You can see, then, the fallacy of claims like “what you see is what you get” and “no bait and switch.”
Maybe, but it is splitting hairs because con man is a necessary attribute for most politicians as well. Most of them are just more sophisticated when working the con.
I can give you mine, I think he is a shit head much like most of the others. However he is an authentic shit head and does not try or is probably not even capable of hiding it in the slightest which is something new. Now there is an important distinction to be made here between truth and authenticity, Trump is a liar like all the rest, but he is authentic which other than Sanders, I do not think this is at trait that any of the candidates share. Maybe that is why these 2 are the only politicians that garner true excitement and mass appeal in the electorate. What you see is what you get which is not a usual trait of politicians and some are blinded by their craving for authenticity that they fully accept his shortcomings which are shared by most of our politicians. This is why you get the same ol same ol response in most cases. I cannot speak for Kurtster, will let him do that, but this is probably how most of his supporters feel just to give you some insight.
Trump is an authentic con man. That is an oxymoron of sorts, I know, but that is the only context in which the word “authentic” could/would/should apply to him.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 24, 2020 - 7:53am
sirdroseph wrote:
I can give you mine, I think he is a shit head much like most of the others. However he is an authentic shit head and does not try or is probably not even capable of hiding it in the slightest which is something new. Now there is an important distinction to be made here between truth and authenticity, Trump is a liar like all the rest, but he is authentic which other than Sanders, I do not think this is at trait that any of the candidates share. Maybe that is why these 2 are the only politicians that garner true excitement and mass appeal in the electorate. What you see is what you get which is not a usual trait of politicians and some are blinded by their craving for authenticity that they fully accept his shortcomings which are shared by most of our politicians. This is why you get the same ol same ol response in most cases. I cannot speak for Kurtster, will let him do that, but this is probably how most of his supporters feel just to give you some insight.
Trump is an authentic con man. That is an oxymoron of sorts, I know, but that is the only context in which the word âauthenticâ could/would/should apply to him.
I had lots of problems with Obama. But to equate him—to even put him in the same room—with Trump is howlingly funny. "They're all bad ergo I'm just going to sit in the corner and throw bombs" is a terrible hill to die on.
Maybe, maybe not. Other than personality particularly in that Obama was very smooth, charming and cosmopolitan while he was lying to his bedazzled supporters while Trump has a more direct approach by just lying and throwing the red meat of insults to his rabid supporters. However they probably share a lot more qualities than one might think other than being the prerequisite narcissist required for the job. I have already pointed out a lot of similarities between the two in respect to how they run the country, in particular in regards to attitudes toward whistleblowers, absolute disregard of the deficit and love of executive power. I do agree that it is silly to throw bombs, which is why I am in full support of non intervention policy and bringing all of our troops home.
I had lots of problems with Obama. But to equate himâto even put him in the same roomâwith Trump is howlingly funny. "They're all bad ergo I'm just going to sit in the corner and throw bombs" is a terrible hill to die on.
To be fair with that litmus test not many Presidents in our history would pass. Carter is about the only one I can think of, but I would not want him managing my money either. In our present system, I do not think it is possible for a good person to become President and quite frankly is not necessary and even in some context contraindicated to being a good President. JFK, Clinton, Nixon and Johnson (all debateable whether they were good Presidents, but not debeatable on their dubious private lives) come to mind as recent examples of this.
Fair point...but everyone gets caught speeding in their lives, some get speeding tickets, while others have drugs, weapons and body parts in the car.
Maybe the difference between everyone you listed and Trump is timing, but his ability to completely disregard history, facts, and consequences to make whatever point about his personal greatness he wants at that moment is striking.
All of that said, your response is exactly the type I referenced. Instead of answering the question (on Kurt's behalf), you explain why he's like everyone else. He may very well be...but I want to know Kurt's feelings about the President. Three guys from the 1960's and one from the 1990's aren't a concern of mine for this election.
I can give you mine, I think he is a shit head much like most of the others. However he is an authentic shit head and does not try or is probably not even capable of hiding it in the slightest which is something new. Now there is an important distinction to be made here between truth and authenticity, Trump is a liar like all the rest, but he is authentic which other than Sanders, I do not think this is a trait that any of the candidates share. Maybe that is why these 2 are the only politicians that garner true excitement and mass appeal in the electorate. What you see is what you get which is not a usual trait of politicians and some are blinded by their craving for authenticity that they fully accept his shortcomings which are shared by most of our politicians. This is why you get the same ol same ol response in most cases. I cannot speak for Kurtster, will let him do that, but this is probably how most of his supporters feel just to give you some insight.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 24, 2020 - 7:09am
kurtster wrote:
I do agree with most of sird's points. And definitely with the bolded.
Alas, I don't seem to receive many reasoned responses. Just mostly predictable hate filled talking points. I guess that is primarily because of my open support of Trump. TDS. That it comes with the territory. Oh well. Is what it is. Long done losing any sleep over it.
I was attempting to make a positive statement, one that was meant to be inclusive. Something I thought we all could agree with, generally speaking.
Now that it is being dissected, I guess I have to wonder why one would post in these political discussions if (1) one is not trying to change anyoneâs mind â or open to having oneâs own mind changed; and (2) one does not expect to receive reasoned responses to what one has posted. What, then, would be the point? Presumably, one hopes that his or her post is read. I also assume one is seeking feedback. If neither is true, then one could achieve the same result by writing in a private diary/journal.
To be fair with that litmus test not many Presidents in our history would pass. Carter is about the only one I can think of, but I would not want him managing my money either. In our present system, I do not think it is possible for a good person to become President and quite frankly is not necessary and even in some context contraindicated to being a good President. JFK, Clinton, Nixon and Johnson (all debateable whether they were good Presidents, but not debeatable on their dubious private lives) come to mind as recent examples of this.
Fair point...but everyone gets caught speeding in their lives, some get speeding tickets, while others have drugs, weapons and body parts in the car.
Maybe the difference between everyone you listed and Trump is timing, but his ability to completely disregard history, facts, and consequences to make whatever point about his personal greatness he wants at that moment is striking.
All of that said, your response is exactly the type I referenced. Instead of answering the question (on Kurt's behalf), you explain why he's like everyone else. He may very well be...but I want to know Kurt's feelings about the President. Three guys from the 1960's and one from the 1990's aren't a concern of mine for this election.
Alas, I don't seem to receive many reasoned responses. Just mostly predictable hate filled talking points. I guess that is primarily because of my open support of Trump. TDS. That it comes with the territory. Oh well. Is what it is. Long done losing any sleep over it.
Kurt, I don't think the majority of responses are hate-filled. The folks who dabble in politics here do so (IMO) more for sport than use it as a platform. No leverage for change in this discussion, with all 20 people. The struggle I have, and I believe others have, is understanding how intelligent, caring, principled people appear willing to deny facts in defense of someone with a lifetime of dishonesty? What do you want so badly (low taxes, right to life, cheap fossil fuels) that you will cheer dishonesty and ignore facts?
What I notice in many Trump supporters is the willingness to just surrender at some point and wait for the next moment to interact. I've asked you directly several times if you trust Trump? Would you let him manage your money or date your daughter? Do you believe he's a good person?
To be fair with that litmus test not many Presidents in our history would pass. Carter is about the only one I can think of, but I would not want him managing my money either. In our present system, I do not think it is possible for a good person to become President and quite frankly is not necessary and even in some context contraindicated to being a good President. JFK, Clinton, Nixon and Johnson (all debateable whether they were good Presidents, but not debeatable on their dubious private lives) come to mind as recent examples of this.
Alas, I don't seem to receive many reasoned responses. Just mostly predictable hate filled talking points. I guess that is primarily because of my open support of Trump. TDS. That it comes with the territory. Oh well. Is what it is. Long done losing any sleep over it.
Kurt, I don't think the majority of responses are hate-filled. The folks who dabble in politics here do so (IMO) more for sport than use it as a platform. No leverage for change in this discussion, with all 20 people. The struggle I have, and I believe others have, is understanding how intelligent, caring, principled people appear willing to deny facts in defense of someone with a lifetime of dishonesty? What do you want so badly (low taxes, right to life, cheap fossil fuels) that you will cheer dishonesty and ignore facts?
What I notice in many Trump supporters is the willingness to just surrender at some point and wait for the next moment to interact. I've asked you directly several times if you trust Trump? Would you let him manage your money or date your daughter? Do you believe he's a good person?
Alas, I don't seem to receive many reasoned responses. Just mostly predictable hate filled talking points. I guess that is primarily because of my open support of Trump. TDS. That it comes with the territory. Oh well. Is what it is. Long done losing any sleep over it.
People who disagree with you and are sometimes flabbergasted at how intractable you are on any point... they must suffer from TDS. Got it. You can say anything, no matter how outrageous, and if someone calls you on it, they're deranged. I see.
Were this only possible, but sadly I don't think it is. This is part of the reason I am starting to step back and realize that I don't think there is a political solution. We have reached the point of diminishing returns in respect to what can be achieved through political means ie law, legislation and government mandate. There are already laws for every conceivable injustice you can come up with and our population is just too large with too many individuals who will game whatever system you want to throw at them from the dirt poor to the billionaires and the politically active are operating at two opposite poles that are just drifting further and further apart. I view my political opinions as just that opinions, but no longer seek out guidance and hope from any candidate or party (though philosophically I do agree with Libertarians the most obviously) and am increasingly drawing inward in controlling my self and my actions to be the best person I can be and acting in such a way that will only improve all that I come in contact with irl. I use this forum as an outlet to get out my frustrations with the hypocrisy of all governments and institutions and really that is all. I do not expect to change minds or achieve anything political through my rants, I just need to get them out in an environment that is mature enough not to lose minds and possibly friends. I think you would be shocked were we to meet in real life, the difference in experience to how I communicate in this forum. My compassion and kindness is fully focused into real life interactions. Cheers!
I do not agree with all these points, but I do strongly endorse what I believe to be your base premise — that this is a place where, mostly, one can put out thoughts rattling around one’s brain, including rants, without fear of repercussions and with the expectation of reasoned responses. This is a receptive forum for the discussion of ideas. That is important and, for me, invaluable.
I do agree with most of sird's points. And definitely with the bolded.
Alas, I don't seem to receive many reasoned responses. Just mostly predictable hate filled talking points. I guess that is primarily because of my open support of Trump. TDS. That it comes with the territory. Oh well. Is what it is. Long done losing any sleep over it.
Those polls showed Mr. Sanders winning men and women; whites and Latinos; voters in all but the oldest age group (17-29, 30-44 and 45-64); those with college degrees and those without. He was carrying union households and nonunion households, self-identified liberal Democrats (by a wide margin) and moderate and conservative ones (narrowly).
sirdroseph wrote:
Yes, that is what I am saying. See we are understanding each other much better as time goes on.
It's not hard to understand that you neither have an idea what a social democrat (closest to Sanders' position) stands for, nor how they should choose to prioritize their life.
According to NPR, US intelligence officials briefed Sanders a month ago that Russians were 'interfering' with a view to help Sanders get elected nominated. The Washington Post broke the story on Friday.
Thoughts?
FYT.
"The disclosure of Russian assistance to Sanders follows a briefing to lawmakers last week in which a senior intelligence official said that Russia wants to see Trump reelected, viewing his administration as more favorable to the Kremlinâs interests, according to people who were briefed on the comments."
According to NPR, US intelligence officials briefed Sanders a month ago that Russians were 'interfering' with a view to help Sanders get elected. The Washington Post broke the story on Friday.
Sanders' reaction has so far been rather low key and reasonable.
Trump has to be careful weaponizing this revelation or risk constant reminders that: 1) Trump went to Russia for capital because Americans would no longer lend him money, and 2) while in Russia, he enjoyed the wonderful services of beautiful, super sexy Russian prostitutes.
Those polls showed Mr. Sanders winning men and women; whites and Latinos; voters in all but the oldest age group (17-29, 30-44 and 45-64); those with college degrees and those without. He was carrying union households and nonunion households, self-identified liberal Democrats (by a wide margin) and moderate and conservative ones (narrowly).
sirdroseph wrote:
Yes, that is what I am saying. See we are understanding each other much better as time goes on.
It's not hard to understand that you neither have an idea what a social democrat (closest to Sanders' position) stands for, nor how they should choose to prioritize their life.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 23, 2020 - 9:56am
sirdroseph wrote:
Were this only possible, but sadly I don't think it is. This is part of the reason I am starting to step back and realize that I don't think there is a political solution. We have reached the point of diminishing returns in respect to what can be achieved through political means ie law, legislation and government mandate. There are already laws for every conceivable injustice you can come up with and our population is just too large with too many individuals who will game whatever system you want to throw at them from the dirt poor to the billionaires and the politically active are operating at two opposite poles that are just drifting further and further apart. I view my political opinions as just that opinions, but no longer seek out guidance and hope from any candidate or party (though philosophically I do agree with Libertarians the most obviously) and am increasingly drawing inward in controlling my self and my actions to be the best person I can be and acting in such a way that will only improve all that I come in contact with irl. I use this forum as an outlet to get out my frustrations with the hypocrisy of all governments and institutions and really that is all. I do not expect to change minds or achieve anything political through my rants, I just need to get them out in an environment that is mature enough not to lose minds and possibly friends. I think you would be shocked were we to meet in real life, the difference in experience to how I communicate in this forum. My compassion and kindness is fully focused into real life interactions. Cheers!
I do not agree with all these points, but I do strongly endorse what I believe to be your base premise â that this is a place where, mostly, one can put out thoughts rattling around oneâs brain, including rants, without fear of repercussions and with the expectation of reasoned responses. This is a receptive forum for the discussion of ideas. That is important and, for me, invaluable.
So essentially a 78-year old with certain egalitarian political viewpoints and a long record of public service (I assume well-paid and with benefits) should not be able to (or want to?) acquire a net worth of something like ~2.3M$, over a lifetime, in the U.S? Presumably he has a house in VT (home state), and one in DC (work). And a summerhouse.
He (and his wife, kids?) should give it all away and go live in a card box. Or a shed. And grow veggies. For The People.
Also, due to inflation, "millionaires" ain't what they used to be (elite)...
Yes, that is what I am saying. See we are understanding each other much better as time goes on.
