Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[zamyrabyrd]

Some people are well read. Educated.
That is, they memorize things that others have unearthed.
They seldom make good connections. Seldom understand how things relate unless taught.

Then there are intelligent people. People who unearth new ideas and make connections through reason.
People who see something and need to understand how and why.
These are the people that the readers and educated later learn from.

Then you have the dolts. (people like Sarah) Not a reader, not educated and worst of all, zero intellectual curiosity.
You figure out why I posted this and how it pertains to you.

Have a good day.

Do look up 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and then take out a mirror.

[eljr]

Don't patronize me. Take responsibility for your own crapola.
It must be terrible being around a person like you who insults and then tells his victim, "It's your fault you feel hurt. Have a nice day."
Why don't you look up the word "narcissism"?
You might actually learn something.

that's telling me! good job, 

for the record,

I am sooooooooooo opposite your orange deities disorder.

I do admit, the last few years, I have lost my ability to tolerate ignorance.

Not good as millenniums know more than all others humans ever born and I am surrounded by them!

Supporting Trump is treasonous but I just can't hate people understanding how powerless they are to truth.

so, sincerely, enjoy your day

[eljr]

Do look up 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and then take out a mirror.

at your insistence.... well, it is a mental disorder and i am here talking to Trumpets. 

[zamyrabyrd]

Not good as millenniums know more than all others humans ever born and I am surrounded by them!

Supporting Trump is treasonous but I just can't hate people understanding how powerless they are to truth.

at your insistence.... well, it is a mental disorder and i am here talking to Trumpets. 

You're smarter than half the country: NPD!

[arpeggio]

The problem with Trumpsters is that they are very ill informed.  Current conservative have a belief system (Conservatives of twenty years ago are not as dogmatic as they are today.  I have reread Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative and in today's Republican Party he could not win the Republican primary for the U. S. Senate in the State of Arizona.)  They live in a bubble and refuse to acknowledge any facts that threatened these beliefs.  It amazes me that such intelligent individuals are so ill informed.  It is extremely difficult to challenge these individuals without questioning their personal integrity.

[zamyrabyrd]

The problem with Trumpsters is that they are very ill informed.  Current conservative have a belief system (Conservatives of twenty years ago are not as dogmatic as they are today.  I have reread Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative and in today's Republican Party he could not win the Republican primary for the U. S. Senate in the State of Arizona.)  They live in a bubble and refuse to acknowledge any facts that threatened these beliefs.  It amazes me that such intelligent individuals are so ill informed.  It is extremely difficult to challenge these individuals without questioning their personal integrity.

Just because YOU say it, doesn't make it true.
I'd say" complete poppycock"!

[Karl Henning]

The problem with Trumpsters is that they are very ill informed.  Current conservative have a belief system (Conservatives of twenty years ago are not as dogmatic as they are today.  I have reread Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative and in today's Republican Party he could not win the Republican primary for the U. S. Senate in the State of Arizona.)  They live in a bubble and refuse to acknowledge any facts that threatened these beliefs.  It amazes me that such intelligent individuals are so ill informed.  It is extremely difficult to challenge these individuals without questioning their personal integrity.

There is that challenge.  FWIW, I was not speaking of your posts.

Heck, I have been at times breezy in my dismissal of a post of zb's.

[Karl Henning]

Just because YOU say it, doesn't make it true.

You remember that you thought the Obama "ribs and pussy" wheeze was legit.  If you have retracted, I failed to note it 

[zamyrabyrd]

You remember that you thought the Obama "ribs and pussy" wheeze was legit.  If you have retracted, I failed to note it 

Wow, what a memory! I didn't know what I may have said or may have rather repeated, made such an impression.
Did you mean the following, where the young Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama was reading from his own book, "Dreams of My Father"?
Maybe he meant "cat"? Actually the whole except is crude. At the "Cambridge Public Library"

https://www.youtube.com/v/_IGzuhOuz00

[zamyrabyrd]

There is that challenge.  FWIW, I was not speaking of your posts.
Heck, I have been at times breezy in my dismissal of a post of zb's.

I would like for you to consider something seriously for once that is not vomited out of Vox, CNN or the Washington Post.

While Republicans scamper like frightened deer from any discussion of morality, the Left frames almost all of its arguments in moral terms. They frame the arguments wrongly, and dishonestly, but the fact remains that they use moral language. And it works. Republicans say, "Adopt our position because it will make you prosperous and secure." The Left says (incorrectly), "Adopt our position because it is right and ethical." Guess who wins hearts and minds — especially the hearts and minds of the younger generation?

Of course, the irony here is that Leftists are moral relativists and materialists. They have no basis upon which to make a moral argument, but they make it anyway. Conservatives have a basis, yet they do not make it. They also have the greatest human rights atrocity in world history to fight against, yet many of them will not fight it.

The claim we make is too radical, too absolute, too severe. We insist that actual human persons are being legally and systematically murdered by the thousands every day in America. We insist that 60 million such persons have lost their lives in the last few decades. We insist that entire generations are being erased from existence.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32849/walsh-why-tomi-lahren-catastrophically-wrong-about-matt-walsh

[Karl Henning]

I would like for you to consider something seriously for once that is not vomited out of Vox, CNN or the Washington Post.

While Republicans scamper like frightened deer from any discussion of morality, the Left frames almost all of its arguments in moral terms. They frame the arguments wrongly, and dishonestly, but the fact remains that they use moral language. And it works. Republicans say, "Adopt our position because it will make you prosperous and secure." The Left says (incorrectly), "Adopt our position because it is right and ethical." Guess who wins hearts and minds — especially the hearts and minds of the younger generation?

Of course, the irony here is that Leftists are moral relativists and materialists. They have no basis upon which to make a moral argument, but they make it anyway. Conservatives have a basis, yet they do not make it. They also have the greatest human rights atrocity in world history to fight against, yet many of them will not fight it.

The claim we make is too radical, too absolute, too severe. We insist that actual human persons are being legally and systematically murdered by the thousands every day in America. We insist that 60 million such persons have lost their lives in the last few decades. We insist that entire generations are being erased from existence.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32849/walsh-why-tomi-lahren-catastrophically-wrong-about-matt-walsh

Well, the apparent tendentiousness of your invitation aside, I accept.

However, at the outset:  you should know from what I have posted in this thread, that I do in fact read the National Review;  you may note that while I have read Vox in the past, I have not, for quite a while.  An old friend of mine used to post occasional items from Daily Wire, and so there was a period when that was part of my 'right wing' reading material, but that period did not run long (and we will get into why, a little later).  I suppose my point is that while you addressed this to me, and you list "Vox, CNN or the Washington Post," Vox is outdated information, CNN is practically an entire red herring, and . . . well, we'll talk about the Washington Post in a bit, too.

All that said, I read for content.  Some here (snypsss, e.g.) will scorn something, unread, because it is published by the Washington Post.  Your use of "vomited" above does not argue well for your own fairness, does it?

So, what about the content of what you posted?

It starts with propaganda, a strawman.  Republicans scampering like frightened deer from any discussion of morality?  What, are not Pence and Sessions Republicans?  They discuss it, and more, they pontificate.  But of course, that introductory clause is simply to set up . . . what?

Why, an equal and opposite strawman, of course:  The Left, Leftists.  You don't need me to tell you that the more heavily a right-wing media source relies on a faceless The Left in its argument – yea, and in its headlines – it is de facto biased outside the realm of responsible news reportage.

I love "Leftists are moral relativists and materialists."  I love it.  No Republican who supports and enables Donald J. Trump has any standing to accuse anyone else on the planet of being a moral relativist and materialist.

Perhaps you have seen the following chart.  Maybe you will find it of interest.  CNN is middling in terms of Overall Quality (no surprise) and is borderline "Skews Liberal" (also, no surprise).  Your post notwithstanding, I do not consult CNN at all, which is simple quality control.  Vox is an improvement in terms of quality, but borderline hyper-partisan liberal;  I find that this matches my long-term impression . . . and the bias disinclines me to do my reading there.  Your listing the Washington Post in their company is your trip, I'm afraid.

Where is the Daily Wire?  Solidly in Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info, and Hyper-Partisan Conservative, spilling into Most Extreme Conservative.  Here, too, this matches my impression formed over perhaps a month of occasional reading there.

So, I ask you:  where, really, is the source of the vomit?

[SimonNZ]

So: Trumps behaviour at the NATO summit pushed a discussion of bringing Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance off the table.

His handlers will be pleased.

[Karl Henning]

You say "tool of Moscow" like it's a bad thing!

[Zeus]

They also have the greatest human rights atrocity in world history to fight against, yet many of them will not fight it.

Wow.  Someone has been whipped up into a religious extremist frenzy. 

Life begins at birth.  Is that so difficult to understand? 

Find one passage in the New Testament that disputes the claim.  Even one. 

While you're at it, count how many times in the New Testament we are extorted to love one another, to treat others kindly, and even to extend our kindness and love to strangers -- like immigrants.  I would guess dozens of times. 

This pro-immigrant message, repeatedly and emphatically delivered, is completely ignored, and is buried by an anti-abortion crusade which has almost zero foundation in the Bible!

The so-called conservative Christians, better named christian Capitalists, are engaged in massive hypocracy, and have lost practically all contact with the original message of Jeshua.

Geez.  I suppose though it's easier to pass through the eye of a needle....

[bwv 1080]

So: Trumps behaviour at the NATO summit pushed a discussion of bringing Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance off the table.

His handlers will be pleased.

This is no defense of Trump, but I thought back in 2008 that McCain's campaigning to bring Georgia into NATO was exceedingly reckless and was widely, and properly, criticized from both the left and libertarian right

for example:

https://www.thenation.com/article/getting-georgias-war/

We have no national security interest in these areas that are historically part of Russia's sphere of influence.  Georgia or the Ukraine is not worth the risk of a shooting war with Russia.

But, knee-jerk reactionaries that you all seem to be, anything that is the opposite of what you imagine Trump's policy to be has to be a good idea

[SimonNZ]

Wow.  Someone has been whipped up into a religious extremist frenzy. 

Life begins at birth.  Is that so difficult to understand? 

Find one passage in the New Testament that disputes the claim.  Even one. 

While you're at it, count how many times in the New Testament we are extorted to love one another, to treat others kindly, and even to extend our kindness and love to strangers -- like immigrants.  I would guess dozens of times. 

This pro-immigrant message, repeatedly and emphatically delivered, is completely ignored, and is buried by an anti-abortion campaign which has almost zero foundation in the Bible!

The so-called conservative Christians, better named christian Capitalists, are engaged in massive hypocracy, and have lost practically all contact with the original message of Jeshua.

Geez.  I suppose it's easier to pass through the eye of a needle....

I'd also wager that the numbers for republicans and democrats getting abortions is somewhere near equal.

[SimonNZ]

Trump wants tough new Air Force One paint job

President Trump wants to update the paint job on the next version of Air Force One, ditching the iconic robin's-egg blue (which he calls a "Jackie Kennedy color") for a bolder, "more American" look.

Trump rarely gets into the weeds of government negotiations. But he sat down in the Oval Office with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg in February to personally hammer out the $4 billion deal for a pair of replacement 747s for use as Air Force One (the call sign for whatever aircraft the president is on)."

[Karl Henning]

Wow, what a memory! I didn't know what I may have said or may have rather repeated, made such an impression.
Did you mean the following, where the young Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama was reading from his own book, "Dreams of My Father"?
Maybe he meant "cat"? Actually the whole [excerpt] is crude.

Perhaps it is crude;  I have not watched, and I'll let your assessment serve.

What made an impression was, that you seemed to think that this reading at a library, was morally equivalent to the current POTUS boasting about sexual assault.  That is, it is not so simple a matter as "Trump said pussy;  but, so did Obama!"

[SimonNZ]

This is no defense of Trump, but I thought back in 2008 that McCain's campaigning to bring Georgia into NATO was exceedingly reckless and was widely, and properly, criticized from both the left and libertarian right

for example:

https://www.thenation.com/article/getting-georgias-war/

We have no national security interest in these areas that are historically part of Russia's sphere of influence.  Georgia or the Ukraine is not worth the risk of a shooting war with Russia.

But, knee-jerk reactionaries that you all seem to be, anything that is the opposite of what you imagine Trump's policy to be has to be a good idea

And the members of the summit might have come to that conclusion during their allotted meeting time, had one egomaniac not decided its all about him and "loudest voice wins".


And I don't know who you think you're describing at the end there, but I'm reminded that insiders have reported that Trump on numerous occasions has decided policy by asking what Obama did and then saying "then we'll do the opposite".

[Florestan]

Populists are not the voters, but the authoritarian and elitist criminals that some voters put their hopes on (authoritarian power abusers, think of Mussolini, Berlusconi, Hitler and Stalin all alike)

Berlusconi, the equal of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin? 

What have you been smoking, man? Not even Calvinism can be any excuse for such a stupid notion.