Trumpism

[SalMinolta]

Kevin Stoways?

Who be dat?

http://i.imgur.com/SRa0ftZ.jpg

[jupiviv]

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.

If I misrepresented your position, then it follows that you *don't* believe that anything less than outright hatred for Trump is irrational. Which, by extension, means that you consider *preference* for Trump to a certain extent to be rational. So, what is that extent, and why does it not apply to, say, Diebert calling him a genius in "some bizarre way perhaps", or me finding his foursquare bluster endearing?

Oh, I also asked you another question: since when has politics become synonymous with the "facts of existence"?

It was clearly not a strawman since I was referring to something you clearly stated previously: 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 "facts of existence" you were referring to are Trump's incompetence and corruptness as a politician and the falsity of the view that the media's coverage of his affairs and policies is dishonest. Those are clearly political views, although for some strange reason you qualified them as not being such.

[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.

If I misrepresented your position, then it follows that you *don't* believe that anything less than outright hatred for Trump is irrational.

'Outright hatred' for Trump is not a characterisation of my position that I can relate to. Certainly I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is, but the core issue for me is the his standing as POTUS. There's nothing positive in that scenario, nothing to defend, mitigate, normalise or be remotely equivocal about. Frankly, Trump has turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I figured he'd be pretty bad.

In his current madness, Kevin seems to think viewing Trump in this way somehow means that you supported Clinton or think the 'establishment' is just fine. None of that follows. Clinton was the lesser of two evils but still, in many ways, an 'evil'. I do, however, regard the idea that Clinton would have been worse than Trump to be literally batshit. "Worse than Trump' isn't even a concept that makes any sense for me.

Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing? I know that was Kevin's point but it's just utter bollocks. What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it? Is it about constructing some sort of weird apologia? You literally have to tie yourself and the meaning of 'genius' into knots to achieve it. We could define anyone into 'genius' that way. Crazy people do their own thing too.

Now, if it were the case that Trump were a conscious and intelligent human being and he was going against certain conventions and was able to articulate the reasons for it I'd have little issue with that. But I'm sure you, at least, can tell that that's not what is happening here. Trump is not in any way shape or form causing ripples on the pond of the bad stuff about 'the establishment'. He's literally fucking with the good stuff - the sound and reasonable principles and checks and balances of democratic governance. He's not touching the so-called 'swamp' in any way whatever. He is the swamp; always has been. His every move as POTUS, whether it be through Cabinet choices or Executive Order has been to not merely deepen the swamp but to put an electric fence around it. But apparently it's OK because he has lots of money and that somehow means something.

His kleptocracy is Ok because, you know, he's doing his own thing. His shameless nepotism is OK because, you know, reasons. His complete and utter ignorance as to the fundamentals of governance, the limits of the power of the executive and of the independence of both the Congress and the judicial branch are, you know, OK because he's not really a politician, so his ignorance is understandable and therefore, somehow, magically not such a problem. This is the sort of rubbish I'm hearing (not necessarily from you) and yes, I consider it a 'kind of' madness.

As for the media, we're never going to agree on that, at least not with regard to the scope of the problem. I recognise the various ways in which the media fails and how its quality is wanting, but I don't find it as bad as you guys do and generally speaking I don't find the coverage of Trump to be especially bad at all. When Fox starts raising its eyebrow you know something is up.

I mean, what is it we expect the media to say and report? As I said before, Trump is his own media. We don't actually need the media to form a sound and accurate view of how screwed up he and this Presidency is. Mind you, if it weren't for the media we would likely never know about Flynn and related issues. We might never know about the things that are almost certainly going to bring this Presidency to an end.

A bad free media is still better than no media.

Btw, have you seen the ZELDA documentary on Trump's dodgy business links? It may be too 'speculative' and slanted for your tastes, but they're Dutch so you know you can trust them :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdZ-RbL7pmw

[SalMinolta]

Dan wrote:

"Certainly I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for..."

President Trump just stated this:

"Adversity makes you STRONGER. Don’t give in. Don’t back down. And never stop doing what you know is RIGHT".

— with U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

my comment:

President Trump has recently made other similar statements. Do you disagree with his premise
simply on the grounds that you are obviously jealous of his success in life?

You know you are jealous. You probably live in a trailer park.

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, I'm jealous of a man who went to give a speech to CG cadets and made it all about himself. Trump's 'success' has largely come on the back of con-artistry, corruption, cynical and unethical manipulation of the system, money laundering, fraud etc etc etc. Do you know he's been sued more than 3500 times, using his wealth and power to get out of most of it, other than the many times he's used that wealth to pay people off (e.g. Trump University)?

Lauding Trump because of his wealth is about as pathetic as it gets. Putin is a gazillion times wealthier. I guess he's a great guy I should be jealous of as well.

I do not have an obsessive and pathological desire for material things but I can see you view that pathology as something meritorious.

Btw, the secret to genius lies in the (((((((POWER!!!)))))) to play red hot ((((((GUITAR!!!)))))) and be in touch with your Sacred Power Frog.

[SalMinolta]

The fact is: To those who admire great men, President Trump is very inspiring

in contrast

You, are not inspiring at all. I mean, not inspiring in any way, shape or form, period!!

It's a fact!!

I strongly doubt anyone could even be convinced of voting for you as president of a rundown trailer park.

If you think that by putting down President Trump you are making yourself look like a more successful man

you are completely delusional and in desperate need of stronger meds

Nuff said

BTW: This was one heck of a psychological chess response. Man, did I ever slam you with the truth!!! Ha!!!

A friggin psychological chess 'homerun'!!!!

Right out of the psychological chess proverbial 'ballpark'

You lose!!

[SalMinolta]

I will say this:

I am pleasantly surprised to find that the more I truly spiritually advance
the less 'stuff' I find I need to be happy in life. It's so cool for the less 'stuff'
you truly need the richer you automatically become.

I am finding myself able to access the miraculous more and more
in ways that I am not allowed to discuss, but it is startling and exciting.

Personally, I consider the life of Donald Trump to be a burden.
I wouldn't want his problems for all the wealth in the world.
I didn't vote for anyone and had no 'dog' in the Presidential race.
However, what he just stated is very inspiring to winners
and of no value to losers. It's a fact.

You who do not believe the miraculous can be accessed are people
who have lost the battle even before you have begun. I enjoy leaving you
behind in your non-miraculous certainties while I rise on invisible steps
of miracle, after miracle, after miracle.

I have every wonderful thing to look forward to.
All praise to Lord Vishnu!!!

http://i.imgur.com/L7AvVDY.jpg

[Dan Rowden]

Goodbye Sid.

[Dan Rowden]

This is a pretty interesting conversation between Sam Harris and David Frum. It's from February. It'd be interesting to hear a updated version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oa7U035r44

[jupiviv]

'Outright hatred' for Trump is not a characterisation of my position that I can relate to. Certainly I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is, but the core issue for me is the his standing as POTUS. There's nothing positive in that scenario, nothing to defend, mitigate, normalise or be remotely equivocal about. Frankly, Trump has turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I figured he'd be pretty bad.

Opposing "literally everything the guy stands for and is" is the definition of outright hatred in my book. I don't even view hateful people that I know *personally* in that fashion, and I regularly meet a few of them.

Rational disapproval, even outright rational disapproval, is never so absolute relative to *others*. Especially so when the other in question is someone who is a complete stranger in another country half a world away, and exists only as pictures and sounds as far as you're concerned. I myself disapprove of Trump for many reasons, but I have never perceived him to be some sort of teleological threat as you seem to do. So this is likely just rhetorical posturing on your part. Alternatively, and horrifyingly, you might actually harbour that sort of mob mentality.

In his current madness, Kevin seems to think viewing Trump in this way somehow means that you supported Clinton or think the 'establishment' is just fine.

What Kevin actually said:

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.

So in reality you are the one who thinks in the deranged way you described, that preferring Trump over Hillary means one is unreservedly in favour of him.

I do, however, regard the idea that Clinton would have been worse than Trump to be literally batshit.

Q.E.D. This is ideologically driven opposition par excellence. You also haven't presented any evidence or context because, I guess, these "facts of existence" are so obvious that it's "literally batshit" to expect such to be provided.

Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing? I know that was Kevin's point but it's just utter bollocks. What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it?

It's clear that none of us actually consider him to be a genius in any meaningful way. Diebert said that he is a genius in "a bizarre way" and I played on that notion. No one has built any narrative about Trump being a genius except you. So your problem isn't really with said non-existent narrative, but rather pontifex maximus Calvinus' unwillingness to subscribe to its antipode.

Now, if it were the case that Trump were a conscious and intelligent human being and he was going against certain conventions and was able to articulate the reasons for it I'd have little issue with that.

He is a conscious and intelligent human being, and he is articulating the reasons for his opposition to certain things. The problem is that his opposition to those things are just words. He isn't opposing fiscal irresponsibility and warmongering any more than his predecessors, and his solutions to the problems he identifies correctly are either pulp fiction or invalid, or in some cases equally as bad as the problems themselves. But would Hillary or anyone else in the field do better in any significant way? I don't think so.

He's literally fucking with the good stuff - the sound and reasonable principles and checks and balances of democratic governance.

Both you and David seem to use "executive orders" as an all-purpose term for Trump's supposed dismantling of democratic principles, but what specific harmful consequences of those executive orders are you referring to?

We don't actually need the media to form a sound and accurate view of how screwed up he and this Presidency is.

We most definitely need the media for that, because none of us are personally present to witness or hear anything Trump does or says. You are even talking in terms of phrases the media has popularised about Trump: "executive orders", "Flynn" and so on.

A bad free media is still better than no media.

Ha ha. I cannot disagree more. Nothing I value would be hampered by the lack of information about what strangers consider to be interesting things happening around the world. Besides, the very notion that the the qualifier "free" makes things inherently good is risible as far as I'm concerned.

[Kevin Solway]

I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is

You definitely don't know everything Trump stands for, or is, so you are making a fool of yourself.

[Speaking of me] In his current madness . . .

All you are doing on this forum is calling people insane who are not insane, and calling people idiots who are not idiots. And you are not making any kind of rational argument.

I have to score you zero out of ten for rationality, and zero out of ten for respect of others.

Kevin seems to think viewing Trump in this way somehow means that you supported Clinton or think the 'establishment' is just fine.

I have never said anything of the kind, and nor have I implied anything of the kind. Like David, you are merely speculating, and your speculations are wildly mistaken.

[David Quinn]

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.

So this is what it has come down to: “Everyone's perspective is equally valid”. “Everyone is unique and special”. “We are all geniuses”.

I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.

There doesn’t seem to be any point in Kevin fighting those SJWs and feminists anymore. Clearly, they have already taken over his brain. The game is over. He has lost.

That's the problem with becoming radicalized. You become the thing you hate.

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.

The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.

Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing? I know that was Kevin's point but it's just utter bollocks. What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it? Is it about constructing some sort of weird apologia?

It really is the strangest thing, isn't it?

This is what gets me. It's clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals - e.g. 4chan trolls, Christian fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, anti-science exponents, white supremacists, crude rednecks, and so on. In other words, the lowest of the low. Full of bile, no ability to think, no interest in history and science, no conception of anything timeless, perfectly happy to submit to a mad-cap personality cult.

Yet according to Kevin and co., we are supposed to pretend that the views of these non-entities are of equal value to people who are actually informed, who value knowledge, and can think rationally. What a betrayal of everything that this forum has stood for.

[David Quinn]

Frankly, Trump has turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I figured he'd be pretty bad.

For me, it’s all unfolding exactly as I expected. I looked into his soul last August and saw immediately that Trump as president would be a disaster on every level. It’s all so very predictable.

You have to laugh at those who now say they are feeling “betrayed” by Trump.

There is Milo Yiannopoulos: “There comes a day in every child's life when his Daddy bitterly disappoints him.” - April 17, 2017, after the Syria strikes.

And Ann Coulter: “This is the great negotiator? The Trump-haters were right… It's a nightmare. " - May 16, 2017.

This is hilarious. Even though I am half a world away and get most of my news from the “fake media” - sorry, I mean the FAKE MEDIA - I still have no problems reading Trump’s character and accurately predicting the nature of his presidency. And yet the likes of Milo and Ann Coulter, who know Trump personally, and who restrict themselves to the apparently superior "alternative media", are somehow bewildered and flummoxed by what is going on.

Seriously, what a bunch of idiots.

[jupiviv]

I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9MdW8RISCI

Seriously though, this is and was the real and *only* issue here. Kevin flatly disagreed with you about Trump/alt-right, which probably opened a psychological can of worms and lead to the issue of Trump/alt-right becoming the thing on which wisdom itself suddenly hinged. A sad spectacle indeed to watch an astute mind dilapidate.

The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.

Like misrepresenting and character assassinating others, pretending you know more than you do and welding wisdom with politics?

For me, it’s all unfolding exactly as I expected. I looked into his soul last August and saw immediately that Trump as president would be a disaster on every level. It’s all so very predictable.

Actually, it's unfolding exactly as I expected (and wrote) months ago, i.e., Trump fitting in perfectly to the role of the "heel" who gets to pretend to be an agent of earth-shaking change (for good or bad, or good-good, or good-bad, or bad-good etc.) that never happens, while the rabble also pretends likewise because they can't make sense of the real changes which are occurring. Meanwhile, business as usual is sustained until it can't be. When it can't be, Trump takes the blame and nobly retires to a life of book deals and chat shows.

[Dan Rowden]

I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9MdW8RISCI

Seriously though, this is and was the real and *only* issue here. Kevin flatly disagreed with you about Trump/alt-right, which probably opened a psychological can of worms and lead to the issue of Trump/alt-right becoming the thing on which wisdom itself suddenly hinged. A sad spectacle indeed to watch an astute mind dilapidate.

Please. It's not about a trivial disagreement about Trump, or any ideological difference, it's about a person who values and exhorts wisdom and declares himself to be one of the wisest men who has ever lived being hopelessly divorced from even the most trivial aspects of reality regarding Trump.

That's the issue here. Always was. Always will be. That you have not seen fit to challenge a single one of Kevin's vacuous statements regarding Trump and politics is deeply instructive regarding your ability and willingness to judge this 'dispute' objectively and honestly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.

A tiny bit of flexibility in language and perspective is suddenly too much now, David? Who is throwing what out of windows?

This whole thread mostly consists of me and Jupiviv dumping on Trump in various ways and the only comment you and Dan have on this here is some obscure discussion on how one is allowed to use the word "genius", while it originally came up in the context of a biography nobody else but me probably read and is mostly dealing with Trump's past life, which was a pretty insane, damning read. The context of my remark was the difficulty of classifying his character and behavior. It's in many ways unique or at least rare. It matches some of the generic meaning of genius but it takes a certain kind of "shut off" mind to think it meant here philosophical genius in the sense of the main forum topic. It's rather baffling considering all the context supplied!

Pull your self together for God's sake.

There doesn’t seem to be any point in Kevin fighting those SJWs and feminists anymore. Clearly, they have already taken over his brain. The game is over. He has lost. That's the problem with becoming radicalized. You become the thing you hate.

What is interesting is that you seem to have trouble making any coherent argument the moment this particular topic arrives. You prefer perhaps some more radical "you're with my view or against it" kind of attitude? While for example me or Kevin, Jupiviv or Russell do not try to somehow make it mean that much apart as some occasional reaction to any attempt to make this topic into something absolute or extreme.

This is what gets me. It's clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals - e.g. 4chan trolls, Christian fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, anti-science exponents, white supremacists, crude rednecks, and so on. In other words, the lowest of the low.

That's an opinion which is not very accurate if at all as it leaves simply out the great many who are not "3rd rate" by that standard. It also implies Kevin and I must be third-rate and stupid. Must be! Which would create many contradictions when you'd start to think about it, would allow yourself to think about it more. Also the greatest ignorance, as explained by your own philosophy, has little to do with rating individuals just on intelligence, education, locality or private beliefs on worldly affairs. Truth goes way beyond all that.

people who are actually informed, who value knowledge, and can think rationally.

Ah yes, the "New York Times readership" or morally equivalent again as modern qualifier of being informed, knowledgeable and reasonable! It's perhaps the way things go, people go, sages go and how the forum ultimately has to go. Nothing goes beyond its own shadow after all.

In my view Kevin is an example of how the "eternal restlessness" of his spirit actually has continued developing and kept his mind calm and somewhat free of modern stupid "universal" ideologies which are creeping up everywhere now. He also resists it with reason. And there's evidence that a couple of new, younger thinkers will be able to move beyond all this, despite the limitations with sages of all ages who delved into many great territories as important service to those coming after.

But some baggage needs to be let go of in these kind of discussions. So far I'm not seeing any indication, nor do I have the expectation, that as this stage it will change. Too much identity is riding on it, after all.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Some comments still on Dan's reply to Jupiviv earlier although Jup nailed it pretty much.

I do, however, regard the idea that Clinton would have been worse than Trump to be literally batshit. "Worse than Trump' isn't even a concept that makes any sense for me.

But that's a matter of speculation or opinion, right? Right? You evaluate possible outcomes and estimate the things which might happen or might not happen, which outcomes jell with your preferences and which not. Mixed with the unpredictability of life and the world at large the question "who would be worse" is academic. It's opinion. Some calculated guess.

To pretend some certainty here is just not justified. It seems to just confuse strong opinion with something absolute.

Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing?

This thread is full of scathing criticism and analysis on Trump and you jump on this one warped comment. Really?

It really depends indeed which definition one takes. In the sense of unique (Google eg "unique" "Trump") or a gift for show business, notoriety and accessing the mind of a certain "type", creating a certain image despite overwhelming odds. This could mean some extreme natural talent or ability to influence perception and even events beyond the ordinary. That's all I meant.

Trump is not in any way shape or form causing ripples on the pond of the bad stuff about 'the establishment'.

He's causing ripples alright. Since the ones most upset often are "establishment types", no matter the logic, one could argue Trump is doing exactly what people had expected and what he announced. Many of his supporters simply see, in a henid kind of way, the system as corrupt, Washington DC as corrupt and your cherished "checks and balances" as rigged. It's not just Trump saying that now, he actually ran on it! That said, he forms also a giant contradiction in relation to all of this, that's right.

His complete and utter ignorance as to the fundamentals of governance, the limits of the power of the executive and of the independence of both the Congress and the judicial branch are, you know, OK because he's not really a politician, so his ignorance is understandable and therefore, somehow, magically not such a problem.

But nobody here or any other relevant place is saying that, right? And really, when you examine each and every case in detail, nothing really happened yet in terms of actually stepping out of bounds and constitutional limitations. Perhaps the jury is out on some ongoing inquiries but you do sound a bit premature here.

but I don't find it as bad as you guys do and generally speaking I don't find the coverage of Trump to be especially bad at all.

It looks actually pretty bad as the press might simply be used here by some powers in the background (eg parts of the National Security state) as some leak mechanism to destabilize the White House by the constant dripping of a mixture of fact and fiction, overblown procedural errors and speculations.

Btw, have you seen the ZELDA documentary on Trump's dodgy business links? It may be too 'speculative' and slanted for your tastes, but they're Dutch so you know you can trust them :)

Thanks for the link. It's spelled Zembla by the way (not a Dutch term even, Nova Zembla is Russian estate, interestingly). It seems you might have been playing Nintendo games a bit too much :) But indeed I find video to be rather speculative and slanted, like so much these days. Here's some initial reactions:

• Right of the bat: "incriminating evidence" is referring of course to the unconfirmed Steele report, who was hired by Trump's opposition to go to Moscow and pay as many informants as possible to get the dirt. And he got a lot. There's a growing list of experts who question a lot of details and "incriminating" elements. That there's a back-channel with Russia and might have been for a long while, is hardly a secret and neither illegal in itself.
• Various tendentious connections are mentioned with people who are 1. no Russian at all or 2. have a hostile past with the Kremlin and Putin or 3. based on some confessions from proven unreliable figures with a demonstrably blind Kremlin hate. That's it! That's really it! No serious judge or official could make any more of this than "circumstantial". It might all be "true" but you know, perhaps not!

And so on. And so on. It's getting too long to read already. This whole show looks a lot like more conspiracy porn for the gullible under the guise of reason. It's reason itself which is under attack, has always been under attack historically and these kind of big production mainstream documentaries aired everywhere only show how mass indoctrinations can work as well how a confusing place the world has become but perhaps that's the very thing which people find so hard to handle, Trump follower and hater alike? Too many shades of gray? Too much chaos and deception, so who to trust? These kind of documentaries, like so much mainstream reporting, seems religiously trying to make sense, to provide some kind of "good-bad" narrative for the masses to digest.

My advice would be to become a bit more critical and not embrace prevailing narratives as fact, no matter how many times it's repeated over and over again. People of all ages have been suspect to embracing stories about doom, good and evil characters, all the morality tales involving the "end of the world as we know it". And wise people, true atheist and unbelievers, more than everyone else, should stay far away of these unless it's just briefly used to make a point, as allegory perhaps. These stories never contains the "facts" of life, never provides you with all the sides and perspectives. They just don't!

[Dan Rowden]

I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is

You definitely don't know everything Trump stands for, or is, so you are making a fool of yourself.

No, sadly, it's you. You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.

You don't have to agree with either myself or David on how bad Trump is (because we don't actually agree on that either) but when you start indulging in word salad that contradicts everything you've historically stood for both logically and rhetorically it's time to worry.

[Dan Rowden]

These stories never contains the "facts" of life, never provides you with all the sides and perspectives. They just don't!

True enough. When criminals don't provide their side of the story there's no real story. Go run Interpol on that basis.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

These stories never contains the "facts" of life, never provides you with all the sides and perspectives. They just don't!

True enough. When criminals don't provide their side of the story there's no real story. Go run Interpol on that basis.

You forget: in a court case, there's a defense mounted which is free to challenge any narrative. The basics of a nation based on law. And that's exactly my point! There are no results yet known coming from cool headed investigation beyond political infused hysteria. And the ones going on have not turned up anything really interesting so far but that might come (although it's known these inquiries can become a "drag net", which rarely help to find the truth). Some of the myths actually have been dispelled already but that gets little press. So I'm very skeptical if anything but spin and innuendo comes up, like Clinton's politicized email scandal: careless, stupid, dangerous perhaps but it turned out to be within the law.

Still want to bet that $50? If you were any good at political forecasting, you might have been richer by now.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.

That statement would be only meaningful if one can list US presidents bringing "values and mentality" one has profountly agreed with in significant amounts. It would be interesting to see if anyone can submit one or two names.

[Kevin Solway]

So this is what it has come down to: “Everyone's perspective is equally valid”. “Everyone is unique and special”. “We are all geniuses”.

That's not what Weininger is arguing. Weininger argues that all people have some degree of genius. That's not the same as saying that "All people are geniuses". Your logic is faulty.

When a person has achieved all that Trump has achieved, it's perfectly natural that some people will speculate that he achieved it through some kind of genius. This happens all the time, and is perfectly normal. It doesn't mean they are right.

To my knowledge, nobody has speculated that Trump actually is a genius, so this would be a figment of your imagination.

The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.

You are speculating, and your speculations are mistaken. There is no evidence that I have abandoned any of my values, and you haven't provided any evidence that I have.

What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it?

It really is the strangest thing, isn't it?

In saying "Why do it?" Dan is expressing that he has ignorance with regard to why people are doing it - if indeed they are doing it at all, and it's not a figment of Dan's imagination.

If you think it is "strange" why some few people might speculate that Trump has some kind of genius, then you don't know anything about human nature.

the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals

Exactly the same thing can be said about the Left. You are not making any rational point.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin's vacuous statements regarding Trump and politics

Name one of them. Again, you are not making any kind of rational argument. You are bluster and no substance.

[Kevin Solway]

You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS . . .

I think I know some of them, but I don't pretend to know everything about him, as you do.

. . . and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.

Not at all true.

For example, Trump believes that bills should be paid for, and that you shouldn't spend more than you earn. I agree with Trump on that score.

Trump also believes that people who work more should be paid more, which I also agree with.

Trump also believes that the media should report the truth as well as they can, and that they shouldn't deliberately lie. I also agree with him on that.

Trump believes that individual freedoms should not be curtailed by unnecessary government interference. And I also agree with him on that.

Trump is against open borders, and I also agree with him on that.


So it's completely false to say that I have always opposed every one of Trump's views.

[jupiviv]

Please. It's not about a trivial disagreement about Trump, or any ideological difference, it's about a person who values and exhorts wisdom and declares himself to be one of the wisest men who has ever lived being hopelessly divorced from even the most trivial aspects of reality regarding Trump.

It is indeed about Kevin taking an opposing stance on a trivial political issue. Both David and you think that the larger political viewpoint which supposedly informs one's stance on that issue is somehow an indicator of wisdom.

And as should be obvious by now, that is my issue with you. I cannot find a single valid reason to distinguish left-wingers from right-wingers in terms of wisdom. To do so would require either a heavy bias or an *extremely* watered-down definition of wisdom. If political affiliation is a measure of wisdom, then so are college grades, IQ, sexual market value and net worth.

Ironically, through your various diatribes about Kevin's shifting political allegiances and their detrimental effects on his sagely status, you doing precisely what you have recently, and for no reason, started accusing us of doing: sullying the sanctity of the word "genius".

That you have not seen fit to challenge a single one of Kevin's vacuous statements regarding Trump and politics is deeply instructive regarding your ability and willingness to judge this 'dispute' objectively and honestly.

Utter crap. I asked Kevin to clarify his position in my *first* post after Kevin started commenting. Look it up for yourself because I can't be bothered. And the fact that I didn't find much fault with his position is supposed to make me biased? What are you smoking, or more likely, drinking?