accepting trump

[SpeareChucker]

Who cares about motive
in a game measured by

result?

 

[BotanyBoy]

and i vehemently disagree.
there is a shared american identity -

And that would be???

the liberals won't kill this country.
nor will your "liberals"/libertarians...

"My" liberals are the ones who fit the definition of liberal.....

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

Libertarians though radical fall into that category as do social liberals. Being that I recognize and support some sorts of positive liberty I fall middle of the road.

The equity seeking collectivist "liberals" you speak of are no such thing and their desire to kill this country is openly being promoted. Nationalizing large segments to the majority of our economy, re-distributing wealth, arbitrarily limiting incomes and economic opportunity in the name of "fairness" is in no way liberal. Socialism =/= liberalism, it's in fact antithetical to liberalism. That's why it's un-American.

Not to mention shit canning 1A, 2A, 10A and the electoral college?? Imagine for one second the socialist or what those in denial/ignorance call "liberals" got their way with all that, the USA would no longer be the USA as it has been known for the past 243 years. The left....fucking hates the USA, that's why they want to fundamentally change it, tear it's individualistic liberal foundation out and re-build it on an equity seeking collectivist one.

the america you seem to think he exemplifies

I don't.....I just don't think he is an outright enemy of the USA and the values it was founded and built upon.

bb, i think you levy more faith than you should in his motives.

What faith in his motives?? I think you're reading too much into what I've said to try and paint me as some sort of blind loyalist of Trump.

I have no faith in Trump, faith is fuckin' silly in politics.

I see his actions and they are far more pro-USA/nationalistic and in alignment with traditional US political values than those of the socialistic/globalist leftist.

 

[cleaver]

Who cares about motive
in a game measured by

result?

i do.
i neither trust, nor respect the person.
i've been persuaded that "america first" is
a callous patriotic cloak for 'trump first'.
any and all noises being uttered
filter to just that.

but still, and despite... i continue to respect the office.

the trains ran on time in rome.
that was a positive result.

good game under benito
until it wasn't.

how much juice is there in this
binary war before it rends the society
of anything of value...

this either/or-ism...
this hateful antithetical showdown...
this individualism v "socialism"
is ultimately anarchist.

the endgame is social rubble - from which
nothing any of us will like
will immediately emerge.

for you can no more "make yours"
in this society
without the benefit of some social order
which necessarily entails some... debt to...
some fealty to the health of said society.

each "grubby grab" is part of your due to the societal piper.

certainly one may fight each taxation...
each usurpation of...

which is your right...
rights of which, though described sometimes as inalienable,
can only be granted, no... protected by
a social order that has structures and costs
and a society that adheres to the ideal
that such social cost needs be borne by all.

 

[Aquagal]

my endgame is to impress you, darling...
not with my wit or offbeat syntax...
but with...

ahhhh, fuck it!

you are civil and interested...
for this is less game to be ended, than it is an adventure.
you remind me that even with a plan (for a thread)
the side trips are often more enchanting...

it's why - despite the clamor that erupts more and more these days 'round these parts -
a foray into the stormy seas can be rewarding...

wait.
you considered good or bad - i mean at lit?
.

Like a thread equivalent of a road trip to see Elvis? Rabbit holes and bridge out, must reroute! That fuck you! sign was just a curb nuisance.

Darling enjoys deciphering the word salad like a Sunday crossword.

As to this road show...my curiosity lies with what you would do with your epiphany of acceptance?

 

[cleaver]

bb
i do not misunderstand your positions.
i find them - to me at least - myopic.

the ideals of which you espouse
are most admirable in a vacuum.
but like all ideals, they are always challenged by
and tempered by circumstance.

they may even be "attainable" in a self sustained cloister.
but our circumstance begins just where free speech ends;
at the space just outside the tip of your nose...
or your property line.

i know. i know.
you've collected your bullets
for your arsenal
and your cadre of like-minds
to protect that property line...

but there are only so many bullets:
manufactured by a working social order
with social needs and aspirations outside of those in your cloister.

those social-isms that keep the rabble from storming your gate
far longer and far more effectively than your last bullet
are what our society does - as a slow, plodding, often inefficient mass
and is as american as any violence you might claim
as your endowed, final, liberal right.

it is not antithetical.
it's just a different approach to moderate between the extremes
of the truly antithetical ideal of the poles you say we must
somehow choose.
choose either as an ideal... an aspiration to be worked towards?
our society protects that...
to impose either by fiat? or bullet? on the greater society?
your property line... recognized and protected first by a socialized order
of that space outside - is the wall to your realm in that...

back to trump.
trump is about trump. full stop.
he is your exemplar.
and it is quite extra-ordinary.

 

[cleaver]

Like a thread equivalent of a road trip to see Elvis? Rabbit holes and bridge out, must reroute! That fuck you! sign was just a curb nuisance.

Darling enjoys deciphering the word salad like a Sunday crossword.

As to this road show...my curiosity lies with what you would do with your epiphany of acceptance?

a road trip sounds nice...
once i get time off from the bullet factory, darling.

meandering and salads and wanderings and puzzles...to be...
solved?

hmmmmm...

my epiphany?
i dunno.
a late spring cleaning perhaps.

there has been so much invective
so much obfuscation
so much rancor seeded in the emergence of this president...
seeded in the emergence of this person in his long path to and through the white house,
that i seek in this thread to illuminate
those attributes in him, his presidency
lost in the angry noises from all sides
that might make him somewhat more reasonably acceptable
to those of us who find him entirely not so.

he is a smart and talented individual.
he has maximized his position, despite personal setback.
he thoroughly understands how to manipulate an audience.
he does 'get' ratings.

and he has, through the mantles he has adopted,
cultivated a following that believes that his phenomena benefits them...

it is quite a show.
but imho, show it is.

i wish to find that my proposition that trump is for trump. full stop.
is... not indeed the whole story...
for that, especially in a president, is indeed...
and ineffably deplorable.

 

[BotanyBoy]

bb
i do not misunderstand your positions.

You clearly do.

those social-isms that keep the rabble from storming your gate

No, eliminating private property and wealth redistribution is not needed to keep the rabble from storming my gate.

Hasn't been needed for 243 years and it's still not.

it is not antithetical.

It is, either I own my shit and you own your shit and we freely exchange with each other.....or the collective (state) owns it and distributes it as the state sees fit.

There is nothing between the two.

back to trump.
trump is about trump. full stop.
he is your exemplar.
and it is quite extra-ordinary.

No, he's not.

You didn't answer my question....what exactly is the shared American identity between the collectivist socialist and the individualistic liberals?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Who cares about motive
in a game measured by

result?

Results are temporary. But you might be like a lot of people who don't give a fuck about the next generations even if that includes family.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Results are temporary. But you might be like a lot of people who don't give a fuck about the next generations even if that includes family.

And what about the next generations?

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/may-budget-deficit-hits-record-180025337.html



Through the first eight months of this budget year, the budget deficit totals $738.6 billion, an increase of 38.8% over the same period last year. For the full year, it is expected to climb sharply, with the Trump administration forecasting it will top $1 trillion from $779 million last year.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a slightly lower deficit of $896 billion for this year, but that would still be up 15% from the 2018 deficit.

The Trump administration is forecasting that the deficits will top $1 trillion for four years before starting to decline. The CBO is forecasting that the deficits will top $1 trillion beginning in 2022 and will remain above $1 trillion annually through 2029.

The big increase in deficits is coming after President Donald Trump's pushed a $1.5 trillion tax cut through Congress in 2017. Congress then approved sharp increases in spending for the military and domestic programs beginning in 2018.

 

[BotanyBoy]

[
The big increase in deficits is coming after President Donald Trump's pushed a $1.5 trillion tax cut through Congress in 2017. Congress then approved sharp increases in spending for the military and domestic programs beginning in 2018.

Oh look....the uneducated anti-American leftist CowardSlinger still doesn't know how the government operates.

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...trump-executive-privilege-20190109-story.html


White House counsel hires 17 new lawyers to prepare defense of Trump's executive privilege



What a waste of time and money. He's not guilty, right????

 

[bigsly]

no. actually cleaver is trying to cultivate a civil conversation.
that can happen... or has in the past.
politics always seems to bring out the best in our.... ummmmm

contributors.

"middle of the roadism" * as if spit like sour jizz...*
you should talk to the folks in your berg.
most have tired of the road show...
tired of the acrimony...
but you may hold onto it.
your enemies know who you are.

most americans are quietly coalescing with the quieter friendlier mass
as the great big histrionic cock fight goes on across the spacious skies.

You're totally delusional, dude. America has never been so politically divided as it is today. Those divided sides are majorities, and they're entrenched; there's no such thing as "most have tired of the road show". That's simply you longing, as I posted, for nostalgic, past its due date, middle of roadism crap.

As Patrick Henry proclaimed, "We the People" is simply propaganda, an appealing, attractive collectivist tool used then to win almost total consolidation of omnipotent power to the new federal government.

I laugh every time I hear either of those politically divided sides, and any remnants of your middle of the road territory, use "We the People" today to equally attach great-sounding propaganda when they know damn well that, in their minds, "We the People" doesn't include those who don't happen to agree with their main political points (as even this Board continues to precisely exemplify).

The process of decentralization of government naturally spawns stark political division, and that is exactly what's happening in the US today. I wholeheartedly welcome all of it, all three branches of federal government showing for all to easily see how corruptly partisan they've become, fighting against each other with hardly anything else but juvenile, dramatic hyperbole,

Sorry to burst your kumbayah bubble, cleaver, but your middle of the road longing is as uselessly obsolete as an Edsel in today's Divided States of America.

 

[cleaver]

You clearly do.

no, my friend. in fact i don't misunderstand your position.
it is your absolutism and your own misunderstanding of
the intent of our founders;
further, your acid test of "american/unamerican"
by those misunderstood tenets
that mark your position as extreme in my mind.

No, eliminating private property and wealth redistribution is not needed to keep the rabble from storming my gate.

Hasn't been needed for 243 years and it's still not.

i certainly don't advocate the elimination of your property.
but, your "free exchange" only exists within a greater context of a society that comes with cost.
part of that cost is the maintenance of that social order...
and part is the cost that that society deigns is due for its betterment.

i know that this last part sticks particularly in the craw of your philosophical position...
but our republican democratic system - this very american system...
has deemed otherwise.

i truly respect your fight against this... your self sufficiency...but...

It is, either I own my shit and you own your shit and we freely exchange with each other.....or the collective (state) owns it and distributes it as the state sees fit.

There is nothing between the two.

your either/or...
your acid test...
your "american/unamerican"
your imprecise, what some might consider dangerous,
assignation of "ally" or "enemy".

our constitution demands no such right-think.

and this muddled, ever transforming american society is nothing like the extreme you describe.
it does, in fact, lie precisely between the extremes you claim are either/or.

just as the founders knew that such a society would be
that their constitution was constructed to govern...

i'd suggest you re-read(?) the last of the federalist essays, no.85,
where hamilton ties up the previous discourses
in support of the ratification of the constitution
particularly by the state of new york
(and by the many states confederated).
in it, he asserts that:

...the compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct states, in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of the dissimilar interests and inclinations.

compromise.
that ugly middle ground you claim as untenable...
as "unamerican"...
is not only contemplated, but was precisely intended.

again, i wish not to dissuade you of your philosophical aspirations...
but, i fervently do not subscribe to them in their extreme.

and as to trump... the focus of the op
as to what makes him acceptable to those who find him not so?

i asserted that trump is for trump. full stop.
and suggested that he is the living embodiment
of your ideal liberal.

No, he's not.

You didn't answer my question....what exactly is the shared American identity between the collectivist socialist and the individualistic liberals?

hmmmm... the first becomes one of interpretation.

the second part, i disregard in that form,
for the answer is neither an either/or
nor answerable within your extreme context.
to be american is not to vilify those with 'dissimilar interests and inclinations'
but to find compromise with them...

 

[butters]

seems there was a small thing called the american civil war a while back... that was a pretty substantial political divide

*shrugs*

 

[BotanyBoy]

no, my friend. in fact i don't misunderstand your position.

Your continued notion that I'm some sort of absolutist libertarian says otherwise.

it is your absolutism and your own misunderstanding of
the intent of our founders;

What misunderstanding is that exactly?

I certainly don't advocate the elimination of your property.

You've been advocating socialism in this thread and others as necessary to keep the rabble from storming my gate and society civilized.

The elimination of private property is the explicit goal and definitive nature of socialism.

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

but, your "free exchange" only exists within a greater context of a society that comes with cost.
part of that cost is the maintenance of that social order...

Right....Civil services are needed, never said they weren't.

Civil/public services are not socialism, but social liberalism.

Social liberalism is where we all chip in through some sort of equitable taxation to provide public/civil services.

For example we all chip in and open public hospitals/clinics = social liberalism.

Public/civil services (generally) promote positive liberty, and they don't control or stop Dr.Whoever from opening a private practice/hospital. That's why social liberalism is at it's core still liberal, and acceptably American.

When the government nationalizes (takes ownership of) the entire medical industry, and no more private practices, insurers or suppliers are allowed? Essentially setting up a state monopoly on really any industry?? That is socialism....and that is very arguably un-American.

he second part, i disregard in that form,
for the answer is neither an either/or
nor answerable within your extreme context.

For the radical left it very much is, and you can pretend they aren't there all you want but we both know they are, and growing.

It's not answerable because it is an either/or.

Socialism isn't compatible with liberalism....it's antithetical to liberalism and thus everything the USA was founded and built upon.

to be american is not to vilify those with 'dissimilar interests and inclinations'
but to find compromise with them...

Dissimilar no, you can find compromise with dissimilar, because there are still some shared values. Such as social liberalism and libertarianism....dissimilar, but still able to find compromise because they still at both their cores value liberty.

Antithetical and hostile? No shared values? No compromise to be had in that.

 

[cleaver]

seems there was a small thing called the american civil war a while back... that was a pretty substantial political divide

*shrugs*

a hundred years later...

there were the mid 1960's
with race, class, generational and social unrest...
assassinations - bombings - violent protests
and a very controversial foreign war...

the nation survived and grew from this.

there was a bumper sticker then...
big wide american flag emblazened with
"My Country Right or Wrong"
which bastardized a older longer phrase that
expressed a far more nuanced message
and was just a bit less jingoist...

it seems that these days,
there is an almost implied sticker on much of the pro trump dicta...
"My President Right or Wrong"
which to my mind is just as...
tacitly... apologetic(?)

accepting trump?
almost all who do accept him now
do so tacitly accepting an entire list of traits that
are not so acceptable to them...

not so much as caveats to their acceptance,
but more ugly baggage to be taken with the whole.

his obvious tarnish to some is actually a humorously accepted attribute.

 

[RobDownSouth]

your either/or...
your acid test...
your "american/unamerican"
your imprecise, what some might consider dangerous,
assignation of "ally" or "enemy".

our constitution demands no such right-think.

and this muddled, ever transforming american society is nothing like the extreme you describe.
it does, in fact, lie precisely between the extremes you claim are either/or.

LOL "Might"..

You are correct, though
the hypocritical glibertarians on this board
are incapable of seeing things in terms of "shades of grey".
Everything (that does not affect them directly) should be seen in terms of "black" or "white".

They view "socialism" in terms of "classic socialism", often relying upon dictionary definitions to support their tenuous claims...
The real world, however, is a much more fluid place.
When Americans as a rule invoke socialism, they more often than not are referring to the "Nordic model" of socialism, which in essence is a largely free market economy with a large public safety net for the less fortunate supported by higher tax rates.

 

[cleaver]

if socialism is what you contend i advocate
because my original premise so many threads back
is that the growing disparities in this country
are systemic faults
rather than some scorecard proving that you and the "liberals"
work harder and smarter
than the disparate...

you mis-characterize me.

our conversations need not devolve into characterization at all?
unless you need them to do so...
likewise, a philosophical disagreement need not devolve into a conversational impasse.

blanket brandishments work so well in all the other threads.
they work so well in our current governance.

but these are our times, and this is a war, right?

our commander in chief,
amongst all his other attributes,
perhaps does in fact ..."have the best words"...
for what they effectively do
to polarize
as opposed to engaging in the thornier
intricacies that explore systemic faults.

either/or.
enemy/friend.
american/socialist

makes it so much easier to cull.

 

[BotanyBoy]

if socialism is what you contend i advocate

bb

those social-isms that keep the rabble from storming your gate
far longer and far more effectively than your last bullet
are what our society does - as a slow, plodding, often inefficient mass
and is as american as any violence you might claim
as your endowed, final, liberal right.

our commander in chief,
amongst all his other attributes,
perhaps does in fact ..."have the best words"...
for what they effectively do
to polarize
as opposed to engaging in the thornier
intricacies that explore systemic faults.


either/or.
enemy/friend.
american/socialist

makes it so much easier to cull.

Well if you just wanted to vent some TDS rage why didn't you just say so?

What's with the premise trying to see if there is middle ground when it's blatantly obvious the polar ends are against such things and drawing lines in the sand??

 

[BotanyBoy]

LOL "Might"..

You are correct, though
the hypocritical glibertarians on this board
are incapable of seeing things in terms of "shades of grey".
Everything (that does not affect them directly) should be seen in terms of "black" or "white".

They view "socialism" in terms of "classic socialism", often relying upon dictionary definitions to support their tenuous claims...
The real world, however, is a much more fluid place.
When Americans as a rule invoke socialism, they more often than not are referring to the "Nordic model" of socialism, which in essence is a largely free market economy with a large public safety net for the less fortunate supported by higher tax rates.

Oh look....Rob is name calling to justify ignorance and the deliberate misuse of words.

Rob clearly thinks education BAD!!!!

Accuracy in language is glibness and hypocrisy, two more words he clearly has never looked up the meaning of.

Unfortunately even his lies don't account for the roughly 1/3 of (D)'s who are openly advocating nationalizing parts or in several cases the majority of the US economy like comrades E. Warren and the (D) hero AOC.

Better not disagree with him or his lies Cleaver, he'll hurl racial slurs at you for it.

 

[cleaver]

Well if you just wanted to vent some TDS rage why didn't you just say so?

What's with the premise trying to see if there is middle ground when it's blatantly obvious the polar ends are against such things and drawing lines in the sand??

no. no rage vent at all...
observations.

nor do i ascribe to your polarization.
the observation there is simply that
the binary makes it so much easier for those who subscribe
to...
discriminate.

line the enemy up.
create a list.
bring in the cattle cars...

that's the danger.
clinical...
anti-social

 

[RobDownSouth]

He can't even
bring himself
to acknowledge
the Nordic Model

To do so
would upset
his narrative

All America wants
is a stronger safety net
the same kind
of "socialism"
that he enjoys

 

[BotanyBoy]

no. no rage vent at all...
observations.

Uh hua....

nor do i ascribe to your polarization.

Clearly.

the observation there is simply that
the binary makes it so much easier for those who subscribe
to...
discriminate.

Good...that's what it's there for.

line the enemy up.
create a list.
bring in the cattle cars...

that's the danger.
clinical...
anti-social

Why is it dangerous?

It's not anti-social to have standards, to have values, to not just accept everything as something that is ok.

Rape...is NOT ok. Or do you not subscribe to that polarization either?

Is there a shade of grey in that for you or does no mean no?

What about murder??

Robbery??

What are your values if you have any at all Cleaver??

 

[cowslinger64]

He can't even
bring himself
to acknowledge
the Nordic Model

To do so
would upset
his narrative

All America wants
is a stronger safety net
the same kind
of "socialism"
that he enjoys

He's the king of broken records..


https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/broken-record-bernard-jaubert.jpg