| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Where to now?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Where to now?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2017 at 13:30
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I've heard of buzzfeed. It's a hub of "progressive" propaganda inserted into a news and social media site which I have found is notorious for its inaccuracy, its establishment partisanship, and its general anti-white propaganda.

Let's keep it real here. Before the election how many women came forward claiming Trump had sexually assaulted them? 17 was my last count, but it could easily have been higher. And how many of those claims were substantiated in any way? 0

I appreciate you sourcing this claim and providing us with details. That's the correct way for us to assess this situation. But I think what we have here are just more allegations by perpetually anonymous sources, with no hard evidence. These claims are not like the DNC leaks nor the Podesta email leaks - there is no hard evidence for us to scrutinise and thereby verify whether the allegations are true.

So at this stage I have to judge the above claims to be no more than rumour without any convincing basis in fact.

I take your point.  

  1. Did you read the 35 page report?
  2. If you did, do you think that the highlighted text referring to Trump and his close associated (Lawyer Cohen for example) is credible?
  3. Do you have any idea which company is responsible for compilation of the report-assuming for a moment that it's not a complete fabrication?

Trump is denying the allegation-what would you expect?






Edited by toyomotor - 11 Jan 2017 at 13:35
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2017 at 13:33
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

You think maybe enough is enough. I have cancelled my subscriptions to normal media outlets and even avoid the click bait.

In many years of observing as much of the US election process as I can, I have never seen such vilification of the candidates (by each other) and by sections of the media.

I'd like to know the indentity of the company which compiled the so called report-and it's bona fides.




Edited by toyomotor - 12 Jan 2017 at 00:40
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2017 at 21:36
golden showers, "not hold water"  That is funny.

I am not sure why being a sexual pervert would disqualify from office, what kind of pervert instead would you have?

I don't think that the media is mistreating Trump, I think that they are doing their job.  I think that it is Trump and his supporters that are the whiners, wanting special treatment.  The media is mean to anyone in the Presidency, it is just that with as many flaws as Trump has, it is easy to dredge up material on him.
Trump has been attacking the media all along, and then the intelligence community.  He is antagonistic towards people he should try to work with.  Lord, he sounds like a four year old, whining about things not being fair, "people are picking on me. whaaaaaa!"  As Joe Biden said, "grow up."

In the movie "dumb and dumber," one of the dummies is in a pickup talking to a hot blond.  He asks her, "do I have a chance?" She shakes her head, and then says, "one in million."  The dummy says, "yes! I have a chance!"
I think Trump should be given a chance, it should not be assumed that he is going to fail, but maybe that chance is just the time period it takes for him to buy the rope with which he hangs himself.  Maybe Khruschev will be right after all, the Russians will sell the rope by which the West will hang itself. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2017 at 21:50
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I've heard of buzzfeed. It's a hub of "progressive" propaganda inserted into a news and social media site which I have found is notorious for its inaccuracy, its establishment partisanship, and its general anti-white propaganda.

Let's keep it real here. Before the election how many women came forward claiming Trump had sexually assaulted them? 17 was my last count, but it could easily have been higher. And how many of those claims were substantiated in any way? 0

I appreciate you sourcing this claim and providing us with details. That's the correct way for us to assess this situation. But I think what we have here are just more allegations by perpetually anonymous sources, with no hard evidence. These claims are not like the DNC leaks nor the Podesta email leaks - there is no hard evidence for us to scrutinise and thereby verify whether the allegations are true.

So at this stage I have to judge the above claims to be no more than rumour without any convincing basis in fact.

I take your point.  

  1. Did you read the 35 page report?
  2. If you did, do you think that the highlighted text referring to Trump and his close associated (Lawyer Cohen for example) is credible?
  3. Do you have any idea which company is responsible for compilation of the report-assuming for a moment that it's not a complete fabrication?

Trump is denying the allegation-what would you expect?





The golden shower story is a 4chan prank. Buzzfeed fell for it like fools.
So much for franciscosan's claim that the media are just doing their job.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 00:39
I don't read about Trump, but get enough news through listening to the radio through the day.  I don't know what the source for the golden shower is , but I am sure that they're cute, he can afford the best.  No, but seriously, I don't have any problem believing Trump is depraved, or at least a little more depraved than Kennedy or Clinton.  I don't hear about "golden showers" on NPR or BBC, that is the media I listen to.  Don't get caught by the hype.

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 01:36
Trump depraved sure, stop with the pointless unsubstantiated slander.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2017 at 23:42
Of course, the slander and libel laws are different for a prominent public figure like Donald J. Trump, because one has to allow for satire and other forms of commentary, which Trump would like to squelch.  He seems to be mighty thin skinned, maybe he could take advise from Putin as to how to get rid of a free press.  Reporters in Russia have the nasty habit of getting murdered, but I am sure Putin and Trump can somehow blame it on the reporters.
As far as pointless is concerned, have you noticed the criticism of every president there ever was, while they are in office?  As Vice President Spiro Agnew said, "the nattering nabobs of negativism"?  It is American tradition for (A) 20% of Americans to rejoice in the new messiah, (B) 20% of Americans to despair in the new antichrist.  For (C) 40% to not care and for (D) 20% to wonder what the hell exactly happened.  btw, maybe 1/2 the American people vote, it may be higher in the Presidential election, but lower in the off-year election.  But as far as "pointless" is concerned, you are missing the point, the point is that people have the right to complain, and gripe regardless of who is in the White House, people are just getting an early start with Trump.  It is easy to do, there have been a lot of shenanigans over the years from him.  
After the election catered to his base with a victory lap tour, instead of trying to reach out to those who did not elect him, which (reaching out) is usual for the President elect. He has done nothing to calm the situation, and everything to exacerbate it, well maybe not "everything."  But then again, he is just getting started, isn't he?
As far as "unsubstantiated," a lot of it is not unsubstantiated to people in the corridors of power, the question is what happen when it filters down.  Where there is smoke, one has to worry about fire.  And if you don't worry about fire, then often you will get burned.  People are worried about being burned.  I would like to wait and see, but I don't blame for wanting to get a jump on the problem, which goes by the name of Trump. 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jan 2017 at 15:36
franciscoan-STRICTLY HYPOTHETICAL.

In view of Trumps scattergun comments on foreign policies, I ask you on a hypothetical basis if Trump were to, for example, order bombing of the Chinese artificial islands in the South China Sea, would the generals obey the order?

If he were to give other orders which could spark WW3, would they obey-notwithstanding that he's the Commander In Chief? (or soon will be).

 
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2017 at 00:09
Trump has, what? three generals in his cabinet?  But pundits generally say (no pun intended) that military officers who have gone to war, are _less_ likely to go to war than those who have not experienced it.  For the sake of international law, there has to be a "casus belli" a reason for going to war, although a pre-emptive strike can be a reason, although it is probably the most tentative reason under "the just war theory."  If you don't have some kind of a rationale, then I imagine that it would be war crimes under international law.  Once a war is started, that is another story, but I don't think a general would act, "just" on the orders of the President.  My Lai showed that "just taking orders" is not a valid excuse for war crimes.  It is one thing for stupid guards to make prisoners of naked prisoners (talk about stupid), or dubious occurances happening in the heat of battle, it is another to coldly and with clarity for someone like a general to consciously make a decision that might get him convicted of war crimes.  I don't think it would happen, but then again, to be honest, I don't necessarily know.

A more realistic scenario is one where, in playing chicken (2 cars rushing headlong towards each other, see who first swerves first), somebody miscalculates.  In the Clinton administration, a Chinese fighter jet 'nicked' an (much slower) American electronic surveillance plane.  The Chinese jet's pilot died, and the surveillance plane had to make an emergency landing in China.  The Chinese took the surveillance plane apart and demanded an apology.  The US said that something like "it was regrettable that your jet ran into our plane," and that was settled.  But there can be stupid miscalculations that can snowball if cooler heads don't prevail.  Trump says he wants to be erratic.  In some ways it worked for Reagan, who was playing poker and upped the ante, while the Russians were playing chess.
Remember a few things, McArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean War.  Truman fired him.  I have heard one reason why Eisenhower ran, was because McArthur wanted to run for president (which he did want).  I don't know if that is true.  The idea of using nuclear weapons was not so verboten in the '50s.  We have come a long way since then, or at least _some_ of us have.


Edited by franciscosan - 15 Jan 2017 at 00:11
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2017 at 01:09
So, if I understand what you have written, you don't think the military would carry out warlike acts purely on Trumps orders. So he then fires those who oppose him and the circle keeps turning.

I have a feeling that the South China Sea could become a flashpoint, given Trumps deliberately provocative statements and anti-China actions to date. He doesn't seem to understand or care, that to China loss of face is something that simply can't/won't be tolerated.

On the other hand, if he's going to befriend Russia, to the detriment of the Ukraine and the Baltic States, he's likely to lose European support. What that could mean, I don't know because Europe needs the USA more than the reverse.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2017 at 01:57
I don't know what you mean by "So he then fires those who oppose him and the circle keeps turning."

The United States has "projective power," which means it can go fight on someone else's doorstep.  It can go to China, but China can't really go to it.  Question though, is what would be the purpose?  Mao Tse Tung was willing to absorb a nuclear war, and you know, after killing off your people in the great leap backward, why not?  US could bring war to China, but the casualties would be too high for the US, and China would absorb them.  Trade wise, it would be horrible for everyone.
On the other hand, the US is fairly vulnerable to a proportional attack, striking say Guam, or Demilitarized zone, or Philippines or Okinawa, Taiwan, Japan, shipping, navy. with China, really all you can do is hit China, and that opens a hornet's nest.  Sure, you could hit China on a few artificial islands in the South China Sea, but look what happened when allies reached the Yalu River.  Can you say, "Custer and a million gillion screaming Indians"?
Of course, military intelligence has all of this, not that Trump is big on intelligence.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2017 at 00:20
"I don't know what you mean by "So he then fires those who oppose him and the circle keeps turning."

By that I mean if the generals don't obey him, and remember this was a hypothetical, Trump fires them and gets new generals who will obey him.

You say that the USA has projective power, and we've all seen that used in the past, but perhaps it could been better not used in some cases.

In any case, hypotheticals aside, the world can only sit and see what happens.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2017 at 01:43
You generally don't fire generals, you reassignment them.  I don't think that the President would have anything to do with promotion or demotion, except in the sense of assigning a particular job, and a particular general is promoted to fill it.  A general might be forced into retirement, and for malfeasance he may busted a rank.  But he is probably otherwise secure in retiring at the rank he got, if not one step above. 
I think a general would take retirement over an unseemly order, and you cannot necessarily expect any lower officer to do what his general refused.  Maybe you could down the totem pole and find someone who his ambitious and heartless and willing to do something unseemly for the right promotion.  But most generals are interested in putting out fires, so to speak, but ready for retirement and a sweet book contract written by a top ghost writer (or even themselves).  They want to go down in history as good guys, not as war criminals.

No, I am not saying that projective power should be used.  I am saying that the US has it, whereas realistically nobody else does near the level that we have it.  Now there is a concern (see Eisenhower's military industrial complex speech), that if you have it, you tend to want to use it, instead of relying on diplomacy, soft power, etc.  Candidate Trump said that he was going to treat Veterans right and raise military spending (pay).  I don't think that it is realistic to believe that the US is going to increase spending and decrease the use of the military at the same time.

My concern with Trump and potential military flareups is that Trump will _mis_ calculate (or not calculate at all) and start something he cannot easily finish.  It then could snowball a little, but I think that things would flare up, and then calm down.  Use of Predator drones or cruise missiles, yes, World War III, nuclear winter no.

But look to the bright side, nuclear winter would take care of global warming<grin>.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2017 at 08:20

Barak Obama,the last of the good men.

Edited by toyomotor - 19 Jan 2017 at 00:08
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2017 at 10:39
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


Barak Obama,the last of the good men.

Barry Soetoro: the total fraud, incompetent, affirmative action hire puppet. Much loved by his Neo-Con handlers. Undying in his resentment and contempt for those of European racial stock who founded the USA, and the principles of individual freedom and limited government which are pre-eminent among these people.

Now for an anecdote regarding some independent journalism of mine carried out 9 years ago. I was 21 years old, writing my post graduate thesis, and out of nowhere an obscure Barry Soetoro (who styles himself "Obama") was selected as the Democrat Presidential candidate. Even back then I had trust issues with the mainstream media, so I decided to look into Barry's background to learn more about his character. The outgoing George Bush II had often been portrayed by the media as unintellectual, highly unremarkable academically. Barry had been head of Harvard Law Review - the most respected scholarly legal publication in the world.

Writing my own post-graduate thesis which I knew I would recycle into a condensed peer reviewed scholarly article, I decided to look up Barry's previous scholarly work. Having access to the university's international database, I would have no trouble locating all of his published works. I predicted that for a man of his prestigious CV, he must have been author to dozens of peer reviewed legal articles. Can you guess how many he had published?

Zero. Not one single scholarly article. He had contributed two short (half page to page) op-ed contributions. One in 2005 and one in 2003. But these weren't works of scholarship at all. The man had become head of Harvard Law Review, and he hadn't published a single scholarly work. So what did my 21 year old self conclude? That the man was a fraud; that he had simply been accelerated through one affirmative action sinecure after another until he was put before us as a Presidential candidate. That view was consistent with that fact that all his campaign rhetoric consisted of vague, comforting platitudes which never went into specifics about plans, numbers or any form of detailed policy.


Millions got duped. I did not. I knew the man would fail to fix any of the problems he claimed to care about. And later I learned that, as a subversive Alinskyite, his real mission was to intensify the division and disenfranchisement of his nation's ordinary folk. Softening it up for further domination by the unholy alliance of big government bureaucrats and rootless cosmopolitan plutocrats who put this thoroughly uninspired fraud in power.

Good riddance.


Edited by Constantine XI - 18 Jan 2017 at 10:42
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2017 at 21:51
The shooting down of Robert Bork (which I confess I signed a petition at the time) showed that for Supreme Court Justices, it is better to have "a man with no footsteps" instead of someone who is knowledgable and has weighed in on the issues.  Barack (with a 'c') Obama just translated that to the political stage, and now we have Donald J. Trump, a man with a lot of opinions, but no political track record to weigh him down, or for that matter to tether him to the ground.  Inexperience seems now like a prerequisite for the job, so that the 'fans' can read anything they want into the candidate.  Not that Hillary was that experienced, she was kind of going through the motions, checking off the boxes.  I like McCain, and would have liked the McCain-Lieberman ticket.  Palin does not have much experience, but then again, that is not necessarily needed for the fifth wheel.  Romney did not have much experience, and insulted the common man.  Obama has been divisive on the country in many ways, although he handled the economic crisis adequately.  I think that the assessment that Trump ran because of Obama's sarcasm and humiliation from Obama, is accurate.  From my perspective, Trump is a monster, and Obama and the democrats created him, by spurring him to run, and by having no alternative to Hillary (Sander was never viable).  Of course, the Republicans will be blamed for this, and will get their punishment, if Trump doesn't work out (which is my guess), but the democrats did an awful lot to create the current situation.  We have a binary system, the republican field started off with 14 candidates, and the democratic field with 2, because no one wanted to cross Bill and queen Hillary.

The irony is that in some states, you can vote in the primary regardless of whether you are republican or democrat, I imagine that some people in the nomination battles, voted for Trump because they would have thought it would have been easier for Hillary to defeat the Republican nominee that way.  That may have been true in some states, but those states may have been in Hillary's camp anyway.  Of course, Trump so dominated the primaries in general on the Republican side that it probably would not have mattered.  But in trying to finesse the nomination vote, some democratic voters may have helped create the Trump monster.


Edited by franciscosan - 18 Jan 2017 at 21:53
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2017 at 00:15
OK, we've all read the press articles, perhaps even the 35page report. We've been bombarded by Trumps outrageous, ill informed tweets. I read somewhere that one of his companies is about to go belly up.

For my education, what's likely to happen if the Golden Showers tapes ever materialise?

What will be the effect if one of his companies is declared bankrupt?

What about the blatant nepotism in the selection of senior advisors?

Will the Congress tolerate his buddying up with V.Putin?

He's blatantly mis-stated or even lied about so many things during the campaign, can the voters trust him?


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2017 at 03:03
If there is an authentic "Golden Showers tapes" we will worry about it then, but remember in politics it is not the crime that gets you in trouble, it is the cover-up afterwards.  A tape could surface and Trump would be embarrassed, and he could be compromised in the eyes of the Republicans and the Republicans would be embarrassed, but really it is a question of what kind of cover-up was there (and whether there was an service to Putin).

My brother said that there was a panel of ultra-rich and accountants for the ultra rich who said that Trump is in the 100s of millions of $, but not billions.  That is what they figured from what we know, if one of his companies is bankrupt, it is bankrupt.  You don't have to be solvent to be president, but if you use your position for personal gain and get caught, there will be ramifications.  Again, we will have to cross the bridge when we get to it.  And I am sure if it happens, the democrats will make the most of it.

Trump has a feudal mentality.  His business is run like a personal fiefdom.  But Kennedy's brother served as attorney general in the JFK Whitehouse.  David Brooks, who I have recommended that you might look at, thinks he should be able to use family as advisors, after all Hillary was originally "co-president" with Bill, until he threw her under the bus to get a second term.

Trump can play golf with anyone he wants to, including Putin, if he crosses the line, there will be consequences, but probably by that time he will either have finished his term or stroked out.

It is not a lie if nobody was going to believe him in the first place, people liked him especially compared to how they feel about Hillary.  I don't think anyone should "trust" him, but they think that he will be able to work miracles.  They believe the hype of a game show host, I believe that they will learn, one way or another.  Or maybe not. 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2017 at 05:08
I'm having problems here. For some reason what I've written has just disappeared. It doesn't matter anyway, Monday morning at 0900 should be interesting.
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2017 at 06:09
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

For my education, what's likely to happen if the Golden Showers tapes ever materialise?

They won't materialise, because they don't exist. But I'll entertain your hypothetical.
It all depends on how Trump responds. If he lies and tries to cover it up - then he may be subject to impeachment. If he admits to it, says it's no big deal and gets on with the job, then he hasn't done anything illegal and is free to continue on as President for at least four more years.

Quote What will be the effect if one of his companies is declared bankrupt?

Nothing. His companies are limited liability corporations. If they go bankrupt, that doesn't mean he does. And given the fact that he has turned over management of these companies to his children, he can't even be blamed if any of them go bankrupt.

Quote What about the blatant nepotism in the selection of senior advisors?

What about JFK's sweeping nepotism? Look into it. What about Bill's placing Hillary in charge of a multi-billion dollar health care reform taskforce? A job which she botched, costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions.
Ordinary people don't care about Trump appointing family - only the neurotic media class cares about it.

Quote Will the Congress tolerate his buddying up with V.Putin?

Well they tolerated the harsh medieval nation of Saudi Arabia funding 20% of Hillary's campaign. I don't see how de-escalating from open war with Russia is so controversial.

Quote He's blatantly mis-stated or even lied about so many things during the campaign, can the voters trust him?

Mis-stated or lied? According to whom? The despised establishment media which told us Saddam was buying yellowcake uranium. According to the lugenpresse. According to a bunch of clerical prostitutes who can't be trusted.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2017 at 18:38
This anti Trump thing is just some sort of mass psychosis.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2017 at 00:48
Just asking- If a President, having served out his term goes back to being just an average Joe, could he/she, for example in 4 or 8 years stand again for election.

I'm aware of the two term rule for newly elected presidents.
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2017 at 00:51
Constantine XI-for an Australian you deliver a different perspective than the general media on Trump.

I'm not in a position to agree with you or dispute what you say, but only time will tell on the Trump administration.
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2017 at 01:31
I don't know, I think it is two terms, period.  G. Washington set the standard of two terms and after 4 terms of FDR, two terms was legislated.  A lot of states have term limitations for posts.  I don't know how they work.  Putin interpreted Russia's term limitation to mean that he took a break as President then came back to his old job after a couple of terms as president.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2017 at 10:44
It just seems to me that a progessive President may not have enough time to implement his/her policies in 8years. In Australia, it seems that 12 or 16years is not enough time in some cases.

And why do you think it is that the person we elect as leader inevidentably turns out to be a disappointment? 
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2017 at 21:27
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

progessive President may not have enough time to implement his/her policies in 8years

In specific concrete terms, what exactly does that word "progressive" mean to you?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2017 at 23:51
By progressive, I mean one who recognises the problems faced by the constituency, and who has modern, rational and viable alternatives.

Moving with the times, think globally, act locally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
A “progressive” is one who focuses on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.


Edited by toyomotor - 20 Jan 2017 at 23:54
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2017 at 00:34
Thank you for the definition. But I'm still no clearer upon what that means in real terms. Who decides what is modern? And why is what is considered modern also considered inherently superior? Rising suicide rates and drug dependency are quintessentially modern - does that make them good? Modern art in itself is replete with grotesque work which are sometimes even made using fecal matter. Why are paintings made out of literal feces superior to Renaissance works simply because they are modern?

Also, who decides what is rational? Rational means using one's reason to arrive at judgments. Most "progressives" I have met are not rational creatures - they passively take in the narrative the media gives them, and then agrees that it is "rational" by way of peer pressure and group think. I doubt most people even know what the word "rational" means. To most people, I have observed that what is considered "rational" is simply a dogmatic acceptance of moral precepts which constitute nothing more than a new orthodoxy - there is no reasoning nor consideration of evidence in their accepting of this orthodoxy.
For example:
* Diversity is our greatest strength - this is a moral precept which "progressives" consider "rational" & "modern". When you ask them to explain how they reasoned this to be true, they can't. When you point out that diversity is the direct cause of the most horrific atrocities of our lifetime (the ethnic cleansings in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda), they fail to use their reason to consider these facts. In fact, they'll probably just call you a racist and condemn you - a response which is entirely emotive, moralistic, and involves no use of objective rational thinking.

As for the term "think globally, act locally" - here again is another vagueness. Why not think locally and act globally to serve the interests of my local community? Why should I accept that it is my duty to subordinate and suppress the interests and wellbeing of my family, friends, neighbours and local community to the whims of distant and uncaring globalist interests?
Isn't this phrase basically a sly form of Marxism - abandoning your local and familial responsibilities; surrendering your kith and kin to serve the interests of distant, globalist masters who arrogate themselves the authority to dominate your life with claims of social justice and equality?

My take on the term "progressive" is that it is a meaningless term consisting of no concrete principles or methodologies. It is a vague catch-all term which nihilistic people can latch on to. These people wait passively to be told by the establishment what is right and wrong - they can then reflexively conform to the establishment narrative and thereby feel like they are good people. And they can be assured by other "progressives" that they are good people - because all of them are a bunch of empty nihilists who crave the reinforcement of their ego by other empty nihilists, and reciprocate in kind.
The "progressive" can not tell you in concrete terms what he is progressing towards, or why. He cannot explain how to get 'there', and why. The progressive cannot tell you how his nebulous ideals fundamentally differ from those of non-progressives; he not only does not have a concrete understanding of what he stands for, but he dismisses alternatives without bothering to understand them simply because he perceives them to be unfashionable. And for the empty superficial progressive, the temporary fashionability of something is possibly the most important feature it can have.

This is my critique of "progressives" and "progressivism". Nihilistic, empty, emotional rather than intellectual, moralistic rather than rational, and perfectly suited for submission to an authoritarian master.

Thoughts?
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 1698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2017 at 01:29
True, progressivism is a term that has been appropriated by the left and by media, like the term liberal.  progressive, however, does not mean radical, it does not mean Marxist, it means that things evolve and improve, "progress."  I found it informative looking up "progressive era."

Sort of opposed to progressivism, is populism, which is what Trump is hooked into.

So look up the contrast between populism and progressivism.
T Roosevelt and Taft were progressives.  Like I said the term has been taken and twisted out of shape by the left and by media.  Anti-trust, prohibition, muckraking all progressive ideas.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2017 at 02:39
Quote True, progressivism is a term that has been appropriated by the left and by media, like the term liberal.  progressive, however, does not mean radical, it does not mean Marxist, it means that things evolve and improve, "progress."  I found it informative looking up "progressive era."

Sort of opposed to progressivism, is populism, which is what Trump is hooked into.

I think you're confusing progressivism with what I would call High Tory. High Tory is where the country's natural aristocracy, considering themselves an essential and interdependent part of their society as a whole, take upon themselves moral and political leadership within their society. They hold society to well defined mores and acceptance of dual responsibility/duty roles. Good examples of High Tory societies are early Republican Rome and Victorian Britain.

Populism is the natural counter-point to High Tory ideals, and often emerges when the natural aristocracy of a society fails morally and practically in performing the role which High Tory ideals demand of them. 1st century BC Rome is a good example of a change from High Tory to populist ideals. It seeks to represent the neglected interests of the ignored masses, embodied in an energetic champion who understands them and addresses them where an incompetent elite cannot or will not.

Progressivism in my view is not the natural counter-point to either of the above two ideals. It does not come with any concrete ideals, nor does it clarify who performs what combination of duties & responsibilities. 

Progressivism is fundamentally a view of the dynamic of history. For anyone who has read Marx, progressivism's origin as a Marxist view of history should be flatly obvious. It does not view the world as in a stratified state of decline from an age of gold, to and age of silver, to and age of bronze, and then iron - as many classical philosophers did. It does not view history as an ever repeating cycle of birth, growth, death, and renewal - as explained in Ibn Kaldun's work. It does not view the all aspects of mortal life to be a sacred inheritance, to be cared for dutifully and passed on to one's progeny fully intact whenever possible - as Christian theologians taught. Instead, progressivism is implicitly Marxist in that it views currently reality as an unjust and unnatural state which must be aggressively discarded for the sake of reaching an incredibly vague and utopian vision of the future.

Such is my take on the differences between the three concepts.

I do agree very strongly with your identifying of the word "progressive" having been co-opted in much the same way as the word "liberal" was. A classical liberal had little in common with the blue haired freaks who throw public tantrums at the idea the government won't pay for their contraception. It always seems to be the same collection of crypto-idealogues, nihilists and 'useful idiots' who co-opt existing labels, tarnish them with their antics, and then move on to co-opt other identities with the aim of perpetually agitating for their own polyglot aims.
They've even achieved marked success in doing it to the libertarian movement lately. One thing the alt-right has going for it is that its identity has a firm organic basis, and its ideals are very well formed, so that it has thus far proven immune to being co-opted.

Quote So look up the contrast between populism and progressivism.
T Roosevelt and Taft were progressives.  Like I said the term has been taken and twisted out of shape by the left and by media.  Anti-trust, prohibition, muckraking all progressive ideas.

All of those are progressive ideals. And none of them are. 

It's progressive to use the power of the state to correct people's alcoholism. It's progressive to be tolerant of people doing whatever they want to their body and not imposing any moral pressure upon them for their life choice regarding alcohol. What I have just written is blatantly contradictory. I know that. I'm guessing you do too. The progressive will believe the first sentence but not the second, or the second but not the first, or neither sentence, or both contradictory sentences at once. But it's not a decision they'll make for them self; they'll be told what combination is appropriate by their appointed opinion leaders, and will reinforce that belief through peer interaction with other self-described progressives.


Edited by Constantine XI - 21 Jan 2017 at 02:53
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.