Trump Consciousness

The following is a public service announcement:

Cut back on internet use.

This is what I meant in my above post by Jim perceiving the problem with his posting being with us and not with him. In Jim's view, it seems, an objection to his partisan posting is simply reflective of internet addiction. There is no reason, Jim seems to think, to object to his posting other than that our viewing of his posts is compulsive - which isn't his fault. He took this exact same tack with us on Psience Quest.

(I post this in case anybody is confused as to the real meaning and intent behind Jim's otherwise apparently out of place (ETA: and pretty classically passive-aggressive) "public service announcement").
 
No, you just shifted the goal post. You did not ask this. You asked these questions below repeatedly in this thread:


Then, you make it clear that you did not want these questions answered after all.

Which is it Malf?

And of course, you would be more than willing to also answer yourself, the very same questions you asked of Sam?

Look at the post of mine you replied to in your post 775.


Also look at Sam’s post 770 that started this. He is worried about the dems winning a democratic election in a 4 year cycle.

Keep up.
 
Those are the very two posts of yours I quoted...
Quit playing rhetorical games...

this is what happens when you crash into an exchange without following the line of the conversation.

It was clear: Sam, to me, seems alarmingly paranoid about the possibility of the Democrats winning the next election, even though they can be voted out 4 years later,

I’m interested on where that paranoia comes from, hence my question. What specific activity or pastime does he carry out now that a change of government will curtail?
 
I’m interested on where that paranoia comes from, hence my question. What specific activity or pastime does he carry out now that a change of government will curtail?

You have shifted the discussion from freedom to a rhetorical question about a variety of candidate platforms and parties who are changing in their constituent demographics. You have purposely crafted the question so that it

1. Cannot structurally (not anything to do with verity) be answered, except with an answer which appears to favor you (I say 'you', because you have not risked a dog-in-the-hunt argument here in the first place, which we could even address).​
2. It seeks to deflect from the critical discussion Sam has laid out, and​
3. Bears only the goal of a stream of insult towards the person with whom you are supposedly engaged in conversation.​
Dictum of Rhetoric - what is posed in the rhetorical, can only be opposed with the rhetorical. One cannot answer a rhetorical question with objective reason and evidence.

You can find more on this signal of agency here: Interrogative Biasing: Asking the Wrong Question in Order to Get the Right Answer

So, since you have raised this very point as an accusation against me, it is you who are not following Sam's discussion path. And just to be sure, we'll ask him - Sam, which of us understands and is following your point?

And here is my accusation: You don't actually have a point - other than polarization, belittling and rhetoric. If you have an actual argument - then make it
 
Last edited:
Sam’s post, for those struggling with the concept:

I feel the exact same way. Especially when I travel abroad, I am embarrassed.

Sadly though, as far as President goes, we are only provided a binary choice. And because of what the alternative is, which not only, albeit in a different way, embarrasses me and for many, many reasons, when I consider the practical ramifications of 4 more years of Trump versus any currently foreseen alternative, the choice becomes simple. If this current batch of Democrats take the Presidency and ever get a majority in both the House and the Senate, it will be game over. Two things will happen. The senate will go nuclear (50% plus the VP) on everything. And they will change the makeup of the Supreme Court by packing the court with a number of ideological leftists and you can kiss the experiment of the United States goodbye forever.

And I understand that some who read this post are likely cheering for this to happen and the sooner, the better. For me, this would be terribly sad to see. And in my opinion, if this happens, I truly fear for my loved ones, friends, community, nation and the world.
 
Sam’s post, for those struggling with the concept: "Sadly though, as far as President goes, we are only provided a binary choice."
Yes, Sam in the very quote you provided - answered and framed the context for exclusion of the very question you are attempting to force. Thank you for proving my point.

Again, you do not have an actual argument.
 
Last edited:



EKE-OfdXUAADARP


EKE-OffXkAAgVlm


EKE-OfeWoAAeLt_


EKE-OffWkAEloU8
 
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...up-plotters-against-trump-facing-a-reckoning/

"I think it is important to lower expectations about what the Horowitz report will accomplish. It is not an indictment. It is an audit. It will present findings of deficiencies without reaching conclusions about bias or motives of those who behaved illegally or incompetently. That is not Horowitz’s job. But the report will provide criminal referrals, though that will not likely be specifically mentioned in the report. This is an important step in setting the stage for John Durham to press forward with the criminal investigation.​
I want to remind you of Bill Barr’s speech to the Federalist Society a week ago. He made a specific point about the plot to sabotage Donald Trump’s Presidency:​
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.​
I believe that Bill Barr intentionally signaled that the sedition by the intelligence community, the FBI and the Department of Justice will not be allowed to slide. But he is going to do everything to punish them according to the law. He is committed to a rule of law and enforcing the laws of this country.
...​
I do not believe that Bill Barr is going to prevent John Durham from following the evidence and charging those culpable with crimes. I suspect that this fact is weighing heavily on Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brenna, Jim Clapper and others in the FBI, DOJ and intelligence community. We will know more in a month."​
 
Two more reasons they want to impeach Trump. 1) He cut off the funds coming to US politicians from Ukraine. 2) He will prosecute US politicians for taking corrupt money from Ukraine. It is turning out that a lot of foreign aid doesn't go to the people of the countries we give it to. Much of it goes to the politicians in the foreign countries and much of it is kicked back to US politicians.


"I discovered a pattern of corruption that the Washington press has been covering up for three or four years. You should have jumped all over this in 2015 when this awful conflict was mentioned. And it was hidden and suppressed by the Washington press. The reality is I'm embarrassing you because you didn't do your job. And I'm also going to bring out a pay-for-play scheme in the Obama administration that will be devastating to the Democrat Party. I expected the moment I heard Biden's name, I told my colleagues they're gonna try to kill me. Because they're gonna kill the messenger. But damn it the Mafia couldn't kill me. Your colleagues are not gonna kill me."
 
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-empire-strikes-back/

People capable of feeling shame would not have immediately followed up the Russiagate hoax fiasco with another transparently phony—and in “substance” nearly identical—attempt to remove President Trump from office, overturn the 2016 election, and shower deplorable-Americans with contempt and hatred. But our ruling elites have no shame.

...
it’s a measure of how much he’s feared that his enemies are running this play against him now, rather than simply trying to defeat him next year. Which more than suggests they doubt they can.
...
 
If Alex is comfortable with his forum being used as a mouthpiece for partisan propaganda rather than as a venue for opposing views to be discussed and debated, and if David as moderator can't see a problem with that either, then so be it, but I agree with you, Silence, that it's not in keeping with the Skeptiko "brand".

Having agreed I am "pro-discussion" I also pointed out that I think Jim should have the freedom to post that which he wishes to post.

The statement I quoted above is an example of one of the methods folks employ that often result in their target succumbing to the social media intimidation (cyber bullying). I am glad to see Jim Smith has so far not succumbed.

The main reason I quoted the statement above is because this is an example of what I find so many "do" and do as gangs. This is intimidation and intimidation never results in one's experience of increased freedom, it far more often results in one's experience of a decrease in their freedom.

And I have observed that this is a "way of being" that appears to be employed in ever increasing instances and in ever increasing strength. And I have observed this is a way of being that is far, far more often displayed by folks who are affiliated with the Democratic party or with that which is called "the left" or with what is sometimes referred to as "progressivism."

malf's suggestion that if the dems get in charge next year happens, its no big deal because they can just be voted out 4 years later... but what he failed to factor in was the details of what I stated I "feared" which is a full sweep of the Presidency, a continued House majority and a majority in the Senate. And I stated what I believed they would do so I won't waste time and repeat that... but if this happens, it is game over for the experiment of the United States of America (facilitated by the actions I believe would likely occur if they get take control of three branches) in conjunction with the clear and obvious lack of any conscience held by those who would find themselves in power whereby the "new reality" would be imposed by an even greater degree of bullying once the masses that align Democrat/left/progressive taste power.

Its really a horrific scenario... and even if Trump wins or if he loses, the Senate remains a majority for the Republicans, unless enough Americans wake up... four years later will be the final curtain call as the odds all three branches go to the dems is increasing due, in part, to the brainwashing of the younger generations by the co-opted indoctrination system they like to call "the education system."

And I haven't even touched the psychospiritual games currently being played and by who and by "what."
 
Last edited:
I have updated the op:

11/24/19 UPDATE: Cyber bullying is not permitted in this thread. Please report all cases of cyber bullying to the moderator.

9/3/19 - Update. If you post to this thread please maintain proper decorum and always be polite (moderator please take note).

If you can't be nice, post somewhere else.

If you have problems controlling your emotions, it is probably better if you just stay out of this thread.

Clarification: Please refrain from sarcasm and satire because that can provoke animosity. I would like this thread to be a place to discuss Trump and related issues in an objective manner and in as friendly as way as possible.
 
Report of cyberbullying: In post 794 I am quoted making a post that I never made.

I have reported a couple of Jim’s posts too. The first time I have ever done so on any forum.
Is this really an adult forum, or a kiddies ‘safe space’?
 
Yes, Sam in the very quote you provided - answered and framed the context for exclusion of the very question you are attempting to force. Thank you for proving my point.

Again, you do not have an actual argument.

I freely admit to having no actual argument. I’m merely asking a question.

I find your interjections bizarre ES. Sam makes a candid post of his personal fears. Fine. I ask for further clarifications of his fears, specific to him, and somehow (with your customary arrogance) you feel qualified to answer on Sam’s behalf. How can you know how a change of government will specifically impact the personal circumstances of another forum member?
 
Please, please let's all try to return this thread to a reasonably serious discussion about President Trump - trying our very best not to score points off others who post here.

I have removed the new 'Cyber bullies' thread, and I want the discussion to return to normal. I think those of us who support the President, can see endless flaws in those opposed to him - including, I suppose people who post against him here - but I suppose the people who post against Trump here, feel the opposite way.

President Trump is a very polarising figure - you either like him or hate him - but there is no point in becoming personal when replying to those with an opposite point of view.


David
 
Back
Top