Trannies for Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

We may have just voted in our first President whose campaign was assisted by Russia no matter who we elected in 2016.

---

I missed this before - hard to keep up with all of your nonsense claims.

First , why would the Russians want to help both sides? Isn't the whole point of meddling in an election to try to influence the outcome one way or the other?

Second, why would the Russians try to help the Democrats when Putin had clearly expressed antipathy toward Hillary Clinton on account of things she did when she was Secretary of State?

Third, you are ignoring two obvious facts, which have no equivalent on the other side. One is the unusual pattern of linkages between Trump and his associates and Russians. The other is the fact that Trump has conspicuously gone out of his way to avoid any criticism of Russia and to argue it's case (eg at the recent G7 meeting).

Putting the merits and demerits of a Trump victory to one side for the moment, can we agree he's not exactly enhancing the international reputation of the US. The world's media are having a field day ... :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfTt1ijXkAEbb7l.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Anyway, no Stavros, it's not hard, it's not expensive, it's just something you have to do as an American. You don't just "give up" on obtaining an ID, you get one. It's the first step to practically everything else you might want to do here.

---

Ok, Nick, it is not hard -for you; it is not expensive -for you. But it might be for someone else who is not as resourceful as you, or as self-confident. For someone making the transition from Michael to Michaela (or Michaela to Michael) visiting any State or Federal office can be a traumatic experience, and if the clerk behind the desk has been instructed to create a 'hostile environment' in the office then it is easy to understand why so many people don't bother. As I suggested, scrap ID cards, and create another system, and no, I don't mean ID chips inserted into your arm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gillian

Putting the merits and demerits of a Trump victory to one side for the moment, can we agree he's not exactly enhancing the international reputation of the US. The world's media are having a field day ... :D

---

The present administration doesn't care about its international reputation, you need only look at what Wilbur Ross and John Bolton say, which is that, basically, the USA is the most powerful country in the world and they can do anything and say anything they want because they are too big to fail, and what Canada or the UK or Germany says is literally worthless. And after the complaints and the indignation, we and everyone else insulted by their President will go crawling to the USA for their help, access to their markets -anything to compensate for our weakness, our incompetence. But on the other side of the argument, Theresa May, Angela Merket and Emmanuel Macron have, in effect, written off the next two years and are just waiting for the USA to change its President and act like a responsible adult again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

https://www.wikihow.com/Obtain-a-Cop...-in-California
I was born in California so I looked up the process because I remember it being much more involved the last time I got a certified copy of the birth certificate. According to this link, you fill out an application, find a notary public, send a check to the California health department, and wait fifteen days for processing. It's not the toughest process in the world, but it's the first step if you've lost your documents. I just got my social security card because I lost that a while ago and I used my birth certificate, but they did not give me a temporary. I waited about ten days for it to be mailed.

So assuming your driver's license requires these documents, you might be waiting about twenty five days before you can prove to your dmv both proof of identity and citizenship. Might there be ways to expedite this? Possibly, but you can imagine what it's like for someone who works six days a week to deal with government bureaucrats and to be sent home multiple times because the utility bill they're using for address in the state misspelled their name or something.

It is possible the process was easier back in the day, but it isn't quick I don't think.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Ok, Nick, it is not hard -for you; it is not expensive -for you. But it might be for someone else who is not as resourceful as you, or as self-confident. For someone making the transition from Michael to Michaela (or Michaela to Michael) visiting any State or Federal office can be a traumatic experience, and if the clerk behind the desk has been instructed to create a 'hostile environment' in the office then it is easy to understand why so many people don't bother. As I suggested, scrap ID cards, and create another system, and no, I don't mean ID chips inserted into your arm.

---

I'm willing to accept that it's possibly more difficult to re-acquire your ID today than it was in the 90's. But I'm still not willing to accept that it's some Herculean trial. If you are who you say you are, if you don't have any criminal warrants, and if you're supposed to be in the USA, you can get an ID. If it ends up being a "traumatic experience," you can always go see the DMV psychiatrist afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I missed this before - hard to keep up with all of your nonsense claims.

First , why would the Russians want to help both sides? Isn't the whole point of meddling in an election to try to influence the outcome one way or the other?

Second, why would the Russians try to help the Democrats when Putin had clearly expressed antipathy toward Hillary Clinton on account of things she did when she was Secretary of State?

Third, you are ignoring two obvious facts, which have no equivalent on the other side. One is the unusual pattern of linkages between Trump and his associates and Russians. The other is the fact that Trump has conspicuously gone out of his way to avoid any criticism of Russia and to argue it's case (eg at the recent G7 meeting).

---

The suspicion of Hillary's Russian ties revolves around the dossier underwritten by the Democratic Party regarding Trump's activities in Russia, a dossier that found its way into the hands of the FBI.

The theory is that she couldn't have acquired the information without collusion. And no, not collusion with Vladimir Putin. Hillary's Russian ties are much more pedestrian, as befits her status as an ex-Secretary of State and failed Presidential candidate.

Even if Nick started dressing like Prince and giving his employees free dental, that still leaves the matter of 60 million Americans who wholeheartedly believe in a Muslim Ban. I guess Obama's vision of clarity and peace didn't trickle down so good.
I really do think Mueller's vote is going to be the only one that really counts. On several counts. If the crime is Treason, would that be held in a Military Court? Hmmm.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

If the crime is Treason, would that be held in a Military Court? Hmmm.....

---

Nope. Impeachment by the House, and conviction or acquittal by the Senate for whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Even if Nick started dressing like Prince and giving his employees free dental...

---

That made me chuckle - reminded me of Charlie Murphy's "True Hollywood Story" about Prince. "I don't know what he was angry about. He knows where he got that shirt from, and it damn sure wasn't the men's department." Funny shit.

I don't have employees, Buttslinger. I do work with other people, but only on a project basis. I don't like the idea of paying someone by the hour to do my dirty work, I'd rather just do it myself than create a job that would barely support a shit-tier lifestyle.

No, Obama's ideas didn't trickle down, because they were great ideas for an entirely different planet than this one. Peace comes only at the end of war, and the end of war is a long, long time from now on Planet Earth.

Also, trust me, if Trump thinks he's going to be charged with treason, he'll fire Mueller first. Think about it, what's less trouble for him? A years-long legal battle on the international stage, or the temporary backlash of firing a special prosecutor? A no-brainer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff8LEx9Mw54

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gillian

Putting the merits and demerits of a Trump victory to one side for the moment, can we agree he's not exactly enhancing the international reputation of the US. The world's media are having a field day ... :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfTt1ijXkAEbb7l.jpg

---

this is the funniest pic i've seen in awhile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

A years-long legal battle on the international stage, or the temporary backlash of firing a special prosecutor? A no-brainer.

---

I suppose you could call immediate impeachment, certain conviction, and prompt removal from office "temporary."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

The suspicion of Hillary's Russian ties revolves around the dossier underwritten by the Democratic Party regarding Trump's activities in Russia, a dossier that found its way into the hands of the FBI.

The theory is that she couldn't have acquired the information without collusion. And no, not collusion with Vladimir Putin. Hillary's Russian ties are much more pedestrian, as befits her status as an ex-Secretary of State and failed Presidential candidate.

---

Are you suggesting that these two things are equivalent?

1. Paying someone to obtain information from Russian sources (presumably something that US intelligence agencies do all the time).

2. Possibly conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in an election to your advantage, in return for policy changes favourable to that government. Not only that, but a foreign government that has been a long-time adversary of the US and western democracy with a recent history of invading other countries and murdering its opponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo

I suppose you could call immediate impeachment, certain conviction, and prompt removal from office "temporary."

---

Not sure you know how impeachment works, Fitz. Example, do you remember that Bill Clinton was impeached? For perjury and obstruction of justice? By the House, but then vindicated by the Senate. Same with Andrew Johnson. I.E., no President has ever been successfully impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. Nixon might have been the first. That's why he resigned.

On the other hand, every President ever has had a base of non-admirers optimistic about his inevitable impeachment and removal from office, despite the fact that it has never happened.

President Trump will not be impeached for treason. There will never be a presentable case for treason because the first thing the prosecution would have to prove would be that Russia is our enemy. Russia is technically not our enemy, they're just a big scary sovereign nation that yanks our chain now and then.

The full truth is that President Trump will not be impeached for anything unless the Democratic Party finds some traction in Congress (they won't). Republicans are not going to impeach a Republican President over matters of trivia. And yes, I'm saying that Russian meddling in American elections is a trivial matter. It's not as if they tampered with the ballot boxes. In the big picture, all they did was peddle some propaganda.

I can see you have high hopes, Fitz. I'm also aware that you don't listen to me, so I'm sure I'm not crushing your dreams when I tell you impeachment and removal from office will never happen.

Attachment 1079394

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Are you suggesting that these two things are equivalent?

1. Paying someone to obtain information from Russian sources (presumably something that US intelligence agencies do all the time).

2. Possibly conspiring with a foreign government to meddle in an election to your advantage, in return for policy changes favourable to that government. Not only that, but a foreign government that has been a long-time adversary of the US and western democracy with a recent history of invading other countries and murdering its opponents.

---

I don't recall saying or even implying anything about the relative merits of the two offenses. I only recall saying that both candidates were in cahoots with Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I don't recall saying or even implying anything about the relative merits of the two offenses. I only recall saying that both candidates were in cahoots with Russia.

---

There you go again, Nicky No Facts. Obtaining information from some people in Russia - presumably people not doing so with the approval of the Russian government - does not constitute being in cahoots with Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

There you go again, Nicky No Facts. Obtaining information from some people in Russia - presumably people not doing so with the approval of the Russian government - does not constitute being in cahoots with Russia.

---

Flighty, you are determined to win an argument on the internet. You aren't going to win it against me (as you should have figured out many days ago), but still, I admire your determination.

What does constitute being in cahoots with Russia, Flighty? Sucking Putin's cock?

Also, no, Hillary is not suspected of "obtaining information from some people in Russia," she is suspected of obtaining classified information only the KGB would have, and it is furthermore suspected that there was no "ex-British secret agent" serving as go-between.

But alas it is only a suspicion, just like the suspicion that President Trump had a pee party in the Moscow Hilton. Suspicion can be damaging. Here we are in Richard Gere's twilight years, and I still think he probably likes gerbils up his ass. Also, did Rod Stewart really have his stomach pumped because he'd swallowed too much cum at a gay orgy? The world will never know.

Funny thing about suspicion though - for some people, it rolls off of them like water off a duck's back. Donald Trump is one of those people. Everyone knows he's into some shady shit, but the consensus is, whatever under-the-table dealings he might be involved in, he's doing it for America. Hillary, on the other hand, is a suspicion magnet of questionable patriotism. She lacks Trump's audacity and charisma. Many otherwise normal people want to (and did) see her fail very badly. People believe she is a murderous, lying, warmongering, globalist, elitist cunt at heart. I know of several Democrats who are repulsed by Hillary Clinton. And I don't know many Democrats.

Trump's supporters are just the opposite. We want him to win. We want him to show everyone what's what. We want a giant statue in Washington of a naked Donald Trump with a fully-erect penis.

I mean seriously, Flighty, can you imagine if Hillary had fucked a porn star then paid him off to keep his mouth shut? Hillary's supporters are just too fragile to handle something like that. But when it happened to Trump, we were all like, "Go Don!"

Point being, it's not just the crime, it's who commits it. Hillary's got nothing coming in the way of public forgiveness. Trump, on the other hand, can literally do no wrong.

Why do you think that is, Flighty? I'll tell you why it is, it's because Trump supporters care about what really matters, and Hillary supporters don't have a clue what matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Point being, it's not just the crime, it's who commits it. Hillary's got nothing coming in the way of public forgiveness. Trump, on the other hand, can literally do no wrong.

---

It's only taken 20 plus pages, but finally you've spoken a truth, at least for about 85% of your side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

You have certainly given a thorough and truthful description of the American system of democracy. But none of that matters. You, me, and everyone else in this thread sat in our living rooms and watched George W. Bush steal two elections back-to-back on national television.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Point being, it's not just the crime, it's who commits it. Hillary's got nothing coming in the way of public forgiveness. Trump, on the other hand, can literally do no wrong.

Why do you think that is, Flighty? I'll tell you why it is, it's because Trump supporters care about what really matters, and Hillary supporters don't have a clue what matters.

---

So, why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? Why not just establish a dictatorship so your hero can be leader for life and have his way in everything, just like the dictators he admires so much? Maybe Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping could then make a deal to divide up the rest of the world, like Hitler and Stalin did. Isn't that the logical implication of everything you've argued in this thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Not sure you know how impeachment works, Fitz. Example, do you remember that Bill Clinton was impeached? For perjury and obstruction of justice? By the House, but then vindicated by the Senate. Same with Andrew Johnson. I.E., no President has ever been successfully impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. Nixon might have been the first. That's why he resigned.

On the other hand, every President ever has had a base of non-admirers optimistic about his inevitable impeachment and removal from office, despite the fact that it has never happened.

President Trump will not be impeached for treason. There will never be a presentable case for treason because the first thing the prosecution would have to prove would be that Russia is our enemy. Russia is technically not our enemy, they're just a big scary sovereign nation that yanks our chain now and then.

The full truth is that President Trump will not be impeached for anything unless the Democratic Party finds some traction in Congress (they won't). Republicans are not going to impeach a Republican President over matters of trivia. And yes, I'm saying that Russian meddling in American elections is a trivial matter. It's not as if they tampered with the ballot boxes. In the big picture, all they did was peddle some propaganda.

I can see you have high hopes, Fitz. I'm also aware that you don't listen to me, so I'm sure I'm not crushing your dreams when I tell you impeachment and removal from office will never happen.

Attachment 1079394

---

I know how impeachment works.

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

---

A roster of unintelligent tweets. For example, this:

Press says don't meet with Un because it legitimise him... Trump has got this!

-But the US recognizing North Korea as a separate state has been one of Kim's primary objectives because it has been denied by the US since 1953 and doing so makes it equal in status to South Korea -and anyway, only Congress can do this, and so far it hasn't been asked to do it, so technically, the US President has signed a piece of paper with the head of a state the US does not recognize exists.

As for this:

FBI Continues its stonewalling....time to dismantle FBI heads & create a real bureau using real Americans

One wonders how the Wondered Woman defines a 'real American' -could it be only the American who agrees with her?

I can' take anyone seriously who lacks the ability to look at Trump critically.

Ivanka and Jared have earned approximately $82 million while serving in Trump's administration. How is this even possible when their primary job now is serving the American people as a public servant??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

---

I see she also thinks that skin cancer is not caused by too much sun exposure, which is actually good for you and helps prevent cancer. I think she's spent too much time in the sun without a hat.

But it's good to see you keeping up your perfect record of posting for only one side, Mr Independent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

So, why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? Why not just establish a dictatorship so your hero can be leader for life and have his way in everything, just like the dictators he admires so much? Maybe Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping could then make a deal to divide up the rest of the world, like Hitler and Stalin did. Isn't that the logical implication of everything you've argued in this thread?

---

I like you more and more, Flighty. Now you're getting to the heart of the matter.

I choose to answer your first question - why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? First, checks and balances. For all my talk about Trump being above the law, he actually isn't. If he did something truly dreadful, something absolutely unacceptable and unforgivable, like, I dunno, killing Barbra Streisand and skull-fucking her on Facebook Live, or sacrificing newborn babies to the Sun God on the White House lawn, he would be impeachable and removable. He'll never be able to pass a piece of legislation stating that all Americans must worship him as a god. He'll never be able to stack the Supreme Court with an invincible conservative majority...oops, sorry, maybe got that last one wrong. But in any case, democracy and the rule of law ensure that Trump has limitations. Good for you.

Second, term limits. You hate Trump. You would like to see him run out of office. That's not going to happen BUT...your life isn't over. Trump will not always be President in your lifetime. He's got you for 8 years. But no more. The ephemeral nature of the U.S. Presidency keeps hope alive for the masses, no matter which side you're on. Also, because every term comes to an end and new elections are always pending, no President can go too far without damaging either himself or his party in the next election.

Third, democracy empowers the people. Not to the extent they believe it does, but it does create the illusion of choice, even if that choice is only between two people. Frankly, most people aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote, but they can anyway, and that's what makes being American an empowering experience. No matter where you are on the economic (or intellectual) spectrum, you still get one vote, just like the gazillionaire uptown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

I can' take anyone seriously who lacks the ability to look at Trump critically.

Ivanka and Jared have earned approximately $82 million while serving in Trump's administration. How is this even possible when their primary job now is serving the American people as a public servant??

---

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business, he once cheated a great uncle of mine out of tens of thousands of dollars on a plumbing contract - my uncle just couldn't afford to fight him in court, and my uncle was rich af. Trump is also mobbed up, you can't be in Manhattan real estate and not get a little mafia on you; also, to be totally forthcoming, if he did business with my great uncle, he's fucking mobbed up.

Knowing all this about the man, what I have to say is...I want that guy as President of my fucking country.

But you know, man, I get what you're saying. After all, consider how "critically" the Democratic voting base looked at Hillary Clinton - a woman who is suspected of complicity in more than 30 murders, a one-term senator and one-term Secretary of State who spent most of her time as a diplomat advocating war in the Middle East. She's totally unqualified to be President of the United States, but the Democrats (you) put her out there anyway, because...honestly, I still don't understand that, was it because she's a woman and you were hoping for the novelty vote? Not sure.

Anyway, Giovanni, the problem is not that people are not critical of Donald Trump. We know exactly what he's about, he's lived his whole life on national television. The thing is, a lot of people happen to feel that some of his worst qualities are fantastic qualities for a President.

The problem is that liberals aren't critical enough of their own thinking. All liberals really care about is that everyone be nice, right? Let's make everyone equal, give handouts to the poor, regulate the English language so that no one can ever be offended (yeah that's not Orwellian at all), safe spaces at college, destroy the rape culture, participation trophies for the losers, 10,845 possible genders and damn science. After all, we're all one big happy family.

Except of course that's a giant load of horseshit.

America's got problems. Earth is a tough planet. We need problem solvers in power, not slack-jawed idealists.

Look in the mirror, Giovanni, and ask yourself how critical you've been of your own ideas. They all seem right and proper on the surface, right? And that's as deep as you've looked.

Far as Ivanka making $82 million or whatever, good for her. Proves that capitalism works, and it works even better when your father is the fucking President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business. Knowing all this about the man, what I have to say is...I want that guy as President of my fucking country.

---

Your posts are quite entertaining in a surreal way, though disconnected from logic or reality. Most right-wingers on this forum are unimaginative dolts who can barely put two sentences together and scurry back into their holes after a couple of posts. I have learnt not to treat this as a serious debate, but rather as a game in which I prod you to see what fantastic arguments you'll come back with.

I think you might be almost as near-pathological as Trump. Your posts are like a case study in cognitive dissonance. One side of your brain sees Trump as he really is. The other side can only see Trump as heroic leader. So you have to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to reconcile the two sides.

Does it not occur to you that a man who consistently cheated others in business would not hesitate to stiff his supporters if it suited him. I'm not just talking about future possibilities. What happened to the tax package that was not going to favour the rich or blow out the deficit? What happened to the promise to deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost than Obamacare? What happened to the massive infrastructure program? What happened to draining the swamp?

Also, do you really think an impulsive egomaniac who never studies issues and won't listen to advice is the best person to deal with any crisis that might come up, which is probably the most important function of the President?

And the best you can come up with on Hillary is a crackpot conspiracy theory and that she was hawkish? The Clinton's are one of the most investigated couples in US history. Ken Starr spend 3 years trying to find something. Don't you think that if she'd had 30 people murdered they might have found some evidence by now? And aren't you in favour of the US throwing it's military weight around? Isn't your guy doing his best to start another Middle Eastern war?

Here's another example of cognitive dissonance. You keep telling us how well capitalism works and how we don't understand it. When a man like Trump prospers despite consistently cheating his investors, suppliers and customers is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Do you think Ivanka would be making $82m if she wasn't DJT's daughter? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Contrary to your claim that liberals never examine their ideas, I have actually come full circle in my life so far. Like most people, I started out favouring the left in my youth. Then after studying lots of economics I moved towards the right after being convinced of the benefits of the free market and lower taxes. More recently, I've moved back towards the left as I looked at the evidence and concluded that unregulated capitalism did not actually deliver the benefits it was supposed to.

To return to the core issue of the thread: in 2016 I posted the news that a well-known performer and occasional contributor to this site -TS BabeWonder- was in the audience at the Democrat Convention and that Channel 4 News in the UK had filmed her responding to questions about the campaign -clearly an articulate Democrat, where Jasmine Jewels is clearly a Republican. If it is the case that people vote in their own interests, or what they think is best for the country, it raises the obvious question: how do you determine what is best?

Quite often it does not involve any analysis of policy, but is based on the impression made by a candidate and what he or she says, but it is difficult if not impossible to then explain how two people who I assume face a similar if not precisely the same issues with regard to prejudice against transexuals, can choose opposite sides in a political campaign where neither has the best option, but where, in terms of public policy, the Republicans are clearly hostile to most if not all of the issues related to being Transgendered in the USA. But then it is clearly not in the interests of the USA to vote for someone who believes in the same concept of self-reliance as the Chairman of the Workers Party of Korea, not least as both the USA and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for all their bombastic rhetoric, are dependent for their economic survival on international trade.

We have been going through a long period of selfishness in politics, perhaps the ultimate point has been reached with a President who is open about using his office to make money for himself and his family, and who made a point of eyeing the real estate potential of North Korea as if dollar signs were revolving in his eyes as he said it. Perhaps the truth is there are selfish reasons we don't know about that motivates Jasmine Jewels, who still lives in a free society where she can choose whom to vote for. I am just a bit nervous about someone who wants the FBI to be staffed by 'real Americans' as that phrase comes loaded with assumptions, most of which are offensive in the extreme.

Selfish people elected Obama. They want to be greedy and generous with other people's shit.

The Don isn't perfect and needs to open his eyesand his mind.

I wish he could be put on a small island an acre in size for a month or two with 100 transwomwn like Yasmin and Nina Lawless. Crates of Viagra pills could be air dropped. After a month or two of that he would value the trans cause more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Your posts are quite entertaining in a surreal way, though disconnected from logic or reality. Most right-wingers on this forum are unimaginative dolts who can barely put two sentences together and scurry back into their holes after a couple of posts. I have learnt not to treat this as a serious debate, but rather as a game in which I prod you to see what fantastic arguments you'll come back with.

I think you might be almost as near-pathological as Trump. Your posts are like a case study in cognitive dissonance. One side of your brain sees Trump as he really is. The other side can only see Trump as heroic leader. So you have to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to reconcile the two sides.

Does it not occur to you that a man who consistently cheated others in business would not hesitate to stiff his supporters if it suited him. I'm not just talking about future possibilities. What happened to the tax package that was not going to favour the rich or blow out the deficit? What happened to the promise to deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost than Obamacare? What happened to the massive infrastructure program? What happened to draining the swamp?

Also, do you really think an impulsive egomaniac who never studies issues and won't listen to advice is the best person to deal with any crisis that might come up, which is probably the most important function of the President?

And the best you can come up with on Hillary is a crackpot conspiracy theory and that she was hawkish? The Clinton's are one of the most investigated couples in US history. Ken Starr spend 3 years trying to find something. Don't you think that if she'd had 30 people murdered they might have found some evidence by now? And aren't you in favour of the US throwing it's military weight around? Isn't your guy doing his best to start another Middle Eastern war?

Here's another example of cognitive dissonance. You keep telling us how well capitalism works and how we don't understand it. When a man like Trump prospers despite consistently cheating his investors, suppliers and customers is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Do you think Ivanka would be making $82m if she wasn't DJT's daughter? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Contrary to your claim that liberals never examine their ideas, I have actually come full circle in my life so far. Like most people, I started out favouring the left in my youth. Then after studying lots of economics I moved towards the right after being convinced of the benefits of the free market and lower taxes. More recently, I've moved back towards the left as I looked at the evidence and concluded that unregulated capitalism did not actually deliver the benefits it was supposed to.

---

Excellent post, Flighty. I have rarely wanted to reply to a post point-by-point more than I want to reply to this one. Unfortunately I have very little time on my hands this morning, I'm busy as hell today.

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Ty Cobb was reputedly on of the world's biggest assholes, of historical magnitude. He was racist, homophobic, sexist, violent, ill-tempered, misanthropic, greedy, impulsive, and mean as hell. He was also arguably the greatest baseball player of all time.

So in spite of his loathsome personality, if you were a Detroit Tigers fan, you wanted Cobb on that field. Not only that, but if there were two outs in the bottom of the 9th and you were down by one run, you wanted him in the batter's box. Any talk of a Ty Cobb trade deal would have you in front of the stadium with a protest sign.

In 1936 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with the highest voting percentage of all time, a record which stood until 1992. Elected, you understand, by the people who knew him best.

Point being, sometimes a man fits a job perfectly. Sometimes his terrible qualities as a human being make him that much better at that job - Cobb's spikes-first slide was the most feared in baseball.

Much like Trump's sociopathic unpredictability and hardball negotiating savvy makes him the most feared President in history. And I want him on that field, because I'm a USA fan.

I'll leave it at that because I've got to hit the shower. I respect your opinions, Flighty, and you'll have your day when the Democrats return to power in 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh_kerKBBMw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

---

Your post illustrates the problem at the heart of US politics: it is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the USA has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the States, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the Civil War, is the extent to which Race has shaped American politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in Congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the Republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: the GOP, the TEA party faction, and the Lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that America is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' White, Christian and Male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the Blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The US economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the US economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on US imports, the US imposes tariffs on Canadian goods too, but both trade in the US dollar to the benefit of the USA so to argue the US is being stiffed by Canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an Administration backed by Repubicans that is taking rights away from Americans, not extending them, from banning Transgendered Americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the Supreme Court to allow Ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from Americans.

The US is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a Republican or Confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of Americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive ransacks the wallets of Americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the White House.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stavros

your post illustrates the problem at the heart of us politics: It is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the usa has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the states, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the civil war, is the extent to which race has shaped american politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: The gop, the tea party faction, and the lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that america is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' white, christian and male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The us economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the us economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on us imports, the us imposes tariffs on canadian goods too, but both trade in the us dollar to the benefit of the usa so to argue the us is being stiffed by canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an administration backed by repubicans that is taking rights away from americans, not extending them, from banning transgendered americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the supreme court to allow ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from americans.

The us is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a republican or confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the chief executive ransacks the wallets of americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the white house.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

---

this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Excellent post, Flighty. I have rarely wanted to reply to a post point-by-point more than I want to reply to this one. Unfortunately I have very little time on my hands this morning, I'm busy as hell today.

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Ty Cobb was reputedly on of the world's biggest assholes, of historical magnitude. He was racist, homophobic, sexist, violent, ill-tempered, misanthropic, greedy, impulsive, and mean as hell. He was also arguably the greatest baseball player of all time.

So in spite of his loathsome personality, if you were a Detroit Tigers fan, you wanted Cobb on that field. Not only that, but if there were two outs in the bottom of the 9th and you were down by one run, you wanted him in the batter's box. Any talk of a Ty Cobb trade deal would have you in front of the stadium with a protest sign.

In 1936 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with the highest voting percentage of all time, a record which stood until 1992. Elected, you understand, by the people who knew him best.

Point being, sometimes a man fits a job perfectly. Sometimes his terrible qualities as a human being make him that much better at that job - Cobb's spikes-first slide was the most feared in baseball.

Much like Trump's sociopathic unpredictability and hardball negotiating savvy makes him the most feared President in history. And I want him on that field, because I'm a USA fan.

I'll leave it at that because I've got to hit the shower. I respect your opinions, Flighty, and you'll have your day when the Democrats return to power in 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh_kerKBBMw

---

Ty Cobb was never considered a cheater, or someone who utilized and unfair advantage to rig the game's final results. He didn't gamble against his own team, or throw games to profit his benefactors.
Cobb played by the rules. He didn't invent his own because he felt he could get away with it.

No offense, but this is a stupid analogy.

And I wish people would stop listing his ability to 'negotiate' as one of Trump's attributes.

This is Trump's own creation myth that has no basis in reality.

A great deal maker doesn't file for bankruptcy SIX TIMES in the state of NY, until he reaches the point that no major bank in the city will do business with him.

Why is it that so many Trump supporters are willing to embrace the con job from Donald Trump??

In real life, most savvy people I know would see Trump coming from a mile away and avoid him at all costs because he's so full of shit.

I understand why a segment of the population would be drawn to the entertainment value of a character like Trump.

But for people who KNOW what Trump is, why the appeal?

Why would you want this guy to serve as your POTUS?? He doesn't understand how the government or Executive branch is supposed to work, doesn't care to learn and thinks he should have unlimited power.

It's the raw arrogance of Trump that disturbs me the most.
He literally believes he's the smartest man in any room and he doesn't give a fuck about procedures or protocols.

That might work when you run a family business, not so much when you're Commander in Chief of the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

And I wish people would stop listing his ability to 'negotiate' as one of Trump's attributes.

This is Trump's own creation myth that has no basis in reality.

A great deal maker doesn't file for bankruptcy SIX TIMES in the state of NY, until he reaches the point that no major bank in the city will do business with him.

Why is it that so many Trump supporters are willing to embrace the con job from Donald Trump??

In real life, most savvy people I know would see Trump coming from a mile away and avoid him at all costs because he's so full of shit.

I understand why a segment of the population would be drawn to the entertainment value of a character like Trump.

But for people who KNOW what Trump is, why the appeal?

Why would you want this guy to serve as your POTUS?? He doesn't understand how the government or Executive branch is supposed to work, doesn't care to learn and thinks he should have unlimited power.

It's the raw arrogance of Trump that disturbs me the most.
He literally believes he's the smartest man in any room and he doesn't give a fuck about procedures or protocols.

That might work when you run a family business, not so much when you're Commander in Chief of the USA.

---

There are people out there who LIKE to be RULED...; it saves them the hassle of actually thinking/acting for themselves(for good or ill.) Then(the truly frightening ones) are those who will give consent to rule the masses to an autocrat...just so long as it profits them & they can be the "nobility" or the "power behind the throne>"

David Brooks offers a theory in his most recent piece https://nyti.ms/2Mdynkt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Your post illustrates the problem at the heart of US politics: it is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the USA has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the States, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the Civil War, is the extent to which Race has shaped American politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in Congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the Republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: the GOP, the TEA party faction, and the Lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that America is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' White, Christian and Male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the Blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The US economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the US economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on US imports, the US imposes tariffs on Canadian goods too, but both trade in the US dollar to the benefit of the USA so to argue the US is being stiffed by Canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an Administration backed by Repubicans that is taking rights away from Americans, not extending them, from banning Transgendered Americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the Supreme Court to allow Ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from Americans.

The US is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a Republican or Confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of Americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive ransacks the wallets of Americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the White House.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

---

You are my favorite idealist, Stavros. The fact that you don't see yourself that way is interesting.

Government has been "organized crime" throughout history. The essential deal between government and citizens has always been:

1. Government provides economic opportunity and protection.

2. Citizens pay a percentage of their earnings to the government.

Additional parallels between government and organized crime:

If you refuse to follow orders from the Mafia, they will shoot you. If you refuse to follow orders from the government, they will shoot you.

The Mafia tells its soldiers which drugs are legal and which are illegal. The government tells its citizens which drugs are legal and which are illegal.

The Mafia decides when to go to war, and against whom. The decision makers don't do the fighting. The government decides when to go to war, and against whom. The decision makers don't do the fighting.

Mafia power struggles usually come down to two contenders. The contender with the most support gets the top job. Government power struggles usually come down to two contenders. The contender with the most support gets the top job.

The head of the Mafia is called a don. The head of the government is also called Don.

I could go on but I'm sure you see my point. The only difference in government and organized crime is this: Government demands, and receives, legitimacy from its citizens. The Mafia demands only that you do what they say or get the hell out of their way. Still, defiance of either one concludes at the business end of a gun barrel.

I mentioned before, Stavros, that I find you very intelligent and knowledgeable. But I think that sometimes your idealism allows you to buy into a world-view that's just an illusion. We're all just players in someone else's game, grasping desperately for our little piece of happiness while the whole shithouse burns down around us. There's no security. You don't have a clue what your dollar will be worth 10 years from now, or your home, or your investments. We're exhausting the planet. We're overpopulating. We're killing each other and ourselves. It's a catastrophic progression to self-annihilation.

People live in a constant fog of disinformation and fear. You talk about polarization of our political parties, but have you ever considered the possibility that is completely intentional? "Divide and conquer?" Consider this: I believe that most Americans - probably a VAST majority of Americans - would prefer a government that is fiscally conservative, but morally liberal. Let everyone do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else, but take care of the people's business conservatively and let everyone pull his own weight to the extent possible.

And you'd think, knowing what Americans want, that one of the two major political parties would adopt that platform. Doesn't happen. Ever. You vote Republican, you're voting for conservative fiscal and moral policy. You vote Democrat, you're voting for liberal fiscal and moral policy. Because the goal of government is not to ever give the people what they actually want, the goal of government is to keep the people distracted with trivialities while those in power enrich themselves to the point of becoming too big to fail. To a great extent this has already happened in the USA.

So now what? Now, we - the proletariat - just do the best we can. I happen to believe Donald Trump is the best we can do right now. He understands that certain segments of the population have been pushed too far down by the elitist power grab of the modern era. He's appealed to those segments - primarily the white lower and middle classes - and if he wants a shining legacy, he's going to have to produce something for them. He does want a shining legacy, he is capable of producing results, and he will produce something.

To the extent greatness is still possible in this hot mess of a world, Trump has the potential for it. Not because he's a great person, but because he's obligated himself to do great things, and his ego won't accept failure.

Of course he's going to get rich(er) from being President. Open corruption is the flavor now. I challenge you to name a President who never used the office to his personal advantage, even if it was only to help his friends succeed, i.e., make money. You can't, because that's just not how it works. People like you and me, we're not playing by the same rules as our elite overlords. We're not even playing the same game.

The best we can do is make sure that ourselves and our loved ones, at least, get our piece of the pie, and try to get some happiness out of it during our lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Ty Cobb was never considered a cheater, or someone who utilized and unfair advantage to rig the game's final results. He didn't gamble against his own team, or throw games to profit his benefactors.
Cobb played by the rules. He didn't invent his own because he felt he could get away with it.

No offense, but this is a stupid analogy.

---

No offense, Giovanni, but you don't know jack-shit about Ty Cobb.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...eonard-ty-cobb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

And I wish people would stop listing his ability to 'negotiate' as one of Trump's attributes.

This is Trump's own creation myth that has no basis in reality.

A great deal maker doesn't file for bankruptcy SIX TIMES in the state of NY, until he reaches the point that no major bank in the city will do business with him.

---

I'd like to hear some attribution of this statement, Giovanni. I believe you'd have to be a great negotiator to make billions in real estate and development - a low-down, underhanded, lying, cheating negotiator who always comes out on top somehow. And bankruptcy is nothing more than just another business strategy in the current era. So instead of simply stating a non-fact, let's hear an actual argument for "Trump is not a great negotiator."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

It's the raw arrogance of Trump that disturbs me the most.

---

OIC. His arrogance disturbs you. Well that's certainly a good reason to vote against him, so you should continue to do so.

But your complaints sound like those of a child, Giovanni, and I say that with all due respect, not to your ideas, but to your person. I think you're one of these "visceral" voters who will never give President Trump a chance even if he brings world peace and turns every American into a millionaire. He won't do that, but my point is, you've already made your decision, and your mind is now closed on the matter. You aren't willing to accept that what he just did in China and North Korea is pretty fucking amazing, even if he only did it so he could build condos there. You aren't willing to accept that enforcing already-existent immigration policy is a good idea for Americans, and only a bad idea for people who want to come here illegally and feed off our prosperity without contributing anything. You aren't willing to give credit for Trump's personal negotiations with mega-corporations resulting in more jobs in the USA and fewer overseas. You will never see the truth, because you decided what the truth was before you even finished the book.

I think you're only interested in running the man down because he rubs you the wrong way. That's not much of a political argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

I could go on but I'm sure you see my point. The only difference in government and organized crime is this: Government demands, and receives, legitimacy from its citizens. The Mafia demands only that you do what they say or get the hell out of their way. Still, defiance of either one concludes at the business end of a gun barrel.

He understands that certain segments of the population have been pushed too far down by the elitist power grab of the modern era. He's appealed to those segments - primarily the white lower and middle classes - and if he wants a shining legacy, he's going to have to produce something for them. He does want a shining legacy, he is capable of producing results, and he will produce something.

---

The essential difference between constitutional government and the mafia is that government's powers are supposed to be used in accordance with the laws passed by the people's representatives rather than the whim of the leader. That has been the whole point of constitutional development since the Magna Carta. Trump clearly doesn't accept this, which makes him closer to a mafia don.

More examples of cognitive dissonance. You know that in business Trump was a con man who reneged on promises because he knew he could generally get away with it. Yet when it comes to politics he is somehow magically transformed into a man who will keep his promises. You tell us that he is fighting for the lower and middle classes against an 'elitist power grab' while ignoring the fact that most of his policies do the exact opposite. How are Trump and his cronies not elitists grabbing power?

I think Trump has basically two skills which have been effective for getting into power but have nothing to do with governing well. First, he understands that a lot of people can be conned for a long time if you are unscrupulous enough about lying and appealing to their prejudices. As long as your continually pick fights with various scapegoats they don't like, many people will not notice that you are really picking their pockets, particularly if they are being fed a steady diet of propaganda from Fox News etc.

Second, he understands that the rules of the game actually rely on a fair degree of voluntary compliance. He saw that if you are brazen enough you can get away with ignoring the rules in ways that were previously assumed to be impossible. I think that lesson might be the true legacy of Trump.

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

the essential difference between constitutional government and the mafia is that government's powers are supposed to be used in accordance with the laws passed by the people's representatives rather than the whim of the leader. That has been the whole point of constitutional development since the magna carta. Trump clearly doesn't accept this, which makes him closer to a mafia don.

More examples of cognitive dissonance. You know that in business trump was a con man who reneged on promises because he knew he could generally get away with it. Yet when it comes to politics he is somehow magically transformed into a man who will keep his promises. You tell us that he is fighting for the lower and middle classes against an 'elitist power grab' while ignoring the fact that most of his policies do the exact opposite. How are trump and his cronies not elitists grabbing power?

I think trump has basically two skills which have been effective for getting into power but have nothing to do with governing well. First, he understands that a lot of people can be conned for a long time if you are unscrupulous enough about lying and appealing to their prejudices. As long as your continually pick fights with various scapegoats they don't like, many people will not notice that you are really picking their pockets, particularly if they are being fed a steady diet of propaganda from fox news etc.

Second, he understands that the rules of the game actually rely on a fair degree of voluntary compliance. He saw that if you are brazen enough you can get away with ignoring the rules in ways that were previously assumed to be impossible. I think that lesson might be the true legacy of trump.

---

this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

No offense, Giovanni, but you don't know jack-shit about Ty Cobb.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...eonard-ty-cobb



I'd like to hear some attribution of this statement, Giovanni. I believe you'd have to be a great negotiator to make billions in real estate and development - a low-down, underhanded, lying, cheating negotiator who always comes out on top somehow. And bankruptcy is nothing more than just another business strategy in the current era. So instead of simply stating a non-fact, let's hear an actual argument for "Trump is not a great negotiator."



OIC. His arrogance disturbs you. Well that's certainly a good reason to vote against him, so you should continue to do so.

But your complaints sound like those of a child, Giovanni, and I say that with all due respect, not to your ideas, but to your person. I think you're one of these "visceral" voters who will never give President Trump a chance even if he brings world peace and turns every American into a millionaire. He won't do that, but my point is, you've already made your decision, and your mind is now closed on the matter. You aren't willing to accept that what he just did in China and North Korea is pretty fucking amazing, even if he only did it so he could build condos there. You aren't willing to accept that enforcing already-existent immigration policy is a good idea for Americans, and only a bad idea for people who want to come here illegally and feed off our prosperity without contributing anything. You aren't willing to give credit for Trump's personal negotiations with mega-corporations resulting in more jobs in the USA and fewer overseas. You will never see the truth, because you decided what the truth was before you even finished the book.

I think you're only interested in running the man down because he rubs you the wrong way. That's not much of a political argument.

---

Walter Johnson could (And DID) eat Ty Cobb's lunch in front of him...(#whythereARENTanyHighSchoolsnamedafterTyCob btomyknowledge)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The essential difference between constitutional government and the mafia is that government's powers are supposed to be used in accordance with the laws passed by the people's representatives rather than the whim of the leader. That has been the whole point of constitutional development since the Magna Carta. Trump clearly doesn't accept this, which makes him closer to a mafia don.

More examples of cognitive dissonance. You know that in business Trump was a con man who reneged on promises because he knew he could generally get away with it. Yet when it comes to politics he is somehow magically transformed into a man who will keep his promises. You tell us that he is fighting for the lower and middle classes against an 'elitist power grab' while ignoring the fact that most of his policies do the exact opposite. How are Trump and his cronies not elitists grabbing power?

I think Trump has basically two skills which have been effective for getting into power but have nothing to do with governing well. First, he understands that a lot of people can be conned for a long time if you are unscrupulous enough about lying and appealing to their prejudices. As long as your continually pick fights with various scapegoats they don't like, many people will not notice that you are really picking their pockets, particularly if they are being fed a steady diet of propaganda from Fox News etc.

Second, he understands that the rules of the game actually rely on a fair degree of voluntary compliance. He saw that if you are brazen enough you can get away with ignoring the rules in ways that were previously assumed to be impossible. I think that lesson might be the true legacy of Trump.

---

IIRC "cognitive dissonance" means holding two conflicting ideas as true simultaneously, yes?

I see your point but I don't think you see mine. Do you follow baseball, Flighty? I do. And I'm a Yankees fan, which makes me a giant asshole anywhere but New York - but I came by it honestly, my great-grandfather was a Yankees fan, my grandfather was a Yankees fan, and when I was growing up, you were simply a Yankees fan in my household or most likely food and parental comfort would have been withheld.

There's something I've learned watching the Yankees my whole life, and that is this: A person of some ability, when elevated to a grand stage, is capable of improving greatly. I've watched the Yankees bring people on-board and I'm thinking, "Why him?" Then suddenly his batting average goes through the roof, or he starts hitting twice as many home runs, or his ERA drops a full point, or his RBI's go from "retarded" to "average intelligence" when compared against the IQ scale.

Why does that happen? Because there is no higher calling in baseball than playing for the New York Yankees, simple as that. That new guy on the roster knows that this is the apex of his existence on this planet. He digs deep, finds his center of maximum effort, starts doing all the right things, and suddenly a very average ballplayer becomes a superstar. It's happened more times than I can remember, and I asked if you follow baseball because if you do, then you understand the truth of what I'm telling you.

I don't see Trump's situation being much different from that. He's spent a lifetime polishing his skills, his persona, his sales pitch. He's acquired great wealth and great experience. And now he's been called up to the big show.

All the evidence so far indicates he's reacting to the pressure by performing beyond all expectations, and you, Flighty, can continue to ignore the fact that he's doing a great job - that's what I call "cognitive dissonance" - but so far he's kept or is trying to keep every promise he made during his campaign.

Far as the wretched masses of which you and I are members, we elected him, and now he owes us. Make no mistake, Trump wants to be remembered as a GREAT President, he is purely ego-driven, and at this point in life, that means legacy-driven. To be remembered as great, he's going to have to improve the lifestyles of the poor and un-notable who elected him. He is most certainly working on just that.

The American people have never been in a better position than having a President who cares about one thing above all else - what people think of him.