monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

What a novel idea...
North Carolina is set to return to men using the men's room, and women using the women's room.
Your original equipment determines the bathroom you use, not your mindset.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I'm usually questioning the concept more than the law.

0 Replies

@Frugal1,

Frugal1 wrote:

OK, now this one wins the kewpie doll!!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I can definitely get on board with sexuality being something one is born with. I am also not gay, so I can't pretend to understand what they feel.

I also see choice in sexual partners and relationships, for both gay and straight people. I am straight, but if I wanted to have sex with a gay man, that would be my choicell. I certainly don't have to marry anyone I don't want to, and I believe gay people have that same liberty. I would also not expect a gay man to make my wedding cake if he didn't support my marriage because of religious opposition, if that somehow happened.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

And to help everyone feel better about this Trump administration and the future, there's this.

Quote:
In July, literally the day after Trump accepted the GOP nomination, he continued to talk about the National Enquirer’s report, insisting the tabloid “should be very respected” and deserves “Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting.”

...The oddity of our political circumstances are hard to overstate. The next president of the United States doesn’t trust U.S. intelligence agencies, climate scientists, or civil servants at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but he believes the National Enquirer “should be very respected.”
more HERE

As Trump said at one of his speeches, "I love the uneducated". Yes he does. The conman and the propagandist depend utterly on people being uninformed and misinformed.

It appears that Trump's selection for US Secretary of Education will work on increasing the numbers of the uneducated, i.e., those unable to engage in critical thinking and who will play their expected roles as useful idiots.

Quote:

CHAPTER VI
WAR PROPAGANDA

. . .

All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. When there is question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence, as happens in the case of war propaganda, then too much attention cannot be paid to the necessity of avoiding a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.

. . .

Source: https://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/mkv1ch06.html

2 Replies

@blatham,

Do you have to agree with everything someone says in order to support them overall??? I just thought Trump was more economic minded than Hillary, I was fed up with Hillary on multiple levels, I am conservative, and I really wanted to see an outsider in office. Does that make me racist?

1 Reply

@blatham,

Using this kind of thinking, we would also be able to say Obama supported riots.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

It appears the panties of the self appointed "intellectual" elite here are in a serous twist. Despite all Baltham's unstinting efforts to educate us poor slobs, with his selected readings from his (generally fact-free) favorite opinion pieces (propaganda??) Debra has discovered that Trump is slavishly following Hitler's instructions in Mein Kampf for propaganda suitably trageted at the common intellectual level, and (gasp!) appears to be suceeding.

Her proof is that Trump said in a speech "I love the uneducated" , a statement she evidently found abhorrent. The context for the remark wasn't provided, but by now we all have become familiar enough with Trump's rhetoric to guess. He was in fact mocking the self appointed, progressive intellectual elites - examples include Ezekiel Emmanuel & Jonathan Gruber, authors of the flawless 1,000 page Obamacare law that, as Nancy Pelosi informed us, we had to enact before understanding it , and of course John Podesta who is providing us all with an example of sustained denial and obsfucation after being exposed for running one of the most expensive and amateurishly ineffective political campaigns in a century.

It is amusing to observe how much quicker ordinary folk are to see the irony here, while our self-appointed superiors continue to miss the point.

The emperor truly has no clothes.

Hard to make this stuff up!

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It appears the panties of the self appointed "intellectual" elite here are in a serous twist.

They are beaten, repudiated, and irrelevant - it's the most wonderful time in 8 years.

0 Replies

@tony5732,

Quote:

I believe that religious freedom tops sexual preference

Why should this? Where does religious freedom stop and concern for the kind of society we want to live in begin?

Quote:

I also believe the government has no business saying to anybody how a business is run unless the government pays for that business. (Except in terms ethnicity, disability, or things people have no control over, in which case it's no longer about choices).

So, if I do not want to serve black people because of my religion, should that be allowed? Would that be allowed? It wasn't long ago when the Mormons thought black people were the people who had the mark of cain. I think the church changed its official doctrine only in 1979.

OK, so this is not a choice..

What about fat people? Could religious people refuse to serve fat people on the grounds that they are (presumed) gluttonous, gluttony being a sin and thus offensive to their Christian morality?

What about people who curse?

In the choices of whether or not the religious person chooses to exercise their 'moral' authority, what we have is selected attention. We can't do black people because that would make us look racist (at one time it was ok though - and we didn't serve them) and its not a choice (though what choice has to do with this, I'm still fuzzy on)..

We can't do fat people, because, Lordy! My ministers as fat as they come, he never skips a meal!

But we can do gays. They just don't quite have the social support..yet..its getting there. They are/were easy targets for us because no one liked them. They hold that moral distinction of being one of the few 'moralities' that non religious people don't like (didn't like? - again its changing) as well.

Sexuality is one of the toughest things for us. Even those who accept gays make snide remarks, laugh and giggle over 'that gay couple'. It seems its always open season on gays. And even though 'sin is sin' religious people hold a special place in their heart for gays..the other sins just don't rate for them to discriminate against. Probably for the social disapprobation they would get for that discrimination. But for gays, that disapproval has only just started and doesn't yet carry the weight of social censure ship that other minority groups carry.

If they ever achieve the social standing of blacks and other powerful minority groups, then they will be added to the list of folks its unthinkable to discriminate against for all but the most uber religious. That's if they ever achieve it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It appears the panties of the self appointed "intellectual" elite here are in a serous twist. Despite all Baltham's unstinting efforts to educate us poor slobs, with his selected readings from his (generally fact-free) favorite opinion pieces (propaganda??) Debra has discovered that Trump is slavishly following Hitler's instructions in Mein Kampf for propaganda suitably trageted at the common intellectual level, and (gasp!) appears to be suceeding.

Her proof is that Trump said in a speech "I love the uneducated" , a statement she evidently found abhorrent. The context for the remark wasn't provided, but by now we all have become familiar enough with Trump's rhetoric to guess. He was in fact mocking the self appointed, progressive intellectual elites - examples include Ezekiel Emmanuel & Jonathan Gruber, authors of the flawless 1,000 page Obamacare law that, as Nancy Pelosi informed us, we had to enact before understanding it , and of course John Podesta who is providing us all with an example of sustained denial and obsfucation after being exposed for running one of the most expensive and amateurishly ineffective political campaigns in a century.

It is amusing to observe how much quicker ordinary folk are to see the irony here, while our self-appointed superiors continue to miss the point.

The emperor truly has no clothes.

Hard to make this stuff up!

First and foremost, you're not here for "education". Nor are you here to educate. Your last diatribe was wholly unsupported and was essentially a racist rant. Perhaps you might not think it's "politically correct" for me to recognize that and to call you out on it, but nowadays "political correctness" (and education) is frowned up by your ilk.

Based on your contributions thus far, it is clear to me that your main purpose for participating in this thread is to toss out wordy condescending condemnations directed at Blatham and the materials posted. And despite the fact that you offer nothing of substance, Blatham responds in a gracious, patient, and admirable manner.

I'm not going to join the club that tries to persuade the public that there exists hidden meaning and profundity in Trump's idiotic, hateful, and dangerous quips. I reject the notion that we have to spend hours deciphering and guessing at the "true meaning" of Trump's 4th grade level diatribes. (No! He is not smarter than a 5th grader.) I reject that concept that nothing Trump says may be taken literally. Words matter.

I'm here to educate myself and read the materials offered. I am concerned for the future of our country. And from time to time, I'm going to be critical of Trump and his supporters. I think our nation has turned a very ugly and dangerous corner and heavy dissent is necessary as a counter-measure. If you don't like my dissent, please place me on ignore.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Wow! Where did you come from? I'll get back to this one later tonight, but that's another good point.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think there's something about forests and trees here..

Trumps whole bent has been towards using negative emotional appeals like the two bit dictators who want to scare the hell out of people to keep them in line. He creates a world of disaster and then offers himself as the only solution.

The other politicians do this as well, but Trump does it vacuously. He says nothing but hyperbole. Statements that are so general in their position, its difficult to even discuss what he means by them. Oh, but his followers know what he 'really' means! And just like other 'rulers' he can take back what he said without repercussion. Folks still slavishly follow him because the cognitive dissonance that would ensue from admitting he is just another politician would blow their brains out..

Despite his constant assertions to the contrary, Trump is just like the other politicians in his use of rhetoric. Only his rhetoric is stupid, dull, childish, and inflammatory. The other difference is that he has absolutely no ideas of his own on how to run a country - something that others see as a benefit because 'he's not part of the establishment.'

He's every bit part of that establishment as Hillary. In fact, even more so because there is only one party: the business party and Trump is much closer to that than Hillary..

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Please explain the "racist rant" element you found in my post. In fact there was no real or implied reference of any kind to race or any related issue in it. My deficient understanding of the intellectual nuances of political correctitude may be the central issue here. Perhaps your logic is as follows;

Proposition : Debra doesn't agree with racists
Observation: georgeob1 disagrees with Debra
Conclusion: georgeob1 is a racist

If so it is laughably defective, and itself perhaps a slip indicative of the elitist folly that underlies your interpretation of challenge in any form.

If your concept of "substance" is endless posting of opinion pieces all of one perspective and mostly devoid of fact or objectrive information, then I can understand your observation. However, I don't acept either.

My "purpose" on this thread is likely little different fron that of most posters here, and in any event is no concern of yours. I have indeed gotten a little weary of Blatham's efforts to make himself an authority figure here and of the also condescending manner in which he so prolifically (count the posts) lards up these threads with his one sided views (and endless pasted commentaries) of the domestic politics of a neighboring country. Some restraint is surely in order. In any event I know him well. He's a big boy and can surely take a dose of what he puts out.

You are free to express your dissent, as I am to comment on it. Get over it.

0 Replies

A2K's liberal progressive democrats are having the toughest time accepting their loss... their complete rejection. We should all fear reprisals from the intolerant left, but we need to remain on offense forever.

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

Frugal1 wrote:

. . . We should all fear reprisals from the intolerant left . . .

For example?

2 Replies

@catbeasy,

You got a point about Trump using fear to gather his bigots. Build a wall? They've lost all common sense.
Understandably, they don't talk about building a wall between the US and Canada, which speaks volumes about their bigotry.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Isn't that something. Thoughtful of Stormfront to keep Herr Schicklgruber's work in the public domain.

1 Reply

@tony5732,

Quote:

Do you have to agree with everything someone says in order to support them overall??? I just thought Trump was more economic minded than Hillary, I was fed up with Hillary on multiple levels, I am conservative, and I really wanted to see an outsider in office. Does that make me racist?

No. But that reference wasn't directed at you. It's a description (and an accurate one) of what Trump used to appeal to a large portion of the modern conservative base.

I don't think we have reason to conclude that Trump was/is "economic minded" other than in his own personal pursuit of wealth and working the system to increase his wealth. I've never seen him say anything at all which would indicate knowledge of economics or any interest in it.

As to the notion that an "outsider" is preferable or necessary, that's a big story I'll write about another time.

0 Replies

@tony5732,

Quote:

Using this kind of thinking, we would also be able to say Obama supported riots.

Not sure what you mean there.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know