Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Eric Schiedler »

jupiviv wrote: For example, in the realm of anti-feminism we have the MGTOW (men going their own way) movement, which rejects feminism and conservatism in favour of celibacy, VR cum silicone hobbit torso -based masturbatory systems or non-romantic sex. They even have their own version of Geraldo now:

Single mother solipsism part 1
Single mother solipsism part 2
Amusingly, it so happens that I listened to the live broadcast of the first of the two TFM segments in the links. You forgot to add that about a third of his shtick is hockey mask, combat vest, Mad-Max apocalypse preperation for the supposed impending collapse due to hyper consumerism caused by Feminists that are cashing government checks.

This TFM guy, apparently from California, started his entire YouTube channel because he wanted a conversation with other like-minded guys. Therefore, his podcast streams are very conversational. I was chatting online on a few of them to see if I could find some philosophically-minded MGTOW types and I found a few. Although I will say they are too few and far between that I'll bother much in the future.

AlexanderMGTOW in Germany and Marcus of the Groundworks for the Metaphysics of MGTOW in Ireland have YouTube channels that are far more insightful and Marcus' philosophical content is non-academic in style although it falls short of investigating Reality.

Canada, the UK, Spain, Germany and Australia seem to be the hot spots and the better YouTube content producers come from those countries. The MGTOW men in the United States are too libertarian, of the type that loves the power of the US government so much that they hate it that they are not part of that power - thus they devolve into conspiracy theory, UFO research and civilization collapse porn.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Eric Schiedler wrote:You forgot to add that about a third of his shtick is hockey mask, combat vest, Mad-Max apocalypse preperation for the supposed impending collapse due to hyper consumerism caused by Feminists that are cashing government checks.
He does talk about civilisational collapse due to gynocentrism, but I don't recall him peddling survival merchandise. For that matter, I don't even recall him talking about "feminist hyper consumerism" causing the collapse of the West.

In my view he is one of the most ecumenical MGTOW commentators, and he has repeatedly stressed the need for men to lay aside political/ideological differences completely and instead focus on trying to help each other cope with women. To my knowledge he has never contradicted himself on that point.
I was chatting online on a few of them to see if I could find some philosophically-minded MGTOW types and I found a few. Although I will say they are too few and far between that I'll bother much in the future.
MGTOWs try to deal with the suffering caused by women/feminism/gynocentrism by rationally analysing its mental causes, which is the beginning of all philosophic ventures. But I do agree that genuine philosophic types among them are quite rarely, if at all, to be found.

Anyway, I was just offering an example of a genuine underculture which distances itself from a Hydra-like over-underculture (the men's rights/father's rights/PUA/conservative movement) despite superficial similarities or points of agreement with the same. The over-underculture, in this case the MRM, has the primary goal of carving out a space for itself within the mainstream. The under-underculture - MGTOW - favours clarity and solid results over compromise and PR.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Eric Schiedler »

jupiviv wrote:
Eric Schiedler wrote:You forgot to add that about a third of his shtick is hockey mask, combat vest, Mad-Max apocalypse preperation for the supposed impending collapse due to hyper consumerism caused by Feminists that are cashing government checks.
He does talk about civilisational collapse due to gynocentrism, but I don't recall him peddling survival merchandise. For that matter, I don't even recall him talking about "feminist hyper consumerism" causing the collapse of the West.
I don't intent to pigeon-hole TFM, and perhaps I mis-stated by saying feminist hyper-consumerism instead of gynocentrism. But my understanding of his firm view what will cause a civilizational collapse is as follows: Feminism and Egalitarianism arose together due to gynocentrism. The drive for Egalitarianism gave women the right to vote. Women voting caused the expansion of the welfare state. The vote can't be taken away from women. The government will eventually run out of money. If the US runs out of money then the world will descend into war and anarchy.

He's not selling products, but he encourages that people prepare for anarchy. I don't agree with this particular prognosis, but it seems he repeats the view with a lot of people that want to talk to him about a collapse.
jupiviv wrote:In my view he is one of the most ecumenical MGTOW commentators, and he has repeatedly stressed the need for men to lay aside political/ideological differences completely and instead focus on trying to help each other cope with women. To my knowledge he has never contradicted himself on that point.
I'm not so sure. I think he thinks it's an individual journey and that a man has to figure out how to cope with women on his own and not with help from other men although the help from online discussions is a step ladder of sorts for the individual's process. He also will stick to his libertarian leanings in his politics because, in his view, those are the correct ones that doen't need to be set aside. This includes what he has repeated is a political social darwinist stance - a type of eugenics where welfare helps bad genes survive and lack of welfare would weed out bad genes spawned by single mothers. Despite these preferences he displays, I will say he is rather ecumenical and is willing to converse with others who aren't social darwinists.
jupiviv wrote:Anyway, I was just offering an example of a genuine underculture which distances itself from a Hydra-like over-underculture (the men's rights/father's rights/PUA/conservative movement) despite superficial similarities or points of agreement with the same. The over-underculture, in this case the MRM, has the primary goal of carving out a space for itself within the mainstream. The under-underculture - MGTOW - favours clarity and solid results over compromise and PR.
It is very interesting observation. It seems individuals find this underculture because they are fleeing the pain of their direct experiences. They have the problems in their lives and then they go looking for information and find others with similar experiences. What has emerged is a set of meta-rules that filters out women in order for men to have a place to discuss the nature of women. After that, the discussion is not a dogmatic instruction manual, necessarily, but becomes more of a confirmation of the universal nature of their common stories. The personal experience with living with and around women makes it a more "base" level that is a foil to the overt narrative of the cultural hegemony.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Eric Schiedler wrote:I don't intent to pigeon-hole TFM, and perhaps I mis-stated by saying feminist hyper-consumerism instead of gynocentrism. But my understanding of his firm view what will cause a civilizational collapse is as follows: Feminism and Egalitarianism arose together due to gynocentrism. The drive for Egalitarianism gave women the right to vote. Women voting caused the expansion of the welfare state. The vote can't be taken away from women. The government will eventually run out of money. If the US runs out of money then the world will descend into war and anarchy.
That's not quite right. He thinks that the unprecedented surplus of resources and security brought on by the industrial revolution sent gynocentrism running rampant. It's quite a common view among MGTOWs, and I myself agree with it. I also think that worldwide disorder and anarchy will happen in the near future, but not for the same reasons given by him.
He also will stick to his libertarian leanings in his politics because, in his view, those are the correct ones that doen't need to be set aside. This includes what he has repeated is a political social darwinist stance - a type of eugenics where welfare helps bad genes survive and lack of welfare would weed out bad genes spawned by single mothers. Despite these preferences he displays, I will say he is rather ecumenical and is willing to converse with others who aren't social darwinists.
Obviously, this is your main issue with him. Social Darwinism itself is logically untenable because it tries to morally evaluate survival itself. However, survival and extinction are still facts.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann, this for me struck a chord and speaks to the true nature of Trump and this administration - authoritarianism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgEomlDoGm0
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann, this for me struck a chord and speaks to the true nature of Trump and this administration - authoritarianism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgEomlDoGm0
What struck a chord for me is "freedom of speech is the *purpose* of Murrrkuh". So when do I get my free slot for speaking about wisdom on Olbermann's show?

I didn't get the memo that suing someone for libel supposed to be an attack on free speech? If it is, why didn't Keith Olbermann explode in righteous fury over the countless libel suits that are being filed all over the US and the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... mation_law

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press. However, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.

In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court suggested that a plaintiff could not win a defamation suit when the statements in question were expressions of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". However, the Court subsequently rejected the notion of a First Amendment opinion privilege, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 474 U.S. 953 (1985). In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This holding differs significantly from most other common law jurisdictions, which still have strict liability for defamation.


Note the underlined portion. The press should *never* have the right to "do wat ah waaaant!" If it does, you will end up with cunts like Olbermann and his chums in the NYT and elsewhere continuing to pretend that the Russian hacking story was anything other than informational legerdemain meant to divert attention from the fact that Trump is as much a part of the "establishment" as they are.

Also, the whole part about the slippery sort was a non-sequitur. Libel laws, even in the US and even more so in other common law nations, *already* cover malevolent dissemination of false or damaging information.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

Speaking of non-sequiturs, you seem to have missed the part where Trump and his mob are talking about changing the libel laws to make it easier for a Government to sue people. They are not talking about employing current ones to do so.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:Speaking of non-sequiturs, you seem to have missed the part where Trump and his mob are talking about changing the libel laws to make it easier for a Government to sue people. They are not talking about employing current ones to do so.
Firstly, what is treason, both in the general sense and specifically in relation to the tort described in that Wikipedia page?

Second, it doesn't really matter what they are "talking about". They have been talking, and will talk, about a lot of things. We all know what the end result of that has been. But please, continue pretending that everything about the media coverage of Trump doesn't indicate an unspoken yet all too real agreement between media outlets on both sides to maintain the illusion of substance to what is quite evidently "business as usual".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Currently I'm reading the biography "Trump Revealed, an American journey of ambition, ego, money and power" by Michael Kranish & Marc Fisher. Not a bad effort although I started to read it to track down one quote about human energy (battery depletion) but found the biography did not manage to source it, while dozens of leading newspapers worldwide based articles on that quote, which in the end was not researched by anyone, while padding the text, instead of doing any research, with all kinds of proven benefits of exercise for body energy. This is, it seems to me, how journalism works these days. But I digress.

The biography is overall still quite interesting (PM if you want to borrow the PDF a while). One gets the impression it's impossible to invoke some category in which Trump would fit. Of course one could think of some typical dysfunction or disorder he'd qualify for but at the moment one would be found, many words and actions clearly contradict it again. The man has perhaps his own category: Trumpist Personality Disordering. Or something.

The image of a man who somehow, possibly purely on instinct, seizes each and every opportunity to move on, to somehow get the fundamental issue of a situation and capitalizes on it. Could you call it genius? In some bizarre way perhaps. How to even start judging. But by the measure of the very society which birthed him: status, name, images of wealth or political rise, he's certainly "made it" beyond most. Is it about wealth? Even wealth is understood by Trump symbolically or intuitively more than cerebral or financially. Wealth is what other people perceive you're having, not what the numbers say in private. Trump always went with the symbols: notorious, being talked about, always known to be busy with this and perhaps with that. Causing others to react and negotiate out of uncertainty and preempt all the possibilities. Which can be itself advantageous. And what's the difference between the accepted definitions of wealth or success and actually living in the most prime real-estate, shaking hands with everyone who matters, appear on the biggest TV-shows, put your name on various ventures which turn into success probably because of just that?

Does this mean Trump is the ultimate con artist as, lets face it, the majority of the old US mass media and progressive ideologists insist? It depends on how to define the connected idea of "defrauding" the audience. Even Maria Konnikova[ (author of “The Confidence Game,” about con artists and the psychology of the con) would remark that the one being conned would likely be the most in denial of being fooled to that degree. But wait a minute! Trump campaigned basically on the idea the population was being conned by a political elite with failed policies. Would the same not apply to the supposed conned population, especially progressives? And wouldn't a con man not be the best to spot another one?

Then again, would a con man get a Rex Tillerson or Steve Bannon and other people with rather strong personalities and ideas aboard? Or, as some then suggest, they all might work loyally for a con organization which is in control but which would contradict the particular individual accusations and its particular psychology again! And would a con man make so many spontaneous gaffes or otherwise calculated attempts to make himself look like a buffoon on each turn? That contradicts as well the conning motive as Trump would have personally way more to gain to go for example the Obama route.

As I wrote before, Trump seems to operate in a category all of his own. If his life and accomplishments are all con based, so would the political game and society at large. Which would perfectly explain his rise to power but also means that all the resistance against Trump might be ultimately a projection, a revolt against the delusions and surreality of the very world we created. Is it possible Trump has, in some ways, a better, more realistic understanding of the shallowness and fickleness of the human mind and his self-created cosmos than many of his most vocal opponents? And a little truth can be more dangerous and effective than a lot of lies. In other words: Trump might intuitively (and not in any philosophical way) understand the ignorance of the people around him and because of this attacking his person becomes also an attack on the very delusional system which made Trump possible. Which could be debated, by wiser people, if that's in the end something to encourage or not. But the Russian Federation leadership, generally aiming for the downfall of the Liberal ("Atlantic") world ordering project, for certain will applaud and encourage any success as well as failure of Trump. Which has only confused more people since the paranoid nature of a West in decline has now found a new enemy to project! There can be only "one" truth, after all, say all radical universalists.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The image of a man who somehow, possibly purely on instinct, seizes each and every opportunity to move on, to somehow get the fundamental issue of a situation and capitalizes on it. Could you call it genius?
And yet, it clearly doesn't work very well! However, what endears Trump - as a person if not anything else - to me is the boldness with which he upholds the *pretense* that it can work. This is the unsuspecting boldness of a doddering old codger telling a ridiculous story about his youth to his grandson. If spirit is what we really are, and genius the expression of spirit, then there is indeed genius in that.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

Find that endearing, do you? Time to shut this down.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

It's perhaps more advisable and healthy for you to take a break, from politics, or the forum? Better than trying to tear things down in fits of rage or some kind of indignation over, well, what exactly? Me reading a mainstream biography about Trump? Having the wrong political view? It's entirely unclear to me, to be honest.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

To be honest with you Diebert, I consider describing Trump as some sort of 'genius' to be nothing less than idiotic. Total mental chicanery. It's not me who needs a break from politics or the forum. It really isn't. That you could have come to the conclusion that Kevin is right about Trump on the basis of that utterly vacuous piece of drivel from Brietbart you posted tells me that you're unwilling to face simple facts. That article was complete garbage. Seriously. Complete wankery. It's worse than the crap you'd read on partisan political blogs.

This discussion of 'real world' events, divorced as it mostly is from the abstractions [to some extent] we normally dwell in has been a real eye opener. Curiously, it has caused quite the schism hereabouts. Based upon it we've found ourselves in a situation of doubting the others' actual level of rationality. i.e. our rationality measured and tested against real world scenarios rather than the abstractions of the conceptual realm (I appreciate that that's not a completely accurate description of what we do here). It's simultaneously unfortunate but fascinating.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Okay, you think my political views or interpretations of events (reasonably argued at times) are bananas. That's okay. Even while you're deliberately quoting me out of context so it obtains a radical different meaning. It's all part of heated debating.

But all the subsequent "militant" posturing, short-circuiting attempts to discuss what you offer and now even threats of shutting down seems just another example of emotional bile. Plain as that. How many people have been pointing that out already? Does it not ring any bells?

Political differences as absolute yard stick of rationality and enlightenment is simply cult behavior or womanish drivel. So I dare to say along the way you've turned your free thought into some tiny, delusional cult or bubble with perhaps one member of just the ones you select for their agreement on your social views? It simply doesn't work that way. Turn back from that road if you can.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

Again, that interpretation strikes me as vacuous. It's not about political views. I could frankly give a flying fuck if you're a Nazi; it's about interpreting facts of existence and you obviously can't do it rationally or objectively.

The media is fake because it reports what Trump says and how fucked up what he says happens to be despite the self evident nature of how fucked up it is. I swear if Trump said he's an alien you'd give it credence.

That is your 'shtick". It's insane.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

So it's my political views (on media, politicians, war, etc). My basic views on mass media hasn't changed much the last 15-20 years. The main difference is that media has gone from bad to worse, bordering on unreadable when it comes to reporting on the White House, the Middle East, Russia or any topic too hot for a mainstream liberal or neo-conservative to contemplate.

You are still confusing "facts of existence" with something else. That means you're delusional right now. Explains your hissy fit!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

The 'media' is largely irrelevant to the facts regarding Trump. In fact one of the reasons the media is falling all over itself regarding Trump is that is knows it is largely irrelevant to him. He is his own media. We do not need the media in this scenario. Pointing to them is in itself a distraction.

If you're at a cricket match and there's a streaker you don't need the ground announcer to tell you there's a streaker.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

Dan Rowden wrote:If you're at a cricket match and there's a streaker you don't need the ground announcer to tell you there's a streaker.
Repeatedly saying that people are "insane" because they think Trump is superior to Clinton (and the SJWs) is pointless, because those people will in turn think that you are insane for having such thoughts. They see things which you do not see (whether it be a "streaker" or whatever), and you see things which they do not. Unless you have a clear proof that your vision is absolutely correct, and that the vision of others is mistaken, then you have nothing.

It can indeed be argued that Trump has a "kind" of genius, in the broadest sense of the word. I don't know if I'd agree with that argument, but it can certainly be argued. It cannot be absolutely proven that he doesn't. After all, Trump does have hundreds of millions of dollars, and was democratically elected as president of the most wealthy nation on earth, almost singlehandedly, and in the face of immense opposition. That counts for something. Weininger argues that all people have some degree of genius, so it's not an outrageous thing to claim that Trump has, in some limited manner, made use of what he has. Simply doing your own thing is a "kind" of genius, and no-one will disagree that he does that.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

The problem with the discussion is for me not the content but the sudden inability to discuss rationally. For example:
Me about Trump's behavior: " Could you call it genius? In some bizarre way perhaps. How to even start judging"

Dan: "describing Trump as some sort of 'genius' to be nothing less than idiotic."
This is not just a misquote. It's, considering it's coming from someone with decent mental abilities, more like a willful distortion just to be able to call something idiotic. Just to make sure that I'm understood: asking if some specified listed behavior taken from a biography could maybe called genius in some bizarre way and even qualified with the question "how to judge this" is really a whole other thing than claiming "President Trump is a sort of genius". All the qualifiers are there for a reason.

The whole method of replying is what is idiotic here. It kills discussion. It kills disagreement and clearly destruction and stopping an informed discussion seems the intent here perhaps already before the reading started. And really, I was just reacting on reading a rather unflattering mainstream biography. This is also clear by the first reaction to Jupiviv's short remark on finding Trumps tenacity and stubbornness sympathetic. Now it's just: "time to shut this down."

The real howler is that Jupiviv's remark is not even far from mainstream, you can find it in many commentaries on Trump, no matter the political background. Even enemies admit to similar things. And yet this must be shutdown because it somehow sounds like praise for the Evil One! For Satan himself!

It's all close to religious, militant leaning claptrap. And it's fine to have it out there but lets not make it into "wisdom" of some kind. It's just opinion, seeing different things in different aspects: the essence of all serious thought exchange on the world at large. But all I read here from Dan are emotional sounding responses cutting everything short. So I keep asking: what's up? Really?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

@Dan, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through "all that" again, but I will reiterate a point I made repeatedly when "all that" was occurring - virtually no one here is saying that Trump is a good president or a good person. However, most of them, including me, are saying that it is myopic and obtuse to analyse Trump in a vacuum and pretend that the system which he is conventionally seen as "opposing" (a perspective I reject for reasons stated elsewhere) is functional or representative of a stable, durable or benevolent status quo.

In a forum like this, political inclinations should be criticised if, and only if, they reflect the deep-seated and universal delusions which comprise the core subject matter of the forum's philosophy. So why do you consider the expression of anything less than outright *hatred* for Trump irrational? What deep-seated and universal delusion does it lay bare to your uniquely observant eye?

And for that matter, since when has politics become synonymous with the "facts of existence"?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

So why do you consider the expression of anything less than outright *hatred* for Trump irrational?
Ask me a question that isn't a strawman and I'll respond.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

And that Dan, is exactly the type of response and posturing which has been the issue all along!

We're going around in circles. You're not going to engage, you list always a reason not to while declaring victory by faith. You made up your mind on some ideological cause and wrapped some identity around it: steel reinforced opinion baked into "facts of reality".
SalMinolta

Re: Trumpism

Post by SalMinolta »

I once again felt compelled, by the Spirit, not to vote for anyone.
However, it doesn't take a genius to surmise that groups like ISIS
love to hear about all this trouble the democrats are making.

Trump keeps doing his best to make America great again
and the democrats are doing all they can to stop him.
That says it all to me.

Trump wants to 'drain the swamp' of Washington corruption.
It makes perfect sense that the most guilt in Washington
would want to stop President Trump at all costs.

The corrupt are fighting for their very lives.
They stand to lose everything if President Trump
is successful in exposing and stopping Washington corruption.

Get real. Everyone knows there is much corruption in Washington DC.
It stands to reason the most corrupt would make the most trouble
trying to stop any president who is determined to end Washington DC corruption.

There is no indication whatsoever, I have seen, that Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi
and all those other obstructionist democrats want to stop Washington DC corruption.
Obviously, they are the public face of Washington DC corruption.

There is no indication, I have seen, that they are taking any measures
to stop Washington DC corruption. It's too late now to say differently.

Chances are, those who are yelling the loudest are also the most guilty.
Those who would rather have Maxine Waters as president are taking the wrong meds.

https://scontent.fhnl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59B10DFE
SalMinolta

Re: Trumpism

Post by SalMinolta »

The would be "genius" wrote:

"To be honest with you Diebert, I consider describing Trump as some sort of 'genius' to be nothing less than idiotic."

My Response:

Get back to us when you have built incredible structures with your name in giant letters on them.
Get back to us when you are worth billions of dollars and then what you stated can be respected.

I venture by Trump standards you are a loser and always will be.
Only a jealous loser would consider calling an obvious business genius an idiot

Name the fools who are paying you millions of dollars for your "genius" business advice?
I could use a good laugh at the concept.

Where is the gorgeous building you had built with your name in giant letters on it?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

Curiously, your points have exactly the same intellectual character and merit as those of Kevin Solway. You'll do well.
Locked