your "moral duty" to kill jews, know what I'm sayin?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[GAHD]

Thanks for the reply and question Moronium! 

I don't really know for sure what it says about me. I like to think that it suggests that I'm concerned about the future of humanity if Trump isn't stopped. And not to try to escalate the issue unduly but I'm equating Trump to Hitler in the sense of there being great urgency to stop him for the sake of world peace.

 

And then on the other hand, it could be that the evil in wishing somebody dead, isn't trumped by Trump's potential to do evil.

 

So I'll ask your opinion! And the opinion of others too if they want to pursue the issue?

 

I'll also add that I believe the world is at a critical point in time in which the world's greatest superpower is beginning to decline and other superpowers are rising to take it's place. Being such a critical point in time, it's alarming to have to suffer a psychopath having his fingers close to the red button! 

 

What would your god do?

Not at me but...

MY God would probably look at results and actions and weigh things. You appear to be exhibiting similar issues to the ones Sanctus was in our exchange there: you're attributing all evils unto one source, you're claiming unsubstantiated "evil" and "potential" for it without any concrete basis for it. I'm hoping you're never in a position of power, because quite frankly the way your decision making abilities are on display here it would very likely be a disastrous thing. You seem to be proudly displaying attributes that are core in any historian's hot wash on why communist-socialist governments killed a lot of people. There's a terminology you should acquaint yourself with. Whenever many questions are easily answered by one blame, there's usually a very serious problem with the reasoning used to get there.

 

As one who is quite concerned with facts and precedence, I'll point out trump's history from the 80's and 90's as something you should look into heavily. Leopards don't change their spots too often, and what he did in his prime years there is most likely a roadmap for what he is currently doing and will continue to do.

 

[Moronium]

Not at me but...

 

 

Yeah, it was.  Monty said:

 

So I'll ask your opinion! And the opinion of others too if they want to pursue the issue?

 

[montgomery]

I wrote a post yesterday that somehow didn't get through. I would doubt that it would have been deleted. From memory, it was something like this:

 

To talk about getting rid of Trump via the Kennedy solution makes it a political issue, and to talk about GWB would be too, but I'll mention the name to make my point. If Moronium or Gahd were standing outside a school and they observed an ISIS member with explosives strapped to his body, preparing to go into that school, would either stop him using lethal force? Let's assume they were both carrying a gun and were close enough to make a sure kill.

 

And so let's bring GWB into this imaginary situation now and suppose it's him that I was imagining could be taken out via the Kennedy solution. Considering that we know that GWB is more responsible for the war on Iraq that created ISIS than any other, which is the reason for ISIS to begin with.

 

I know it's asking for both of you to accept my assertions on the guilt of GWB, but let's put that aside for now. Perhaps even use Obama as the example.

 

So you see, I've just changed the politics involved in the question in order to appeal to your sense of justice. And so that's the issue now that can be discussed here in my opinion.

 

What would your god do? We know very well what Christians did to Muslims because the difference in those cases was different religious opinions. .

Edited February 7, 2019 by montgomery

[Moronium]

 

To talk about getting rid of Trump via the Kennedy solution makes it a political issue, and to talk about GWB would be too, but I'll mention the name to make my point. If Moronium or Gahd were standing outside a school and they observed an ISIS member with explosives strapped to his body, preparing to go into that school, would either stop him using lethal force? Let's assume they were both carrying a gun and were close enough to make a sure kill.

 

 

I would smoke his sorry azz in a NY second, whoever it was, if that's your question.

 

So you see, I've just changed the politics involved in the question in order to appeal to your sense of justice.

 

 

 

If I was looking for justice, I would just go kill some jews, I figure.  They have been PROVEN to be planning a catastrophic annihilation of the entire world.  Kinda like Trump, but there's even more evidence against them, as impossible as that might seem.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As a homey of mine once observed:

 

The rhetoric of the hate-monger is characterized by four things:  (1) unsubstantiated demonization, (2) amateurish simplification, (3) hostile intolerance, and (4) fanatical certitude.

 

[montgomery]

As a homey of mine once observed:

 

 

The rhetoric of the hate-monger is characterized by four things:  (1) unsubstantiated demonization, (2) amateurish simplification, (3) hostile intolerance, and (4) fanatical certitude.

 

How those 4 characteristics apply to you and I, we can lay that aside for now. But I would submit that all 4 apply perfectly to Trump's tactics.

 

I used the exampe at the risk of you becoming very angry but I couldn't help but do that to make my point. And the point that I am interested in pursuing is the accusation both of you made against my character when I mentioned the Kennedy solution. I excuse your emotional outburst because you could say that I was trolling for such. So I apologize for having to resort to the extreme example to make my point.

 

And I think I have amply made my point. If however you disagree then the topic may be expanded upon with your further explanation of why you think not?

 

Perhaps the best direction in which to lead this thread would be for me to expand on my assertion that Trump fits all 4 of your examples which were quoted above. If you wish, I'll do that in order to substantiate my opinion. 

 

Or any other choice of direction you may choose for this topic? Or Gahd? 

Edited February 7, 2019 by montgomery

[Moronium]

In this country we don't convict anyone of any crime, let alone one punishable by death, unless it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's guilty of what he's been accused of.

 

Monty, you seem to treat the danger that you're so sure Trump poses as though it were an indubitable fact, with no need for evidence.

 

Put another way, Monty, I think your fanaticism is what's being revealed here, not Trump's presumed "guilt."