That explains a lot about you. Tell me more about this real man and this fake man.
Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking
That explains a lot about you. Tell me more about this real man and this fake man.
Red
Well-Known Member
That statement was made on a Monday, two days after Trump faced harsh criticism for saying there were "fine people" on both sides. The implication being that there were fine people among the neo-Nazis. Faced with that criticism, he read the statement you posted from a teleprompter, two days after his "fine people on both sides" comment. Was his heart actually in it? Well, I would question that it was, but, in any event, what you neglected to mention is that at a press conference, the day after that statement that you posted a video of, on the Tuesday following the Charlottesville rally, he insisted his original statement was in fact "fine".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-president-wasnt-joyful-homecoming/568752001/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ere-very-very-violent/?utm_term=.cb55c97121da
Now, at the time, reports said Trump was very angry that he had been forced to issue another statement following his "fine people on both sides" statement. If I had to guess at this point, I'd say he was likely upset that he might have alienated that part of his base that are not the finest people in the world.
Red
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but ya know, it's so hard to take him seriously, given his well documented history:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...&gwh=979AB2D97B50E89494E6C3EA1EC159F1&gwt=pay
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
The man is transparently racist. Why you're so dense where this fundamental fact is concerned is something only you would know, I guess....
Epic back step.
Unfortunately, it's not just that he lied, it's what he lies about.
Moreso, what he won't talk about unless he gets the first jab in, and can walk out.
The guys guilty as ****. Let's get to seeing what evidence we can nail him on.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Trump already asked Russia to help his campaign. Remember? “Russia, if you’re listening. I hope you can find Hillary’s emails. I think our media will reward you for it.”
His sons met at trump tower with Russians hoping to gain dirt on Clinton in exchange for voiding the Magnitsky Act. Trump and His son lying about this over and over only indicate that they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Trump already admitted he obstructed justice. He admitted it with Lester Holt when he said that he fired Comey to make the, “errr Russia thing go away.”
I’m not sure if Bob Mueller can find anything more brazen than what trump and his family have admitted through their own word and deed. Democrats aren’t willing to spend political capital to impeach and the senate won’t budge. Republicans like deregulation and judges too much. And 35 percent of this country is too obsessed with abortion and #owningthelibs to care.
His sons met at trump tower with Russians hoping to gain dirt on Clinton in exchange for voiding the Magnitsky Act. Trump and His son lying about this over and over only indicate that they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Trump already admitted he obstructed justice. He admitted it with Lester Holt when he said that he fired Comey to make the, “errr Russia thing go away.”
I’m not sure if Bob Mueller can find anything more brazen than what trump and his family have admitted through their own word and deed. Democrats aren’t willing to spend political capital to impeach and the senate won’t budge. Republicans like deregulation and judges too much. And 35 percent of this country is too obsessed with abortion and #owningthelibs to care.
I've heard this from people for years, and never thought about it closely. I always understood it on the surface level of being a complaint about degree, or perhaps a difference in sensitivity.
However, upon reflection, that's nonsense. The reality is that any level of labeling will be rejected by you, and those who use this argument, because for you racism doesn't exist unless you can see. If there are no dogs, no fire hoses, no public beatings, etc., than there is no racism that you recognize. That's how our country has been for years. Your kind didn't care when Emmett Till was killed, or Medger Evers. You don't care today about Michael Brown, John Crawford III, or Fernando Castille. You just don't want to hear about it, and you won't care unless it is flashed in front of your face.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
It’s important to remember Mueller’s scope was limited to the election of 2016. The SDNY? Not so much. Keep in mind MONEY LAUNDERING:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b1b250-174f-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b1b250-174f-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html
I don't even know who you're responding to, thanks to blocking. But I have to say, preach it!
https://popcultureexperiment.com/2018/01/15/mississippi-goddam-cover-songs-uncovered/
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
That is an interesting point of view. I can both see why Objectivism appealed to you and why you abandoned it. Your view appears to contradict itself, half of which is incompatible with Objectivism.
Please do not take this as a personal attack. I genuinely find it interesting and applaud you for being so unguarded in laying out what makes you who you are. I do want to ask if when you said “we have no inherent obligation to anyone else other than our minor children”, were you referring to your own genetic offspring or speaking more broadly about future generations? What did you mean by “our minor children”?
My view in that post or my overall view expressed on jazzfanz.com
I haven't had my coffee yet, but I don't know what libertarian view I expressed in that post that contradicts "objectivism."
I used to be active on a couple different objectivists forums. Objectivism contradicts objectivism and objectivists as a community don't agree with each other as to what objectivism is. There's OPAR and Objectivists Online who represent a major split in how they see objectivism.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I see Objectivism at its core as Rand’s extension of Immanuel Kant. Rand was interesting to me when I was younger, and was truly my gateway into Libertarianism, but to me personally Kant’s ideology didn’t resonate in the way John Locke’s did. It took me a long time to put my finger on what it was but I think I figured it out. The ideology of Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand is just too atheist.
It doesn’t matter at all to me if someone believes in a magic person in the sky who created everything. If you do, that is great. If you don’t, that is great too. For my personal journey, I bought in when I was a kid, started questioning everything and believing all of it was ******** in my teenage years, then later gained an understand of why the idea of god was there to begin with.
I see god as the future personified. It really doesn’t make a difference if it is an all-seeing, all-powerful guy with a gray beard who writes everything down to weigh your soul or the idea that all secrets will come out eventually and how that will shape the way people will see you even after you are gone. It is the same thing. God gets you to act in your long-term best interests even at the expense of your short-term best interest. Biologically we are wired to do the opposite. Pleasing god or pleasing the future is what makes people successful. I think that is why every ancient society had god or gods. The names change. The clothes change. The stories and drama changes but it always seems to be there.
Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand were such raging atheists that they ripped that whole idea out. When you wrote that “each of us owns our own existence and that we have no inherent obligation to anyone else other than our minor children”, it works perfectly with Objectivism but you didn’t stop there. You kept writing and what you wrote after that starts to fill the hole Kant and Rand built into their ideology. You created your own structure of sins or at least that is how I read it.
You probably know more about the different schools of objectivism as it didn’t really fit with me, but that is what made me wonder about what you meant in your usage of “our minor children”. Should it be read in the objectivist sense of sentence it was in, that it was all about you and yours? Or should it read in the non-objectivists sense of the global future generation that will carry on after us? If I had to guess, you meant it in the genetic sense and you had two ideas that didn’t quite fit together.