https://youtube.com/watch?v=Topa3LKgolw&si=9YY2nWNtmjyfJ4rp
On 4/16/2025 12:07 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:
I never thought of it that way; but now I do. Thanks for posting this view. >>
No problem.
I guess he may have meant he was "not a democrat and not a republican" ie he wasn't partisan, but that's a lie too.
Not necessarily, many have been "Independents" in the years past, USA.
And those chaps really helped the USA through the years of 1971 to 1990...
It's clear he's not backing up Trump, and in this era, democrats and republicans differ quite substantially so it's obvious he's leaning or backing democrats.
I like how you mentioned "this era, democrats and republicans differ
quite substantially". Those two parties have always differed on any
number of items while their elites profit all the way to the bank.
History knows this and the USA national budget keeps getting worse.
A con man with no plan for improving this country. It's a joke thathe's got some method to his madness, other than enriching himself on the road to autocracy.
had to stop here, we clearly *don't* have the same definition of the word honest. I can't even rationalize such a belief against the *enormous* weight of evidence to the contrary.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> had to stop here, we clearly *don't* have the same definition >> of the word honest. I can't even rationalize such a belief >> against the *enormous*weight of evidence to the contrary. >>>> Could it be because Sawfish himself is an honest man and you're > a nitpicking sleazebag? Yeah, Saw strikes me as pretty honest most/much of the time. Even honest people can delude themselves though.>> So makes
Or even just ask yourself if you've watched what he's said a lot as I have. As a sophist, you'll just distract and nitpick my hand-picked list. Maybe start with which promises he's kept, and if they were beneficial to the country or not?
bmoore@nyx.net (bmoore) Wrote in message:
A con man with no plan for improving this country. It's a joke
thathe's got some method to his madness, other than enriching
himself on the road to autocracy.
What's wrong with autocracy?
It's simply not compatible with the constitution and existing laws
and our understanding of our system of government.
On 4/17/25 8:27 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtpkno$3efc3$1@dont-email.me>, Scall5 <nospam@home.net> wrote: >>> On 4/16/2025 12:07 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:
I never thought of it that way; but now I do. Thanks for posting this view.
No problem.
I guess he may have meant he was "not a democrat and not a republican" ie he wasn't partisan, but that's a lie too.
Not necessarily, many have been "Independents" in the years past, USA.
And those chaps really helped the USA through the years of 1971 to 1990... >>>
It's clear he's not backing up Trump, and in this era, democrats and republicans differ quite substantially so it's obvious he's leaning or backing democrats.
Many traditional Republicans are anti-Trump, so that's wrong.
I like how you mentioned "this era, democrats and republicans differ
quite substantially". Those two parties have always differed on any
number of items while their elites profit all the way to the bank.
History knows this and the USA national budget keeps getting worse.
To some degree, yes. But Trump sure as hell is not some antidote to the elites. Far from it. A con man with no plan for improving this country. It's a joke that
he's got some method to his madness, other than enriching himself on the road to autocracy.
It's certainly a wild ride, isn't it?
I read Trump somewhat differently. In this sense he's a great example of
how almost all individuals (and really, all situations/opportunities)
are a mixed bag: some parts can benefit you, while others work against
you, and still others have little effect but you *like* them, while
still others have little effect and you *don't* like them.
The key to getting thru all this shit is to optimize your exposure to
the benefits while minimizing the detriments. Then try to ignore the >inconsequential things that you don't like.
So I see Trump as fairly honest and straightforward--and a part of this
comes from self-confidence to the point of arrogance. He does not feel
that he needs anyone's approval or affection, near as I can tell.
It's like Henry the VIII telling his cook that he's a simple pissant.
Who gives a shit what the cook thinks about it?
So far as planning and strategizing, it's like the first term: he has no >real, workable plan. Most everything is reactive. Where this term is >different from the first is that he was under immediate attack from his >political enemies (the Russia stuff, etc,) and so he reacted to the
attacks, mostly, this time he did not have initial opposition (he won
the *popular* vote, so his political enemies could not even motivate >themselves to attack because he somehow cheated his way in), he brought
in a prepared ideological agenda, forced it upon the nation and the
world via a series of decrees (executive orders) and then when his
actions were attacked, he went into reaction mode--where he's most at home.
If each term was a bar fight, in his first term he got slugged first,
and in this term he did the first slugging.
If you really think about it, he is indeed tapping populism and *not* >necessarily favoring political/economic elites as a policy. You can see
this very clearly in his attack on the Ivies and the elite universities.
The common run-of-the-mills MAGA-man loves this, but when you consider
that of the people in the senate, 20% graduated from Harvard, and in the >financial sector, similar elites' schools are being publicly embarrassed
in favor of the masses, you can see he's truly a populist in the sense
of the Gracchi or Marius or Julius Caesar. He is not Sulla.
Similarly, empowering ICE to deport immigrants and even student visa
holders is something that the rabid MAGAs love, but does not favor the
elites since they use the immigrants in various ways. I'm not an elite
(I'm a semi-pissant) but I, myself, hire Mexicans--probably illegal--for >landscaping and construction. It's not cheap, but the big advantage is
ghat they a) come to work *to work* (not socialize). and b) seem to be >neither hung over or using drugs. Culturally, they tend to be a decent, >hard-working group.
So he's appealing to the populace for power, and of the elites, if they
are in a position to profit from his populist actions, fine, but if they
are not, too bad.
It's a hell of a weird time to be alive in the US, isn't it? There are
not going to be any simple answers, and you'll have to be very fast on
your feet.
On 4/17/2025 4:05 PM, *skriptis wrote:
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> writes:> jdeluisePetty jdeluise pressed tab to make this post less readable to
<jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> had to stop here, we
clearly *don't* have the same definition >> of the word
honest. I can't even rationalize such a belief >> against the
*enormous* weight of evidence to the contrary. >>>> Could it
be because Sawfish himself is an honest man and you're > a
nitpicking sleazebag? Yeah, Saw strikes me as pretty
honest most/much of the time. Even honest people can delude
themselves though.>> So makes sense that your definitions
would differ.Well, it would be helpful to define honesty then.
I know it muddies the discussion but it's an important concept
to agree on.>>>> You could probably make your arguments much
more solid if you > shared with us, has Trump massively
tricked you or betrayed your > trust?>> He promised something,
did differently?I'm going under the presumption that you guys
have followed his promises and followed the news since he took
power. If you have eyes and ears, you must already know he's
broken most of them, except those which are most damaging to
the economy and to the existing body of government and its
underpinnings in law and the constitution. But if you don't
see that then I have to wonder where you're getting your
information... if you like memes and video content there are a
myriad of mashups of his day one promises that he's failed to
deliver on.In any case I don't feel the need to itemize them,
you can find them everywhere. Or even just ask yourself if
you've watched what he's said a lot as I have. As a sophist,
you'll just distract and nitpick my hand-picked list. Maybe
start with which promises he's kept, and if they were
beneficial to the country or not?>>> Regarding Trump, he's a
pretty open book. More or less, people > know what he thinks
and wants to do.That's not true. Most people who support
Trump interpret and translate his words to mean something
very, very different from what he actually said. They say,
"oh no, he was just joking", "oh no, you misunderstand, it's
the art of the deal", "oh no, you have to take a very nuanced
view of his words. he really means such-and-such". Then
later they say "what do you mean, he's so open and transparent
and says exactly what he means... don't you love it!?!?"If
everyone knows what he thinks and means, why the need to
constantly "translate" his words? For past presidents I don't
remember an army of fanboy translators all saying different
things. One pretty obvious interpretation is that these
people don't like what they hear, or they know what he's
saying is controversial even in their own circles so they're
attempting to "soften" it to make it more palatable. Mainly
because they either like the man personally, think he's the
ideal manly man or relish the idea of inflicting pain on their
perceived foes ("oh well, he's gonna own the libs", "oh well,
he's going to incarcerate all the migrants in concentration
camps", "oh well, he's gonna destroy the lives of all those
trans folks out there!"). Some do it for outright personal
gain.... eg. most of the obsequious jellyfish in the upper
ranks of the republican party.>> That's what honesty is all
about.Well I agree that there are different kinds of honesty.
There may be some ways in which Trump could be considered
honest, but as a whole he's deeply dishonest, probably the
most dishonest president in recent history. Of course some or
much of this may be caused by his very obvious narcissistic
personality disorder, but it doesn't change the fact.
me.
I agree, tabs and extra spacing is annoying. So much so that I
often
stop reading the thread.
The tab he's talking about only screws up HIS viewing of the
thread, nobody who uses a reputable newsreader. The jumbled mass
of text is all his and Pete's doing. They refuse to abandon that
chinese shitware that irrevocably corrupts every thread they reply
into. And *skriptis has the gall to blame everyone else (just
like bob did)!
On 4/17/25 3:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtrcsd$13or1$1@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
If you really think about it, he is indeed tapping populism and *not*
necessarily favoring political/economic elites as a policy. You can see
this very clearly in his attack on the Ivies and the elite universities. >>> The common run-of-the-mills MAGA-man loves this, but when you consider
Trump is going against our top schools because he wants to control them. And >> when they fight back he talks about making them pay taxes. He's not doing it to
give the MAGAs something to crow about. And it certain doesn't help them put >> food on the table. A true populist would actually help the masses.
A populist *uses* the masses to attain power. Few, if any, actually have
a policy to directly benefit the masses because there's not enough
resources to simply give them for free or deeply discounted.
So if you truly believe that populists have in their hearts, first and >foremost, to help the masses,
I'm afraid we'll never have much to talk
about, because what they want, first and foremost, is personal political >power. What they do with it is up to them, and more often than not it is >simply the exercise of this power.
If you cannot at least see the likelihood of this, there's also a bunch
of other stuff that I think is important that you won't be able to see, >either.
But FWIW, you're an honest and decent sort, not malicious by nature.
On 4/17/25 3:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtrcsd$13or1$1@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/25 8:27 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtpkno$3efc3$1@dont-email.me>, Scall5 <nospam@home.net> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 12:07 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:
I never thought of it that way; but now I do. Thanks for posting this view.
No problem.
I guess he may have meant he was "not a democrat and not a republican" ie he wasn't partisan, but that's a lie too.
Not necessarily, many have been "Independents" in the years past, USA. >>>>> And those chaps really helped the USA through the years of 1971 to 1990...
It's clear he's not backing up Trump, and in this era, democrats and republicans differ quite substantially so it's obvious he's leaning or backing democrats.
Many traditional Republicans are anti-Trump, so that's wrong.
I like how you mentioned "this era, democrats and republicans differ >>>>> quite substantially". Those two parties have always differed on any
number of items while their elites profit all the way to the bank.
History knows this and the USA national budget keeps getting worse.
To some degree, yes. But Trump sure as hell is not some antidote to the elites. Far from it. A con man with no plan for improving this country. It's a joke that
he's got some method to his madness, other than enriching himself on the road to autocracy.
It's certainly a wild ride, isn't it?
I read Trump somewhat differently. In this sense he's a great example of >>> how almost all individuals (and really, all situations/opportunities)
are a mixed bag: some parts can benefit you, while others work against
you, and still others have little effect but you *like* them, while
still others have little effect and you *don't* like them.
The key to getting thru all this shit is to optimize your exposure to
the benefits while minimizing the detriments. Then try to ignore the
inconsequential things that you don't like.
So I see Trump as fairly honest and straightforward--and a part of this
Googling "Trump lies" comes up with lots of stuff. Big stuff. I'm sure you >> know this, and unlike Twistis, you're not full it, so what gives?
Actually, I just did exactly that and instead of s clear list of lies in
any form, I got links to article in this order:
Rolling Stone
The Bulwark
Ars Technica
Yahoo
Now, these articles could well have arguable examples of direct lies,
but this is nowhere near as clear as you seem to think.
I thought that you had some definitive stuff, like Clinton denying on >national TV that he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
I'm nit saying that there are no examples of overt falsehoods, b, but
what I am seeing initially are articles interpreting responses as lies.
I myself, might evaluate them differently.
Look. I know you intensely dislike Trump as a person; I don't like him >personally either, and what's more he's not an effective policy maker. I >don't think he knows what he's doing much of the time.
But to accurately assess him, and his effects on US policy, dare I say
that you need to get past this initial dislike. You tend to reflexively >reject anything that can be identified with Trump.
E.g., I can name fuck-ups (trade policy) and I can name benefits
(qualified business income deduction).
comes from self-confidence to the point of arrogance. He does not feel
that he needs anyone's approval or affection, near as I can tell.
It's like Henry the VIII telling his cook that he's a simple pissant.
Who gives a shit what the cook thinks about it?
So far as planning and strategizing, it's like the first term: he has no >>> real, workable plan. Most everything is reactive. Where this term is
different from the first is that he was under immediate attack from his
political enemies (the Russia stuff, etc,) and so he reacted to the
attacks, mostly, this time he did not have initial opposition (he won
the *popular* vote, so his political enemies could not even motivate
themselves to attack because he somehow cheated his way in), he brought
in a prepared ideological agenda, forced it upon the nation and the
world via a series of decrees (executive orders) and then when his
actions were attacked, he went into reaction mode--where he's most at home. >>>
If each term was a bar fight, in his first term he got slugged first,
and in this term he did the first slugging.
If you really think about it, he is indeed tapping populism and *not*
necessarily favoring political/economic elites as a policy. You can see
this very clearly in his attack on the Ivies and the elite universities. >>> The common run-of-the-mills MAGA-man loves this, but when you consider
Trump is going against our top schools because he wants to control them. And >> when they fight back he talks about making them pay taxes. He's not doing it to
give the MAGAs something to crow about. And it certain doesn't help them put >> food on the table. A true populist would actually help the masses.
A populist *uses* the masses to attain power. Few, if any, actually have
a policy to directly benefit the masses because there's not enough
resources to simply give them for free or deeply discounted.
So if you truly believe that populists have in their hearts, first and >foremost, to help the masses, I'm afraid we'll never have much to talk
about, because what they want, first and foremost, is personal political >power. What they do with it is up to them, and more often than not it is >simply the exercise of this power.
If you cannot at least see the likelihood of this, there's also a bunch
of other stuff that I think is important that you won't be able to see, >either.
But FWIW, you're an honest and decent sort, not malicious by nature.
that of the people in the senate, 20% graduated from Harvard, and in the >>> financial sector, similar elites' schools are being publicly embarrassed >>> in favor of the masses, you can see he's truly a populist in the sense
of the Gracchi or Marius or Julius Caesar. He is not Sulla.
Similarly, empowering ICE to deport immigrants and even student visa
holders is something that the rabid MAGAs love, but does not favor the
elites since they use the immigrants in various ways. I'm not an elite
(I'm a semi-pissant) but I, myself, hire Mexicans--probably illegal--for >>> landscaping and construction. It's not cheap, but the big advantage is
ghat they a) come to work *to work* (not socialize). and b) seem to be
neither hung over or using drugs. Culturally, they tend to be a decent,
hard-working group.
So he's appealing to the populace for power, and of the elites, if they
are in a position to profit from his populist actions, fine, but if they >>> are not, too bad.
It's a hell of a weird time to be alive in the US, isn't it? There are
not going to be any simple answers, and you'll have to be very fast on
your feet.
In article <87bjsurn2z.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
Petty jdeluise pressed tab to make this post less readable to
me.
I agree, tabs and extra spacing is annoying. So much so that I
often
stop reading the thread.
The tab he's talking about only screws up HIS viewing of the
thread, nobody who uses a reputable newsreader. The jumbled mass
of text is all his and Pete's doing. They refuse to abandon that
chinese shitware that irrevocably corrupts every thread they reply
into. And *skriptis has the gall to blame everyone else (just
like bob did)!
It's quite amusing that Twistis routinely blames others for screwing up the formatting, when his newsreader destroys the formatting
of *every* thread it touches.
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
So I see Trump as fairly honest and straightforward--and a part of
this comes from self-confidence to the point of arrogance. He does not
feel that he needs anyone's approval or affection, near as I can tell.
I had to stop here, we clearly *don't* have the same definition of the
word honest. I can't even rationalize such a belief against the
*enormous* weight of evidence to the contrary. It's this kind of
willful reinterpretation of reality that has made me long believe that
you're a closet hardcore Trumper. And really, Trumpers who claim
they're not Trumpers are a dime a dozen... they support him 100% but
they want plausible deniability if they turn out to be wrong about their hero.
It's simply not compatible with the constitution and existing laws and our understanding of our system of government.
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
On 4/17/2025 2:14 PM, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
So I see Trump as fairly honest and straightforward--and a part ofI had to stop here, we clearly *don't* have the same definition of
this comes from self-confidence to the point of arrogance. He does not >>>> feel that he needs anyone's approval or affection, near as I can tell.
the word honest. I can't even rationalize such a belief against the
*enormous* weight of evidence to the contrary. It's this kind of
willful reinterpretation of reality that has made me long believe
that you're a closet hardcore Trumper. And really, Trumpers who
claim they're not Trumpers are a dime a dozen... they support him
100% but they want plausible deniability if they turn out to be
wrong about their hero.
Back to the same old used up Liberal Democrat philosophy; When losing
an argument, simply blame the other(s) as being racist, homophobic,
anti-environment, anti-science, anti-vaccine...need I go on?
What, you think there aren't closet Trumpers?
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:> On 4/18/2025 8:46 AM, bmoore wrote:>> In article <87bjsurn2z.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise >> <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>> Petty jdeluise pressed tab to make this post less readable >>>>> to>>>>> me.>>>>>>>> I agree,tabs and extra spacing is annoying. So much so that >>>> I>>>> often>>>> stop reading the thread.>>> >>> The tab he's talking about only screws up HIS viewing of the>>> thread, nobody who uses a reputable newsreader. The jumbled >>> mass>>> of text is
On 4/18/25 8:02 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vts4s8$1nc6i$2@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/25 3:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtrcsd$13or1$1@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
If you really think about it, he is indeed tapping populism and *not* >>>>> necessarily favoring political/economic elites as a policy. You can see >>>>> this very clearly in his attack on the Ivies and the elite universities. >>>>> The common run-of-the-mills MAGA-man loves this, but when you consider >>>>Trump is going against our top schools because he wants to control them. And
when they fight back he talks about making them pay taxes. He's not doing it to
give the MAGAs something to crow about. And it certain doesn't help them put
food on the table. A true populist would actually help the masses.
A populist *uses* the masses to attain power. Few, if any, actually have >>> a policy to directly benefit the masses because there's not enough
resources to simply give them for free or deeply discounted.
One has to work with reality, yes.
So if you truly believe that populists have in their hearts, first and
foremost, to help the masses,
A true populist should. Maybe they don't exist in politics. Maybe there are >> a few. But not Trump. No way no how. He's much closer to the opposite.
His path to power is like Caesar's, like the Gracchus bros--telling the >*broad* populace what they want to hear.
I think your definition of "populist" is narrower than mine. That's >understandable because:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Etymology_and_terminology
I'm using it like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_populists#Americas
I'm afraid we'll never have much to talk
about, because what they want, first and foremost, is personal political >>> power. What they do with it is up to them, and more often than not it is >>> simply the exercise of this power.
Each of us should take care of ourself. But the job description for politician
is to serve the people. Too bad that has become so corrupted.
Yes.
I'm not cynical enough to say that there was never an era in which
leadership sought power for their own ends--it does seem to me that FDR,
JFK really did have a sort of noblesse oblige. Carter might have, also.
But Clinton, Obama, Nixon, I don't see it in them. Trump is too
narcissistic to really ever be such a leader, but I think he *thinks* he is.
Reagan was pretty much a "nice" Trump--a Trump who cared about his
public image.
I see Nixon and LBJ as guys who looked to solidify personal, and
partisan power by any means.
So it's a mixed bag. Each case has to be evaluated individually.
Basically, you have to work with what's out there. I no longer bother to >think I can affect leadership and policy; I just have to understand its >directions and see what, if anything, I need to do to do OK.
Surprisingly, this works really well, and I think it has to do with the
great abundance of wealth in the US. There is so much that it is
figuratively sloshing around and you can get the stuff that sloshes at
the edges pretty easy.
Many people give up without trying, either out of personal disgust (I
had to work thru that phase--my dad had a sort of personal disgust with >wealth--kinda 30's FDR stuff) or fear of failure, or laziness, or lack
of imagination.
If you cannot at least see the likelihood of this, there's also a bunch
of other stuff that I think is important that you won't be able to see,
either.
But FWIW, you're an honest and decent sort, not malicious by nature.
Thanks for that.
Whatever!
On 4/18/25 7:36 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vts4s8$1nc6i$2@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/25 3:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtrcsd$13or1$1@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/25 8:27 AM, bmoore wrote:Googling "Trump lies" comes up with lots of stuff. Big stuff. I'm sure you >>>> know this, and unlike Twistis, you're not full it, so what gives?
In article <vtpkno$3efc3$1@dont-email.me>, Scall5 <nospam@home.net> wrote:
On 4/16/2025 12:07 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:
I never thought of it that way; but now I do. Thanks for posting this view.
No problem.
I guess he may have meant he was "not a democrat and not a republican" ie he wasn't partisan, but that's a lie too.
Not necessarily, many have been "Independents" in the years past, USA. >>>>>>> And those chaps really helped the USA through the years of 1971 to 1990...
It's clear he's not backing up Trump, and in this era, democrats and republicans differ quite substantially so it's obvious he's leaning or backing democrats.
Many traditional Republicans are anti-Trump, so that's wrong.
I like how you mentioned "this era, democrats and republicans differ >>>>>>> quite substantially". Those two parties have always differed on any >>>>>>> number of items while their elites profit all the way to the bank. >>>>>>> History knows this and the USA national budget keeps getting worse. >>>>>>To some degree, yes. But Trump sure as hell is not some antidote to the elites. Far from it. A con man with no plan for improving this country. It's a joke that
he's got some method to his madness, other than enriching himself on the road to autocracy.
It's certainly a wild ride, isn't it?
I read Trump somewhat differently. In this sense he's a great example of >>>>> how almost all individuals (and really, all situations/opportunities) >>>>> are a mixed bag: some parts can benefit you, while others work against >>>>> you, and still others have little effect but you *like* them, while
still others have little effect and you *don't* like them.
The key to getting thru all this shit is to optimize your exposure to >>>>> the benefits while minimizing the detriments. Then try to ignore the >>>>> inconsequential things that you don't like.
So I see Trump as fairly honest and straightforward--and a part of this >>>>
Actually, I just did exactly that and instead of s clear list of lies in >>> any form, I got links to article in this order:
Rolling Stone
The Bulwark
Ars Technica
Yahoo
Now, these articles could well have arguable examples of direct lies,
but this is nowhere near as clear as you seem to think.
I thought that you had some definitive stuff, like Clinton denying on
national TV that he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
I'm nit saying that there are no examples of overt falsehoods, b, but
what I am seeing initially are articles interpreting responses as lies.
I myself, might evaluate them differently.
Look. I know you intensely dislike Trump as a person; I don't like him
personally either, and what's more he's not an effective policy maker. I >>> don't think he knows what he's doing much of the time.
But to accurately assess him, and his effects on US policy, dare I say
that you need to get past this initial dislike. You tend to reflexively
reject anything that can be identified with Trump.
I was responding to the description of Trump as "fairly honest". Trump's lies are endless. It's
been clear for a long time. You seem to want examples. JD rightly didn't post a list for Twistis
because Twistis is such a bullshitter.
For starters, Trump claims he won an election he lost. Do you disagree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Yes, this is a lie.
I'll be honest with you B, I see everyone lying at some point. I expect
it. Please even lie without thinking twice about it and don't count it
as lies.
Let me make clear the difference between being "a fairly honest person"
and being "basically dishonest".
Both lie.
The fairly honest person might make claims, and in many cases these can
be independently checked. You'd then find that some claims were
completely bogus, vastly exaggerated, somewhat exaggerated, or accurate >enough to be called the truth. It's up to you to check--and in most
cases, the information is available, and you may/may not check.
But for this sort of lie you have the means to find out for yourself.
A basically dishonest person tends to put forth a falsehood that he/she
does not think *can* be checked; examples would be a promise to do
something in the future, or something that happened behind closed doors,
in private.
In another reply, jd uses a press interview where Trump says that gas
prices are lower (true) and that they were as ow as $1.98 (false). This
is something you can check, to a degree, and we find that the lowest
found was $2.19.
So an exaggerated claim--a lie.
Claims eggs are way down--I don't know, but I doubt it. I suspect that
they are down somewhat and he's exaggerating, like with the gas prices.
Now note that he did not claim that interest rates are lower, and this
is because there is no instance where they are down. He cannot
exaggerate on this topic because it is uniformly obvious that they are not.
Note, too,that he voluntarily mentioned interest rates. He was not asked >about them, he basically volunteered this negative information. This can
be tricky, because really duplicitous and manipulative people make a
show of objectivity by selectively bringing in a counter example, to try
to appear fair. So this sort of thing needs to be watched, to see if a
patter emerges.
Claims that he won 2020: anyone can check. Now, he bases on this claims
on electoral misconduct, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary.
It was a clear loss. But in my opinion, he probably *thinks* that there
was misconduct, and he *believes* that he won.
It's like favoring Federer over Nadal. Those that like Fed claim that
he's the best, but we can check to see if there is clear evidence one
way or the other.
Now, I *liked* Clinton, and I used his public denial of relations with >Lewinsky as a ready example (the first I could think of) of a lie that
was told by a person who believed that it could never be checked, and so
you, this listener, had to take it on faith that it's true; he told it >because he was sure he could get away with it. He put his personal
integrity and credibility right on the line.
...and still he was a very good president, as I evaluate his term in office.
From your own link read the section titled "Bullshit":
"According to Harry Frankfurt's influential 2005 book "On Bullshit", the
liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it, while the
bullshitter does not care whether what they say is true or false.
Eduardo Porter writes in The Washington Post that Frankfurt's
bullshitter definition fits Trump: "To subvert the truth, you must first
know it, or at least think you do. That’s not Trump’s game."
The fairly honest person is honest relative to the basically dishonest >person, not relative to the absolute truth. I know no absolutely
truthful people, and never have. It's all relative.
I'm going to trim the rest of your reply since I make no further
comments. We can restore that part, if needed.
On 4/18/2025 8:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <87bjsurn2z.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
Petty jdeluise pressed tab to make this post less readable to
me.
I agree, tabs and extra spacing is annoying. So much so that I
often
stop reading the thread.
The tab he's talking about only screws up HIS viewing of the
thread, nobody who uses a reputable newsreader. The jumbled mass
of text is all his and Pete's doing. They refuse to abandon that
chinese shitware that irrevocably corrupts every thread they reply
into. And *skriptis has the gall to blame everyone else (just
like bob did)!
It's quite amusing that Twistis routinely blames others for screwing up the formatting, when his newsreader destroys the formatting
of *every* thread it touches.
Not from what I have seen...
--
---------------
Scall5
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
When you get right down to it, it is a macroeconomic paradigm shift of
the magnitude of Reagan's movement from Keynesian economics to supply
side.
In a way, it is the commodities version of Trump's philosophy on
immigration, in that he seems to want much greater control over
who/what comes into this country than is the current policy.
We're just going to have to see how this plays out. Me, so far it
looks like a solution in search of a problem. But it's very
complex. There's the benefit to consumers in free trade versus the
threat to manufacturing and even service jobs.
You're overthinking it. This is all for show for his personal
relationships with leaders of other nations. If he really wanted
tariffs to be effective as stated, he would have laid the groundwork for
them during the first years of his term and execute on them in the
latter half. I do not believe that companies are going to take the
gamble to bring an industrial presence back to the US if they do not
believe the tariffs are going to last. And Trump has done a lot of
damage to that idea by continually "adjusting" his stance on whether
they are negotiable or not.
In any case, his idea of "negotiation" is a few rounds of russian
roulette while strapped to a chair. Not good for business...
jdeluise kirjoitti 7.4.2025 klo 0.11:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wri=tes:> >> When you get right down to it, it is a macroeconomic paradigm shif=
n in search of a problem. But it's very>> complex. There's the benefit to c= onsumers in free trade versus the>> threat to manufacturing and even servic=immigration, in that he seems to want much greater control over>> who= /what comes into this country than is the current policy.>>>> We're just go= ing to have to see how this plays out. Me, so far it>> looks like a solutio=
In article <vttvq8$3cdcp$1@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/18/25 8:02 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vts4s8$1nc6i$2@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/25 3:36 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <vtrcsd$13or1$1@dont-email.me>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
If you really think about it, he is indeed tapping populism and *not* >>>>>> necessarily favoring political/economic elites as a policy. You can see >>>>>> this very clearly in his attack on the Ivies and the elite universities. >>>>>> The common run-of-the-mills MAGA-man loves this, but when you consider >>>>>Trump is going against our top schools because he wants to control them. And
when they fight back he talks about making them pay taxes. He's not doing it to
give the MAGAs something to crow about. And it certain doesn't help them put
food on the table. A true populist would actually help the masses.
A populist *uses* the masses to attain power. Few, if any, actually have >>>> a policy to directly benefit the masses because there's not enough
resources to simply give them for free or deeply discounted.
One has to work with reality, yes.
So if you truly believe that populists have in their hearts, first and >>>> foremost, to help the masses,
A true populist should. Maybe they don't exist in politics. Maybe there are >>> a few. But not Trump. No way no how. He's much closer to the opposite.
His path to power is like Caesar's, like the Gracchus bros--telling the >>*broad* populace what they want to hear.
I think your definition of "populist" is narrower than mine. That's >>understandable because:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Etymology_and_terminology
I'm using it like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_populists#Americas
I'm afraid we'll never have much to talk
about, because what they want, first and foremost, is personal political >>>> power. What they do with it is up to them, and more often than not it is >>>> simply the exercise of this power.
Each of us should take care of ourself. But the job description for politician
is to serve the people. Too bad that has become so corrupted.
Yes.
I'm not cynical enough to say that there was never an era in which >>leadership sought power for their own ends--it does seem to me that FDR, >>JFK really did have a sort of noblesse oblige. Carter might have, also.
But Clinton, Obama, Nixon, I don't see it in them. Trump is too >>narcissistic to really ever be such a leader, but I think he *thinks* he is. >>
Reagan was pretty much a "nice" Trump--a Trump who cared about his
public image.
I see Nixon and LBJ as guys who looked to solidify personal, and
partisan power by any means.
So it's a mixed bag. Each case has to be evaluated individually.
Basically, you have to work with what's out there. I no longer bother to >>think I can affect leadership and policy; I just have to understand its >>directions and see what, if anything, I need to do to do OK.
Surprisingly, this works really well, and I think it has to do with the >>great abundance of wealth in the US. There is so much that it is >>figuratively sloshing around and you can get the stuff that sloshes at
the edges pretty easy.
Many people give up without trying, either out of personal disgust (I
had to work thru that phase--my dad had a sort of personal disgust with >>wealth--kinda 30's FDR stuff) or fear of failure, or laziness, or lack
of imagination.
If you cannot at least see the likelihood of this, there's also a bunch >>>> of other stuff that I think is important that you won't be able to see, >>>> either.
But FWIW, you're an honest and decent sort, not malicious by nature.
Thanks for that.
Whatever!
I was thanking you for the compliment.
I'm not confused, either :-)
Bernie is a populist. Trump is a fascist pretending to be a populist.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Bernie is a populist. Trump is a fascist pretending to be a
populist.
He's populist for Jews.
And yet he just endorsed an American-born muslim Senate candidate
in Michigan.
Trump, despite sucking up to Jews and Israel, is a populist for
Whites.
He probably supports the Israeli extermination effort because it
normalizes what he'd like to do.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 182:40:57 |
| Calls: | 9,599 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,679 |
| Messages: | 6,151,134 |
| Posted today: | 1 |