TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Kimmio said:
You do quite a bit of skilled trolling too, chansen. Like, bringing me into the discussion, baiting me for a reaction by saying I live to react - which I just did. And it wouldn't matter if I responded to a false accusation, or to a point made that I disagree with. It's all been set up as a "Kimmio reaction" so the next time I say anything, you got me. You're good.
Click to expand...
I write precisely what I think. That's not trolling. If you react to what I really think, that's not me trolling you.

You won't accept that, because you pick your own definitions to suit your own arguments. Graeme is finding the same thing. You believe what you feel is true. Anyone pointing that out is abusing you. We should be quiet and just accept what you say. Honestly, it would save me a lot of time if I did. It does not pay to contradict you, but I'm physically incapable of agreeing to keep the peace.


Kimmio said:
Interestingly, I ignored jae's latest posts about Trump and Louisiana and Trump "reaching out" to blacks. It's crap.
Click to expand...
Hey, good on you for ignoring it, but the point is that Jae doesn't actually believe it when he writes how great Trump will be for African Americans. It's not that it's crap, it's that Jae doesn't actually hold that position.

Lots of people believe things I don't agree with here. There are lots of beliefs I will pick apart. This isn't like that - it's worse. It's toying with your reader to make them upset, not because you are defending an unpopular point of view, but because you like to see people upset.
 
It's available to one and all only in the sense that becoming a billionaire is available to one and all. A person raised in poverty and brutality and hate and violence and without exposure to religious thought has the same chance as everyone one else? Please.
But I am intrigued by your ranking of Henry VIII as a man of faith. You must have a lively congregation.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
It's available to one and all only in the sense that becoming a billionaire is available to one and all. A person raised in poverty and brutality and hate and violence and without exposure to religious thought has the same chance as everyone one else? Please.
Click to expand...


Well, that would certainly be a universalist perspective, and universalism has always had a place on the Christian spectrum.
 
For some it doesn't matter who is running, they'll just vote republican or democratic because they always have.
 
chansen said:
I write precisely what I think. That's not trolling. If you react to what I really think, that's not me trolling you.

You won't accept that, because you pick your own definitions to suit your own arguments. Graeme is finding the same thing. You believe what you feel is true. Anyone pointing that out is abusing you. We should be quiet and just accept what you say. Honestly, it would save me a lot of time if I did. It does not pay to contradict you, but I'm physically incapable of agreeing to keep the peace.



Hey, good on you for ignoring it, but the point is that Jae doesn't actually believe it when he writes how great Trump will be for African Americans. It's not that it's crap, it's that Jae doesn't actually hold that position.

Lots of people believe things I don't agree with here. There are lots of beliefs I will pick apart. This isn't like that - it's worse. It's toying with your reader to make them upset, not because you are defending an unpopular point of view, but because you like to see people upset.
Click to expand...
No, I don't "live to react".You were writing how you feel. And that's ok. But you did it by sneaking a snarky remark into your post to Jae - somehow I think you know I'd react to that. That was a mild troll. But, whatever. A few of us are used to it by now. That one wasn't hurtful or anything. It just painted me into a corner because if I respond, it's "Hey. Told ya so. There she goes reacting."

As for Graeme (to Graeme also) I seem to recall way back others pointing out he rarely posts sources, and him saying it wasn't necessary. And his posts are feely. Quite intensely - everything is beyond the point of no return, always. It's an unquestionable fact to Graeme that Obama is corrupt to the bone. He knew when he said so on CBC, before anything occurred - and everything thereafter. He knows. I just feel. Which isn't true. I have presented the possibility that Obama didn't go into office with sinister plans - which is as possible as not. Neither of us were in his head - but Graeme doesn't want to follow that trail of possibility. I also presented things like a survey saying blacks felt better racial relations under Obama but he passed it off as nothing. And an article which lays out well how the racist backlash against Obama (which Trump was at the helm of with the Birthers) has fuelled racial tensions in places where it's a problem (he said I made my claim with no evidence - there's evidence). That's ok. That's his choice to believe or pursue his understanding from that angle - his own feeling position. And he did encourage me to seek out some more information. So, that's good.
 
Last edited:
What if the black is the same as white ... could be a sign that heaven and hell are the same domain ... only free wiles are missing and that would piss off the confined and oppressed now on the other side of the chitty stick born by stoics!

They previously thought they had the evil all in the bag ...
 
1. My statement about Obama on CBC was not a 'feely' one. I made that decision because he had no significant platform at all when he ran. What he said most of all is "We can do it." He rarely said what it was that 'we' could do. It was empty rhetoric. And I was right. He had no policies.
2. I made the same decision about Trudeau, and for the same reason. Trudeau won on
a)unbuttoning the top, two buttons of his shirt b)wearing expensive suits c) posinig with his wife and, most important, d) lying low on the question of Muslim women wearing the burqa. That got him the Quebec vote - where the NDP had been leading. But the NDP defended the wearing of the burqa. That was the decisive factor in the election. Quebec (both English and French) has a long tradition of racism and bigotry. It is over 90% opposed to public wearing of the burqa. When the NDP defended the burqa, its Quebec base disappeared. And so did the election.
As to sources, I don't post them because I read sources all day ever day. I also have lots of experience as journalist - so I know when journalists are lying. If I had to give sources for everything I say, I'd have to post thousands.
I do a blog every day which is based almost entirely on sources. If you want sources look at that. (And you have been looking at that because I've noticed lately you're using sources from that - sources that most people have never even heard of.)
3. Real Presidents fire generals who disagree with them. When McArthur, the American hero of the war against Japan, and then the supreme commander in Korean war, refused to obey an order from President Truman, Truman had the guts to fire him on the spot.
Do you need a source for that?
 
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...h-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics

And here, from The Guardian, is the only press commentary I have seen that speak well of Trump. What it says is quite true. Trump is the only person on either side who understands what has caused the crises we are living through. He can't solve them though because we have all been hypnotized by news media who want the crises to continue. Changing things would take a more radical person than Trump is, and a far, far better informed public.
 
The Cure?

Unemployment of course

Detachment of Work from Economy

We'll have to do this in order 2 survive as a species

Esp to avoid what humans have been like for most of our existence; hardscrabble backbreaking striving through bouts of starvation and disease ruled by individuals whose right to rule is absolute and given by the Deities themselves...

Oh Graeme...could you write a bit on why economic inequality is so bad?
 
very briefly -
1. inequality has always been bad.
2. Since Reagan, Thatcher, and Mulroney major capitalists have been free to hide taxable money and, thanks to trade treaties, to move business where labour is cheapest - anywhere in the world. Thus the destruction of Detroit.
3. Unions have weakened a great deal - and mostly their own fault.
4. Governments have become powerless in dealing with big business - on evironment, on taxation, on everthing.
5. People don't understand this. And the western news media have made it a point that they will never understand this.
6. Big business also has full power to make government fight wars to make them richer - while others pay for their wars in taxes and lives.
7. There is no priority for the needs of people. The only priority is to make the rich richer. And that's a dead end road.

In consequence, a steadily increasing share of wealth all over the world is falling into the hands of the already wealthy. Almost everybody else has suffered..
This is all a recipe for a highly unstable world with an atmosphere that encourages brainless violence but with no understanding of what has to be done. Instead of doing what is necessary, we plunge into racism, national hatreds. etc. This is the kind of atmosphere that brought Hitler to power - and is now bringing more Hitlers into power.
The news media have been no help in lending understanding of this. And it's not happening just in the U.S. It's happening all over the world - including sweet little Justin.

We live in a part of the world that is as unChristian as it is possible to get. And the churches, as usual, haven't noticed it.
 
No. I wasn't at your blog yet, recently, Graeme. I read your posts here, though. I had heard of the intercept months ago when it launched - Glenn Greenwald's project. The article came up because I was purposely hunting for information on "how did Obama become a hawk?" And that link was in the mix. So, yeah, I was following a hunch that Obama did not have sinister designs when he took office. It's a catch 22 because in order to effectively bring about peace and stand up to the generals and advisors you'd have to have more experience and information about what's happening at anytime then them not to be duped - but who else can better provide it - unless one has military background? So, yeah maybe he was a weak leader in some ways, next to all the tough Hawks embedded in Washington, not in small part due to lack of "commander in chief" experience - but not sinister. To me there's a difference. Weakness and resulting mistakes is easier to forgive. Because I sure as hell know that anyone who is not hawkish could be easily walked on. It sounds to me like the generals and other agencies have assumed more power in issues of war and peace than the POTUS - they've got a lot of overreach. I read somewhere that they generally prefer GOP presidents - they're more hawkish and less likely to disagree. Except Hillary. She has a military streak. But I think Trump would make even more mistakes.
 
Well, we can let him go as weak. (though I find it hard to use weakness as an excuse for all the killing he did.)
But I followed his first campaign. There was no substance in anything he had to say.
 
Actually, most of the presidents people liked were not nice guys. FDR is praised for his leadership in the 1930s and 40s. But he was also a very hard-nosed and brutal guy. He deliberately destroyed the British economy in the midst of World War 2. His successor was Truman who murdered almost half a million people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when he knew it wasn't necessary to kill them.
And, now I think of it, obama continued the mass slaughter begun by Bush. I don't think it's enough to pat him on the head and say he should have been stronger.
 
I've been thinking it over. If I had to vote in the U.S., I'd vote for Trump. He is the only candidate in years who has stood for peace. And he's not weak, as you say Obama is. Hillary has been a loyal hawk for years. The ones who want war - the defence industries, oil, the military - have all made it clear they support Hillary. Any war would almost certainly be the last one this planet would ever see. A vote for Hillary is a vote for suicide.
There is an insanity out there. It's an insanity of greed. Economies are being smashed. The poor are being made infinitely poorer as the rich monopolize the world's wealth. All this and war is what Hillary stands for. A vote for Hillary is vote for insanity.
Trump may well be an egoist and unbalanced. But he's not nearly so insane and evil as Hillary is.
What we are living through is a news media interpretation of what's going on. The news media, for the most part, are corrupt and lying. And, overwhelmingly, they support Hillary.
And, incidentally, the American Empire is finding it hard to get enough recruits to kill and get killed for it. So it's falling back on mercenaries and client states to do its fighting. One of those client states is Canada.
And that pattern is exactly what led to the fall of Rome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top