Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It this context, imitating Sarah Palin with contemptuous sarcasm is a perfect example of something such a bigot against people like Sarah Palin would say.

Maybe that's not your intent, but it sure comes off that way.

If anybody thinks I am too hard on Carol, my intention is not malicious. I like her. (Seriously. She is good people.) I merely think she is unaware of something right now.

Sometimes things only become clear by analogy.

Let's suppose I go to a meeting of predominantly black people being hosted by Don Lemon. There are a few whites. But most are there to hear Lemon because they like him.

And let's suppose I start saying to all the people there that the problem with Don Lemon is he is one of the worst bigots on TV, he's an outright racist, he's disgusting, he's probably not well developed in the sex organ department, that he says something interesting once in a while, but overall, he's a vile human being. Yada yada yada.

But I couch it in in the middle of banter and general good vibes.

Then I start lecturing the folks there that I have read studies that black people don't read, mockingly say, "I have a dream..." and so on.

And, by the way, I claim over and over that a handsome young white person who used to hate Don Lemon, but who suddenly started defending him didn't do that out of conviction. That this person is without substance and merely trying to do a publicity stunt and seek attention. 

And I denigrate in nasty tone other issues of the black community, maybe even talk about a watermelon or two and fried chicken.

And, of course, I tell the people that I'm not talking about them at the meeting per se. They are different. I'm only talking about black people and, especially, that horrible black thug Don Lemon.

Then when one of the people at the meeting starts in on me, I claim victimhood status. 

How well does anyone think that will go over with the blacks there? Or with the whites there, for that matter?

Simply replace Lemon for Trump, black for Trump supporter, and so on, and read that again.

Is that clear enough?

The thing is, I'm not interested in comeuppance. I'm not interested in flaming. I'm not interested in winning an argument. And I certainly don't want to hurt Carol's feelings. Like I said, I like her. I believe she simply isn't aware, and probably even believes she is fighting for truth and justice. In the bubble she lives in, what she says normally gets applause.

But here's the thing with intelligent people. Once the awareness cracks open, even for a little bit, the person can't unsee it. And the crack tends to widen. Once that happens, intelligent people tend to do intelligent things.

That's my motivation.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if one of the offended at the meeting Michael described tells Michael to get his fat gut out of here, Jules would finally jump up to say that something was wrong, namely, it’s wrong to refer to Michael’s gut.

What a fucking moron you are.

What a perfect rejection of simple right and wrong, initiation vs response.

A perfect turning upside-down of Rand’s moral teachings. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The only moronic thing I can be accused of is attempting to get you to actually act rationally and somewhat civilly...you act like a nutter not an objectivist.  Your behaviour is more akin to what is expected over at SOLO and it’s kind of embarrassing.  You are better than that.(I would hope).

   Michael has stated he knows she isn’t some pedoworshipping demon but yet there you are day after day..grow the fuck up already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If anybody thinks I am too hard on Carol, my intention is not malicious. I like her. (Seriously. She is good people.) I merely think she is unaware of something right now.

Sometimes things only become clear by analogy.

Let's suppose I go to a meeting of predominantly black people being hosted by Don Lemon. There are a few whites. But most are there to hear Lemon because they like him.

And let's suppose I start saying to all the people there that the problem with Don Lemon is he is one of the worst bigots on TV, he's an outright racist, he's disgusting, he's probably not well developed in the sex organ department, that he says something interesting once in a while, but overall, he's a vile human being. Yada yada yada.

But I couch it in in the middle of banter and general good vibes.

Then I start lecturing the folks there that I have read studies that black people don't read, mockingly say, "I have a dream..." and so on.

And, by the way, I claim over and over that a handsome young white person who used to hate Don Lemon, but who suddenly started defending him didn't do that out of conviction. That this person is without substance and merely trying to do a publicity stunt and seek attention. 

And I denigrate in nasty tone other issues of the black community, maybe even talk about a watermelon or two and fried chicken.

And, of course, I tell the people that I'm not talking about them at the meeting per se. They are different. I'm only talking about black people and, especially, that horrible black thug Don Lemon.

Then when one of the people at the meeting starts in on me, I claim victimhood status. 

How well does anyone think that will go over with the blacks there? Or with the whites there, for that matter?

Simply replace Lemon for Trump, black for Trump supporter, and so on, and read that again.

Is that clear enough?

The thing is, I'm not interested in comeuppance. I'm not interested in flaming. I'm not interested in winning an argument. And I certainly don't want to hurt Carol's feelings. Like I said, I like her. I believe she simply isn't aware, and probably even believes she is fighting for truth and justice. In the bubble she lives in, what she says normally gets applause.

But here's the thing with intelligent people. Once the awareness cracks open, even for a little bit, the person can't unsee it. And the crack tends to widen. Once that happens, intelligent people tend to do intelligent things.

That's my motivation.

Michael

Michael!!!!"Sometimes things only become clear by analogy?

Yes, to those who can see only two things at a time, however ill-suited they are to be compared, it is a soothing easy way to advance your narrative  You are good people too I know, but please stop comparing incivility and  sexism to the kind of argument here, however rough and tough 0r sarcatric, we have been used to. 

Please and thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's suppose I go to a meeting of predominantly black people being hosted by Don Lemon. There are a few whites. But most are there to hear Lemon because they like him.

And let's suppose I start saying to all the people there that the problem with Don Lemon is he is one of the worst bigots on TV, he's an outright racist, he's disgusting, he's probably not well developed in the sex organ department, that he says something interesting once in a while, but overall, he's a vile human being. Yada yada yada.

JULES STAYS QUIET AND IN HIS SEAT.

But I couch it in in the middle of banter and general good vibes.

WHICH IS PLENTY ENOUGH SUBTERFUGE TO CON JULES THE SIMPLETON.

Then I start lecturing the folks there that I have read studies that black people don't read, mockingly say, "I have a dream..." and so on.

JULES IS LISTENING, WATCHING. STILL SITTING, STILL QUIET. 

And, by the way, I claim over and over that a handsome young white person who used to hate Don Lemon, but who suddenly started defending him didn't do that out of conviction. That this person is without substance and merely trying to do a publicity stunt and seek attention.

JULES IS PICKING HIS NOSE.

And I denigrate in nasty tone other issues of the black community, maybe even talk about a watermelon or two and fried chicken.

JULES IS SALIVATING.

And, of course, I tell the people that I'm not talking about them at the meeting per se. They are different. I'm only talking about black people and, especially, that horrible black thug Don Lemon.

Then when one of the people at the meeting starts in on me, I claim victimhood status.

NOW JULES JUMPS UP FROM HIS SEAT. “HOW DARE YOU!” HE BELLOWS AT THE PERSON AT THE MEETING WHO STARTS IN ON THE BIGOT.

How well does anyone think that will go over with the blacks there? Or with the whites there, for that matter?

IT WENT OVER JUST FINE FOR JULES.

HE DOES NOT CONDEMN THE BIGOT.

HE CONDEMNS THE BIGOT’S ANTAGONIST.

Simply replace Lemon for Trump, black for Trump supporter, and so on, and read that again.

AND JULES GOES ON AND ON ABOUT HOW THE PERSON WHO STARTS IN ON THE BIGOT IS A BAD BLACK.  ETC., ETC.

PUNK-ASS FUCKING IDIOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answer Carol’s vicious, bigoted words with WORDS,

and the fucking retard makes shooting-someone-dead analogies. 

‘Oh, my, those words are so mean, they’re like killing someone!!’

Just like how a sensitive little girl would react.

Or an adult of sub-par moral fortitude, both work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can’t even think for yourself Jon.  You instead take Michael’s analogy and insert me into it and attempt to insult me further.  I’m not a racist and would never be inyour stupid analogy that you completely butchered.

As for my Dagny comment, it went right over your head.  I was seeking clarification on your premises.  Dagny shot the security guard because  John Galt’s life was being threatened, and he was her highest value.  The security guard represents the oppressive state and so needed to be eliminated as a lesser/no value/sacrifice if she let him live.  (At least that’s my take on it).

Oh I was making that analogy in a(obviously futile) attempt to see where you are coming from since you accused me of not understanding Rand’s views on retaliation.

Pretty sure she didn’t advocate calling people 12 year old girls.  You seem pretty quick to dismiss me as being beneath your “vastly superior intellect” by immediately attempting to insult my intelligence without actually saying anything meaningful or original (or constructive for that matter).

i mean you couldn’t even answer a direct and honest question about what you do(if anything) for a living!  My moral fortitude? Really you are insinuating that I have sub par morals?  On what basis other than I called you a prick, which so far does not need to be refuted, it’s pretty evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

I get it Michael, defend/attack a persons ideas, not the person him/herself.

Jules,

I think you missed something I said a little earlier.

On 7/11/2018 at 7:40 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to the flame warring, I am mulling over wisdom, not just rule-following.

Think about it. What would you do to run a forum?

Blind obedience to rules or flexibility based on context and knowing the people involved?

(Hint... Blind obedience leads to dark places...)

:) 

One of the very things I am trying to prompt is visibility. People don't see. They have eyes, but they don't see.

For example, Carol just accused someone around here (I don't know who, but it had to be somebody) of sexism. Incivility, I can see, it's kind of obvious on all sides in this phase, but sexism? On OL? Really?

4 hours ago, caroljane said:

... please stop comparing incivility and  sexism to the kind of argument here...

And she even tells me to behave in a manner where I accept a premise of sexism. But I can't even identify where sexism is at with what I see.

I haven't seen anyone oppressing females around here. I have seen females treated the same as males, both for good and for bad. Equality--that's what women want. Right? It goes against my grain as a gentleman when tempers flare and things get personal, which is how I grew up. But OK. Equality it is. 

Yet the charge of sexism hangs in the air because that's what people do to shut things down when their brains are on an autopilot algorithm that was programmed by others from within a bubble. It's part of "controlling the narrative." But they're the ones who have been controlled. They don't even think about it. They simply open their mouths and let 'er fly--facts no issue--knowing it always worked before when they want to tell someone what to do.

But it doesn't work on me.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw plenty of leftisms thrown around, no biggy .   Sexism I dunno about that...it’s a stretch to say leftist women are less attractive than X is sexist.  Is it sexist to say I prefer redheads over blonds?  Or is it simply sexist because I mention a preference at all?  Never had to give it much thought, been married for the last 12+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States Department of Justice website...

https://www.justice.gov/psc/press-room

July 12, 2018

July 11, 2018

July 10, 2018

July 9, 2018

July 6, 2018

July 5, 2018

July 3, 2018

Press Release
 

July 3, 2018

July 2, 2018

June 29, 2018

June 28, 2018

June 27, 2018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That fortunately is the fate of many rapists/child rapists when they go to prison. Not enough though.

And no, the attacker will most likely be charged with murder and have that added to his sentence.  Sometimes these things get a blind eye turned to and the person is just charged with assault, but not often.  Probably why MORE of them are not killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the issue of flame wars, my humble advice: They happen, get over it. Don't try to prevent or control them. I've been participating in discussion forums since the late nineties, and once in a while, people need to vent and bloody each other up a bit. Get it out of their systems. Then others start to complain, and demand rules because the flaming is allegedly driving people away and destroying the forum. Um, usually, the opposite is true. Flames attract attention, briefly, and then they are ignored by everyone not involved, where tight rules, on the hand, and their technical, petty enforcement, interrupt and shut down open discussion. The rules and their precisely equal enforcement take over and become the focus of every thread. The most interesting people get punished and moderated and banned, and the forum dies.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

On the issue of flame wars, my humble advice: They happen, get over it. Don't try to prevent or control them. I've been participating in discussion forums since the late nineties, and once in a while, people need to vent and bloody each other up a bit. Get it out of their systems. Then others start to complain, and demand rules because the flaming is allegedly driving people away and destroying the forum. Um, usually, the opposite is true. Flames attract attention, briefly, and then they are ignored by everyone not involved, where tight rules, on the hand, and their technical, petty enforcement, interrupt and shut down open discussion. The rules and their precisely equal enforcement take over and become the focus of every thread. The most interesting people get punished and moderated and banned, and the forum dies.

J

Jonathan,

You're letting the cat out of the bag.

:) 

You left out one thing, though. During the process, really long contentious threads grow about what and how to interpret the rules and what and how people need to behave. Everybody has an opinion about the rules and everybody has a finger they like to point. These generally go on for a a couple of weeks, then die out.

I've not only seen this in O-Land, I've seen it at black hat sites, writing forums, internet marketing sites, places of the most varied nature, all over social media, etc. It happens all the time. In fact, it happens so much, I am pretty sure it reflects a human universal.

Wherever there are people, there are people wanting to control people.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It happens all the time. In fact, it happens so much, I am pretty sure it reflects a human universal.

Wherever there are people, there are people wanting to control people.

Yeah, it's the human urge second only to sex, and in some people, second to nothing. It's more important than money and well-being. People will make their own lives and those of everyone else much worse in order to be allowed to control and punish other people. They will invent a morality in which controlling others is justified and virtuous. It's the history of the vast majority of the human race.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mueller is trying to wind down.

Rosenstein just announced the indictment of 12 Russians for hacking the DNC, etc. etc. etc. And he specifically mentioned the GNU.

I wonder how on earth the DOJ knew this, seeing that the DNC refused to hand over its servers.

:) 

Anyway, they know no Russians are going to show up, so this is just CYA stuff and fake news food.

Rosenstein was very careful to stipulate that the indictment did not implicate any American nor claim that any vote was altered.

On a side note, I saw something odd in Rosenstein's demeanor. This is probably because I am attuned to this kind of stuff due to my persuasion studies. There were times during the presser he sounded just like former President Obama. Same stance. Same choice of language expressions and same language construction. Same tone of voice. It was eerie. This was during the part when he was sanctimoniously talking about how "we" as Americans are united in... yada yada yada... that we mustn't... yada yada yada... and that the FBI follows the rules and doesn't try cases through the press.

Of course, this was right at the moment he was presenting to the press the indictments of Russian hacking knowing full well the Russians will not show up in a US court. :) 

This is all over Drudge right now, but it's nothing but a flash in the pan.

Anyway, Mueller needs to present something for spending a cool $20 million or however many millions those Clinton lawyers on his staff put into their pockets so far. These 12 indictments mentioning the Russian government look good for "controlling the narrative" without being anything substantive. Hell, since nobody is going to show up in court, the Mueller folks don't even need to prove anything. This is perfect for the swamp way of doing things...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, caroljane said:
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sometimes things only become clear by analogy.

Let's suppose [...]

Michael!!!!"Sometimes things only become clear by analogy?

Argument by analogy is fraught, he said quietly, into the void of understanding.  

I'd like to analogize the slightly odd situation of  the US President giving an interview with the UK's Sun tabloid (a possession of Murdoch Inc) ... and then apparently claiming that the interview transcript is a FAKE.  What kind of situation or Just-So story might make a good framework for understanding the apparent discrepancies?  Analogies about discrepancies or conflicting information coming from the same source ... ?

So, the Sun:

trumpSUNinterviewLies.png

-- and then he denies that he said what the Sun said he said.  How does one figure out a useful and fully-apt analogy for this apparent tergiversation?

Not a clue.

Spoiler
share.png Tom Newton Dunn / The Sun:
TRUMP'S BREXIT BLAST I told May how to do Brexit but she wrecked it — the US trade deal is off, says Donald Trump  —  In a world-exclusive interview with The Sun, the US President said Theresa May had ignored his advice by opting for a soft Brexit strategy  —  DONALD Trump today accuses …
Discussion:
Guntram B. Wolff / Bruegel:   A Brexit deal is still not achieved
Undercover Blue / Hullabaloo:   Blowing it up by @BloggersRUs
RELATED:
i162.jpgshare.png Robert Kagan / Washington Post:
Things will not be okay  —  Human beings often choose self-delusion over painful reality, and so in the days and weeks to come, we will hear reassurances that the NATO alliance is in good shape.  After all, there have been spats in the past — over the Suez crisis in 1956, Vietnam in the 1960s and '70s …

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now