Trump

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Wed, 12. Sep 18, 23:37

I'm having a hard time finding out what actually is going on with Trump's agenda. Seems most news outlets are only interested in joining the hate Trump choir.

I understand Trump is a piece of work, the likes of which staggers the mind, but I wonder why the media isn't doing more to discuss policies, rather than just the personalities involved?

Anyway, not much news on the Trump front. Not to say the news isn't plastered with his orangeness.

Retiredman · Post by **Retiredman** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 02:12

Observe wrote:I'm having a hard time finding out what actually is going on with Trump's agenda. Seems most news outlets are only interested in joining the hate Trump choir.

I understand Trump is a piece of work, the likes of which staggers the mind, but I wonder why the media isn't doing more to discuss policies, rather than just the personalities involved?

The media doesn't discuss policies because over the past 40 years they
have transformed themselves. They place op-ed above just reporting the news. In fact they have many morning and afternoon shows dedicated to opinions. None of them every balanced.
During the 2016 elections they threw their weight behind one person.
Trump made them look like fools. They have taken their journalism and
transformed it into pseudo nonsense. They place their product on the
stand next to the checkout counter with the rest of the tabloids.

I can understand non-US rants and raves. Their opinions have been
cultured by the US media and Hollywood for those 40 years. They have been
locked step into following the hype and not finding the real facts.

As far as a Trump policy.. I didn't like the tax law change. I think it sucks.
It isn't the taxes.. it's the damm overspending those bas...d are doing.
Sure Trump is a piece, so was old whats her name. But Trump doesn't have 20 plus national scandals under his belt. And that was before running for President.

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 03:09

Morkonan wrote: It's not inevitable, of course. Many activists are level-headed and well-meaning people, right? But, the world creates ideas based on extremes. We're great at doing that. It's part of what I fell afoul of in an earlier post, pushing the meaning of "activists" to the extreme of... "extremist."

I would like to consider myself as one of those level-headed activist but ... *shrug*, people tend to be more generous when judging themselves, so who know. For your other points, it's just human nature to be dramatic. Why people love to compare people they hate to Hitler? Because it's dramatic. And everyone does it, it's just like I said, it's easier to see other people do it, and harder to recognize when you are doing it yourself. Again let's look at this.

Social change is a large and heavy freight train coming down a hill at 200km/h there is no stopping it, no matter how much you try, you can hop in or stand aside and be left behind. History is not very kind to people that try to stop progress

Think about it, that quote has a very hyperbole statement, and followed by what can be seen as a thinly veil threat. Now, everyone takes a deep breath, clear your mind for one minute and think about it: isn't this something that Trump would normally say? Yes, it doesn't have the bell and whistle that Trump tend to have, but the style and gesture are definitely the same, to me at least. Of course I'm not talking about the content, but rather the technique that one decides to uses to express himself and get the point across to others.

I often hear people making claim like "I don't think understand how X, Y, Z can say that, or agree with that ...etc...". And a lot of time, I think the key to under others is ... simply understand yourself first, and put other people in your shoes, or imagine you were being in their shoes. What made you say the things that you said? Your fiery passion? Your unshakable belief? Now, apply those things to that other guys who you didn't agree with ... and I don't think it's hard to understand, at least I don't think it'll be hard ... if you actually try.

On other points I actually didn't mean something as far reaching or as grandeur as what you guys are discussing. Have no problem with that of course, but my original point is more simple. I don't like when people become too single-minded in their goal, and cast aside everything else just for the shake of that goal - no matter how good and noble that goal is. You will never have a society where everyone agree with each others, heck if that's the case than we wouldn't even need activism. Change, for good and for bad, will always create friction. Social change is not a process of elimination, it's about co-existence. The point of activism is to convince those who already there, to accept those who are still not there, it's not about telling those who are already there that their time is up, get out of the way so you can put something new at their place. That is why I had a very ... unkind look at that quote above.

Observe wrote:I'm having a hard time finding out what actually is going on with Trump's agenda. Seems most news outlets are only interested in joining the hate Trump choir.

I understand Trump is a piece of work, the likes of which staggers the mind, but I wonder why the media isn't doing more to discuss policies, rather than just the personalities involved?
Taking a guess? Probably they don't actually have a better or more concrete policy to talk about. Again, it's easy to tell everyone "hey can I make your life better!", I can say that, you can say that, Trump can say that, the people who hate him can say that. But get down to the "how" ... I doubt many people have a plan.

It's just the same thing with every election. I don't know how it was done in the 20th century, but for me the 21st century election has been largely a pissing contest. Candidates often have little good to talk about themselves, so they focus more on how the others are worse than them. So what you see right now is not exactly news, it's just a bit more fiery because the casts this time are certainly the most colorful bunch

Skism · Post by **Skism** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 03:50

Observe wrote:
Masterbagger wrote:You can't force free people to obey your agenda or you become the bad guy.
Are you a skunk, aardvark, badger or one of the other solitary creatures? If not, then you are part of a social species. As such, you are NOT free of responsibility to your fellow-man. Perhaps you will be reborn as one or other of the animals who actually are 'free'. Let us know how that works out when some human has you on their dinner table or has you laying on the floor as a rug.

THAT assumes that Masterbagger believes in reincarnation which he may well not

not everyone is a Hindu/into eastern philosophy you know

Btw on a personal note are you ok? because you made several sensible posts in a row (not this one) a few pages back and it had me wondering what on earth was going on with one of my detractors on this forum

Masterbagger · Post by **Masterbagger** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 03:58

Observe wrote:
Masterbagger wrote:You can't force free people to obey your agenda or you become the bad guy.
Are you a skunk, aardvark, badger or one of the other solitary creatures? If not, then you are part of a social species. As such, you are NOT free of responsibility to your fellow-man. Perhaps you will be reborn as one or other of the animals who actually are 'free'. Let us know how that works out when some human has you on their dinner table or has you laying on the floor as a rug.

Did you even consider for a moment that I might already have felt a desire to give back to my nation and acted on it? Just because I agree with the founders of America that individual liberty is the most important ideal we have does not make me separate from society. I just reserve the right to disagree if whatever obligation you feel entitled to impose on me is inconsistent with my own values.

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 04:14

- and how do you feel about obligations imposed upon others, when they are inconsistent with their values ..?

meanwhile history on Kavanaugh:
Randi Rhodes AirForce - The dishonourable Brett Kavanaugh..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roEVepy1nOc

- the diversions continue - hunt the mole..!!

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 04:21

Skism wrote:Btw on a personal note are you ok? because you made several sensible posts in a row...

I just call it how I see it. Sometimes I lean left and sometimes right. I try to walk a middle path most of the time, but I frequently fall off into an abyss of delusion. More often than not, I am probably wrong - especially when I start pointing fingers at others. Thanks for asking.

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 16:17

Trump on Puerto Rico.

Given the choice between trusting what Trump has to say on the matter, or trusting public health researchers at Harvard, I think I know who I'd go with....

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 16:26

RegisterMe wrote:Trump on Puerto Rico.

Given the choice between trusting what Trump has to say on the matter, or trusting public health researchers at Harvard, I think I know who I'd go with....

Here's another thing about Trump's presidency that should never be forgotten. Including his denial and prior inaction.

Masterbagger wrote:...individual liberty....

Individual liberty is quite important.

Which is why it's important to push against the religion trying to spread itself onto other people, science, education;

plus push against the mostly religious defining what a civil union is.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 17:34

At what point does the individual liberty of one person, become an infringement on the individual liberty of others?

For example: One person believes God has told them that they must shout their gospel on the street corner. A person walking nearby, may find this gospel objectionable, but they can't do anything about it, because to do so would deprive the preacher of his/her liberty.

Another: One person thinks they should be able to ride their loud, smelly dirt bike over remote hiking trails. Another person has worked hard all year, so they can take a month off work to walk this trail and to enjoy the greatness and wonder of nature.

Individual liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't harm others. The trouble we run into, is in defining harm. In neither example, was anyone physically harmed. However, there was emotional harm.

A big part of the social debate occurring in present times, involves deciding what is the acceptable threshold of emotional pain, one person can inflict upon another, in the name of personal liberty?

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 17:56

Observe wrote:At what point does the individual liberty of one person, become an infringement on the individual liberty of others?

I've said this so often that I can't remember if I created it or I remembered it as being quoted from someone else...

"Majority rule with tyranny towards none" - that's what is supposed to exist in the U.S.

For example: One person believes God has told them that they must shout their gospel on the street corner. A person walking nearby, may find this gospel objectionable, but they can't do anything about it, because to do so would deprive the preacher of his/her liberty.

But, they may not be able to just start shouting their "gospel" or "proselytizing" in the middle of a crowded sidewalk. They may need to get a permit, first. And that's how we've put a control in place for this sort of thing.

Another: One person thinks they should be able to ride their loud, smelly dirt bike over remote hiking trails. Another person has worked hard all year, so they can take a month off work to walk this trail and to enjoy the greatness and wonder of nature.

There is certainly public land that has restrictions on vehicles and use, accommodating either desire. BUT, one doesn't have the right to go to a bike trail, set aside for that purpose, and to demand bikers stop biking.

Individual liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't harm others. The trouble we run into, is in defining harm. In neither example, was anyone physically harmed. However, there was emotional harm.

We have defined what "can not be done." That's the Bill of Rights. But, it only applies to public and government action/lands. And, in some cases, restrictions have been agreed upon. For instance, you can't demand to go into an ICBM missile bunker to do your knitting... You also can't park in the middle of the street or on the sidewalk. And, where it comes down to individuals, neither the government nor anyone else can take away someone's Rights, though an individual may agree to voluntarily curtail those rights in certain situations. (Like not shouting "Movie" in a crowded firehouse.) But, no person can separate themselves from their rights, no matter what.

A big part of the social debate occurring in present times, involves deciding what is the acceptable threshold of emotional pain, one person can inflict upon another, in the name of personal liberty?

You can not force another person to do something they do not want to do without significant legal ramifications. Only the government can do that.

However, people do not have the right to not be offended by the legal actions of others as long as they are able to choose to avoid being exposed to those actions.

If you're scrolling through the TV channels and see some nudity, you're empowered to change the channel. Being offended by an accidental bit of full-frontal might have been the result, but you weren't forced to watch it.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 18:12

Guess Trump just can't stop lying about anything that disagrees with his proir lies. Wonder how he keeps his lies straight sometimes but spouting that the total deaths in the Puerto Rican hurricane are lies cooked up by the Democrats might be pushing things too far. (Unless he's figuring he'd better jump on this quick before his base starts believing the truth. Can't have that happening.)

Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
.....This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico!

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/13/64737791 ... -democrats

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/13/poli ... index.html

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 19:07

Even if you don't like the Young Turks this piece about Trump's response to 9/11, and this year's anniversary, is worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qr0wBwN4PU

clakclak · Post by **clakclak** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 19:25

RegisterMe wrote:Even if you don't like the Young Turks[...]

Lets be honest. Is there anyone who does?

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 19:25

Observe wrote:At what point does the individual liberty of one person, become an infringement on the individual liberty of others?

When the other person dictates what one can or can not do.
That's as far as people go.

As far as government goes, that is allowed to do even less.

Observe wrote: For example: One person believes God has told them that they must shout their gospel on the street corner. A person walking nearby, may find this gospel objectionable, but they can't do anything about it, because to do so would deprive the preacher of his/her liberty.

Other than disturbing the peace, I see no issues.

Observe wrote: Another: One person thinks they should be able to ride their loud, smelly dirt bike over remote hiking trails. Another person has worked hard all year, so they can take a month off work to walk this trail and to enjoy the greatness and wonder of nature.

Unless park prohibits it, and many do, again, no issues.

Observe wrote: Individual liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't harm others. The trouble we run into, is in defining harm. In neither example, was anyone physically harmed. However, there was emotional harm.

A big part of the social debate occurring in present times, involves deciding what is the acceptable threshold of emotional pain, one person can inflict upon another, in the name of personal liberty?

Fair, and we can talk about defining where the emotional harm becomes significant. But we are as a society generally arent there yet and are still dealing with more than just emotional issues.

We have countries that disallow more basic things, like freedom to be in a union with another human. From that we disallow many other economic opportunities, protections under law and in courts, pursuit of family.

In US there are backwards places that prevent children from getting access to scientific knowledge, that force children to pray religion that is not theirs.

To be clear though, I mean public/government/city.

brucewarren · Post by **brucewarren** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 19:39

@fiksal another example for you.

Person A and person B live in a block of flats, or what Americans call apartments.

Between the flats is something that is officially called a wall but in practical terms might as well be a thin piece of paper.

It's two in the morning. Person A wishes to hold a loud party. Person B wishes to get a nights sleep. Given the lack of sound insulation the two activities cannot both take place at the same time.

Should the council/government intervene and prevent A from holding his party?

In the UK there are laws about how much noise you can make late at night. Is this an infringement of A's rights or is it merely common sense?

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 19:48

brucewarren wrote:@fiksal another example for you.

Person A and person B live in a block of flats, or what Americans call apartments.

Between the flats is something that is officially called a wall but in practical terms might as well be a thin piece of paper.

It's two in the morning. Person A wishes to hold a loud party. Person B wishes to get a nights sleep. Given the lack of sound insulation the two activities cannot both take place at the same time.

Should the council/government intervene and prevent A from holding his party?

In the UK there are laws about how much noise you can make late at night. Is this an infringement of A's rights or is it merely common sense?

I dont think it's infringing the rights in this case, since person B is not prevented from having a party.

There are laws in US too about the noise, as well as neighborhood ordinances.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 20:20

The Kavenaugh hearings delayed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... 20%251%24s

Got some time on you're hands?

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy ... en-answers

And way...WAY out there in the fringes this happened:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/busi ... 20%251%24s

A tip of the tinfoil hat to Reddit I guess...

felter · Post by **felter** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 20:42

Qanon devotees falsely believe that President Donald Trump is secretly waging a war with special counsel Robert Mueller to take down a global pedophile ring led by Hollywood celebrities and the Democratic Party, most notably Hillary Clinton.

I heard Trump has problems taking down his own pants, let alone try to take down some mystical fantasy paedophile (spelt right) ring.

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Thu, 13. Sep 18, 20:53

71000 of crazy

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump