The Donald Trump Thread

Nice try... But policy can be, and often is, steered by emotion. It is different to science and that was Typoz' point.
Oh, I see. It's all ok then.

Just so we're clear, facts aren't necessary as long as it's a topic you feel is true or right? Psi research has a much, much higher threshold to overcome because you feel it isn't true? Or do facts and evidence only apply to that which you've already set your heart on being "not true"?
 
Really? All I see is a doubling down on exactly this stuff, if not, as I stated previously, skyrocketing into the land of hyperbole with all of it.

You're probably right. Maybe I should have said the ones on the left who are sane and in good faith liberals... like this guy:

...but the weaponized liberals are doubling down and being driven over the edge.

You'd think it would sink in and people would calm TF down already, but obviously we live in a land full of nuts, and not the good kind enrobed in caramel or chocolate.

The media is a military force. They will never stop pressing for a color revolution and will continue agitating their SJW foot soldiers into action.

I do wonder, though, if you might be right Hurm about TPTB absolutely hating Trump

Wonder no more! :)

If it's true, that TPTB really do hate him, it aaaaalllllmost makes me want to throw logic to the wind, step into the fallacy zone, and support him. But gawd, that hair! That orange skin with the white eyes!

J/k, I'm not really that shallow. Usually.

They really REALLY hate him.
 
Oh, I see. It's all ok then.

Just so we're clear, facts aren't necessary as long as it's a topic you feel is true or right? Psi research has a much, much higher threshold to overcome because you feel it isn't true? Or do facts and evidence only apply to that which you've already set your heart on being "not true"?

No. I'm saying many factors are brought to bear on policy making.
 
No. I'm saying many factors are brought to bear on policy making.
That might be true, but policy should never be decided only on emotion. Some is necessary, yes, to avoid being heartless. But appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy for a reason, and I see it abused, not just used, abused by many so-called environmentalists. Moreover, appealing to emotion must be used carefully, otherwise it can destroy your argument. It makes it appear as though the facts do not support your argument and you end up with "fuck you for killing polar bears". Not the best way to go about presenting your viewpoint or supporting your argument.
 
You're probably right. Maybe I should have said the ones on the left who are sane and in good faith liberals... like this guy:

...but the weaponized liberals are doubling down and being driven over the edge.



The media is a military force. They will never stop pressing for a color revolution and will continue agitating their SJW foot soldiers into action.



Wonder no more! :)



They really REALLY hate him.
I agree with most of what he said, other than when he asked why Sanders wasn't on the ballot. Umm, duh, because Hillary and the DNC rigged the primary.

I do find it kind of funny though, that Sanders is the left's "Messiah 2.0". You'd think they'd learn with Obama and all of his empty promises.

People need to stop thinking that any politician is going to save them or save the country. Drain the swamp, yes. But putting other Swamp Things into the swamp to replace the ones you removed doesn't change anything. Seriously, how is Newt Gengrich still relevant? How does he still have a career. And Rudy "I am the superhero of 9-11" Giuliani? Seriously? Meh. Nuke em all. :D (J/k...sort of).
 
"This is partly why he regards the liberal characterization of himself as socially vile, as the politically incorrect devil incarnate, as laughable — and why he is stoutly unapologetic. They — liberals and media — don't understand what he is saying, or why, or to whom. ... And this, in the Bannon view, is all part of the profound misunderstanding that led liberals to believe that Donald Trump's mouth would doom him, instead of elect him."

"The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
...
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up."

"He [Trump] gets it; he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found such an ideal vessel."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...trategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747

Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement"

10:00 AM PST 11/18/2016 by Michael Wolff
...
Now Bannon is arguably the most powerful person on the new White House team, embodying more than anyone the liberals' awful existential pain and fury: How did someone so wrong — not just wrong, but inappropriate, unfit and "loathsome," according toThe New York Times— get it so spot-on right?

In these dark days for Democrats, Bannon has become the blackest hole.

"Darkness is good," says Bannon, who amid the suits surrounding him at Trump Tower, looks like a graduate student in his T-shirt, open button-down and tatty blue blazer — albeit a 62-year-old graduate student. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they" — I believe by "they" he means liberals and the media, already promoting calls for his ouster — "get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
...
It's the Bannon theme, the myopia of the media — that it tells only the story that confirms its own view, that in the end it was incapable of seeing an alternative outcome and of making a true risk assessment of the political variables — reaffirming the Hillary Clinton camp's own political myopia.
...
What he seems to have carried from a boyhood in a blue-collar, union and Democratic family in Norfolk, Va., and through his tour of the American establishment, is an unreconstructed sense of class awareness, or bitterness — or betrayal.
...
This is partly why he regards the liberal characterization of himself as socially vile, as the politically incorrect devil incarnate, as laughable — and why he is stoutly unapologetic. They — liberals and media — don't understand what he is saying, or why, or to whom. ... And this, in the Bannon view, is all part of the profound misunderstanding that led liberals to believe that Donald Trump's mouth would doom him, instead of elect him.
...
"I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," he tells me. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
...
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up.
...
"The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's wrong with this country," he continues. "It's just a circle of people talking to themselves who have no f—ing idea what's going on.
...
it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed over, but the conservative one too — not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They got it more wrong than anybody," he says. "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump.
...
While Clinton was largely absent from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump — even after the leak of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio — was speaking to ever-growing crowds of 35,000 or 40,000. "He gets it; he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message.
 
Last edited:
That might be true, but policy should never be decided only on emotion.
I never said it should... But consider trying to draft an overseas aid policy or animal welfare policy without emotion.

Some is necessary, yes, to avoid being heartless.

So you decide how much is necessary, and how much tips it into fallacy, in a non-scientific, informal discussion?

But appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy for a reason, and I see it abused, not just used, abused by many so-called environmentalists. Moreover, appealing to emotion must be used carefully, otherwise it can destroy your argument. It makes it appear as though the facts do not support your argument and you end up with "fuck you for killing polar bears". Not the best way to go about presenting your viewpoint or supporting your argument.

Well, that is not what I wrote. I am actual doubtful that "what have the polar bears ever done for us?" even qualifies as a logical fallacy, so obviously tongue-in-cheek as it is :)

Then again, in the post-expertise "trust the average Joe's intuition" world that David Bailey is inhabiting, we may find ourselves beyond logical argument.
 
The bad thing is, though, if the economy were turned around and drastic changes for the better were made in any sphere, the powers that be would not take this lightly. They just won't allow it . . . I'm afraid we'd be in for a good multi decade beating.
 
Last edited:
The bad thing is, though, if the economy were turned around and drastic changes for the better were made in any sphere, the powers that be would not take this lightly. They just won't allow it . . . I'm afraid we'd be in for a good multi decade beating.
Perhaps we all should stop seeing these people as all powerful. That's precisely what they want, correct? Don't better your lot or we'll rain hellfire on you for decades to come! I agree with most anarchists that in order to achieve the type of world I think most of us want, a massive shift in consciousness is absolutely required, and we aren't even on the loading dock much less the ferry.

That's why my wish was that everyone see through the political charade and say no to both "choices" we were presented with. That would be a start. But looking around today, it actually seems like people buy into this whole charade more than ever.
 
Off-topic post.
The problem is that I'm too full of ego. Once again, I'm back to that same question about ego. Should I be authentic and get involved, pissing off my pals, or try very hard to 'stay calm' and be happy just to observe?
Steve, my 2 cents. (And I'm just picking this up because you often come back to this question.) My conclusion drawn from deep NDErs is: it's all good, no matter what you do, and you shouldn't fret about it (unless you want the experience of fretting!). :)

Anita Moorjani:
I would want you to know that every part of you is magnificent - your ego, intellect, body, and spirit. It's who you are - a beautiful product of this Universe's creation. Every aspect of you is perfect. There's nothing to let go, nothing to forgive, nothing to attain. You already are everything you need to be. (Dying to Be Me, 2012, p. 182-183).

Nanci L. Danison:
Light Beings do not inhabit humans in order to evolve spiritually. Light Beings do not need to evolve because we are Source. We define Source as the highest level possible. What higher status could we possibly attain? Human life offers nothing other than learning what human life is like. (Answers from the Afterlife, 2016, p. 95).
 
Off-topic post.
Steve, my 2 cents. (And I'm just picking this up because you often come back to this question.) My conclusion drawn from deep NDErs is: it's all good, no matter what you do, and you shouldn't fret about it (unless you want the experience of fretting!). :)

Anita Moorjani:
I would want you to know that every part of you is magnificent - your ego, intellect, body, and spirit. It's who you are - a beautiful product of this Universe's creation. Every aspect of you is perfect. There's nothing to let go, nothing to forgive, nothing to attain. You already are everything you need to be. (Dying to Be Me, 2012, p. 182-183).

Nanci L. Danison:
Light Beings do not inhabit humans in order to evolve spiritually. Light Beings do not need to evolve because we are Source. We define Source as the highest level possible. What higher status could we possibly attain? Human life offers nothing other than learning what human life is like. (Answers from the Afterlife, 2016, p. 95).

Thanks Ian.
....yes, though I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by either passage, the skeptic in me just isn't that keen on the people that are all "love and light lalala" :D

Maybe you're right, I just want the experience of fretting ! ;) But it's not really that I fret, rather that I'm excited by looking for an answer that fits.

Anita Moorjani is high in my estimation at the moment, because she recently had a live session on Facebook and it was gold dust, every point she made and every question that she answered hit the spot in the 29mins she was live. Really enjoyed the session, I sent it to my mum as I though that she was her circumstances were exactly described in one of Anita's problem scenarios. She loved it. Strange because I never normally listen to her Facebook stuff...mmm.

It may be that these paragraphs above are ultimately correct, at some level we are God, I can agree, but after that is where I part with the ladies as the passages stand. We're not there yet. I don't think that when we die we go back to being perfect, or as perfect as the light can be ( I don't think God is perfect, just a hell of a lot closer to perfection than we are). There are many reports from the afterlife that we review our lives in detail and spend a great deal of effort and time(if time exists elsewhere) planning our next life. Why would we need to do that if we were already 'the light'?

Maybe we are, but we get separated from God while we are growing? But what use would that be if the ultimate aim is to reach a level that we're already at? I don't think we can begin to understand the full picture, though maybe we are allowed to enter the light for a while after we pass, so that a loving God and his 'sons and daughters' can reacquaint themselves before once again becoming separated?

I think that we have a serious job to do for God, I don't think it's just a fun park. The lesson is that it can be a fun park if we make the right choices, but until we reach much higher levels of consciousness, we remain separate from the light most of the time. That's my creative ramblings on the subject for this moment in time, I bet somewhere Gods aware of my frustrations/limitations/weaknesses but also my determination/spirit/love of life and this makes him laugh deep in his belly. I wouldn't like to be perfect - it's boring!

As always I return to Manjit who constantly reminds me of what our 'truth' might be:

"And I can't help but feel that the universe, reality, consciousness, being, divinity or whatever.......is just so much more mysterious, awesome, magical, astonishing, incomprehensible, mind-shattering than anything humankind has conceived of."

There's God talking - right there.

It's all good!

This forum is my safe place. It truly can raise consciousness.
Again I feel the need to radiate gratefulness.:D
 
Ok, so the Trump thread has turned into a discussion of NDEs. I suppose the Brexit thread should discuss the hard problem of consciousness or something?
I dunno, amidst all the negativity and disagreements, I think it's kind of a nice reminder, going back to what might actually matter when all of this today is mere history.

It's nice to be reminded that we do have a divinity within each of us. That no matter how far apart we all might seem at times, our common thread is that we all, well most of us I think, are doing our best and truly want a better world, even if we disagree on what that world might look like or how we get there.
 
I dunno, amidst all the negativity and disagreements, I think it's kind of a nice reminder, going back to what might actually matter when all of this today is mere history.

It's nice to be reminded that we do have a divinity within each of us. That no matter how far apart we all might seem at times, our common thread is that we all, well most of us I think, are doing our best and truly want a better world, even if we disagree on what that world might look like or how we get there.
Well, the comment I made was quite gentle, I was thinking of something more biting/sarcastic regarding how many thousands of posts it took before something interesting turned up...but decided against it ;)
 
FwBJjwl.png


Not my personal preference for 2020 but it did give me a laugh. :)
 
Not quite the most youthful Returning Jedi there. ;) (79...)

There's also the argument Obama was the continuation of Bush's Empire, and Trump ultimately a continuation of that trend.

OTOH, Trump could willingly forgo and shrink back Bush/Obama executive power...I mean I'm not gonna hold my breath but we'll see...
 
Back
Top