1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Discussion areas for the individual classes are unlocked for all users. Let's see if this makes it any more useful. If not, we'll drop this or organize under a single banner to save space and lean things out.
    Dismiss Notice

Darth Trump

Discussion in 'The RedBanned Bar & Grill' started by Doug Gibson, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. #41 Gharun Lacy, Jan 6, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    Here is what I think @Paul T McGraw's argument is. @Paul T McGraw please correct me if I'm wrong.

    I think white men are getting screwed in this country and no one cares. Leftist are concerned with everyone's rights but the white man's. People rally for all kinds of other rights but who do you think all of those issues are designed to hurt? When a white man raises the issue, no one is listening and no one cares. It's not right that 90% of the federal government is leftist and it's not right that leftist judges want to prevent the white man from having an equal chance.
     
    Paul T McGraw likes this.
  2.  
  3. That is actually fairly close to how I think about things regarding race. I worry about my sons and my grandchildren and what kind of world they will have to live in. I am not sure what motivates judges. I doubt that as a group they really care about any particular group except themselves. I really am not in enough control of my emotions to switch sides and do a good job. I do appreciate your willingness to give it a try. Thank you.
     
  4. Being able to argue your opponent's position isn't a function of emotion, but of intellect - and it's such an important skill to practice. Even a detective catches a bad guy not by failing to understand or relate to him, but by learning to think like he does. And in terms of arguing for the other side, Gharun, what you did was restate it, but you didn't argue successfully that he's right in his position (you should be able to make the argument, even if he's factually wrong). I think this is crucial because it's not only the heart of successful debate, but the essence of empathy. Being empathetic does not being being able to see it from another's perspective; it means to be able to defend their position honestly. Otherwise, empathy can be turned on its head: "I understand your position. I'd think that way, too, if I was a moron." Detectives have to be able to do this, lawyers have to be able to do this, and musicians have to be able to do this - understanding people's psychology is a key component to our ability to control/satisfy/frustrate/whatever it.

    One thing that even a cursory glance from 40,000 ft. should make clear to all of us: this country is NOT about blacks vs. whites. That's not a war anybody is waging. It is a war being insisted upon; foisted upon the people; propagandized about and stated, Goebbels-like, as fact incessantly because such a distraction serves a tiny controlling elite while they run off with all the money and power. The struggle is real, only it's not us-vs-us, it's us-vs-them. They just want us fighting among ourselves instead.
     

  5. Hey....... I ask this in a totally chilled out/ respectful way. I have no reason to argue with you. I am trying to understand the "logic" to your response.

    If "accusations aren't proof of guilt, and neither are settlements" = specious argument: Why did you write the post about Harvey Weinstein ?

    He has not been found guilty of anything in court. He denies it all. What is the "logical distinction" to be made that differs between the two ?
    Why is posting about one person never taken to court or found guilty of anything "not specious", and posting about someone else who settled a case
    "Holy Shit" level specious ?

    To be clear: I despise H.W. I am very happy he has fallen from power, and I am totally in line with the post you wrote about him.
    I am not interested in litigating his case.

    I also have "no beef" with you at all. Your a "swell guy" Sensei. Nothing is personally directed towards you at all. I'm sure you know that.

    Asking with an open mind: What is the logical fallacy of the Trump reply that the Weinstein post did not have, if we are measuring by "proof of guilt" in court ?
     
    Fritz von Flotow and Gharun Lacy like this.
  6. I can empathize with the emotion of feeling frustrated by what we see in front us and feeling frustrated by our experiences. We all share that experience no one can claim a monopoly on that. I don't have the imagination to defend a position that's factually wrong. I'm an engineer. If the positions is factually wrong, then it is wrong. I don't attack the person because I don't know that person's soul and I never will. And I do empathize with the emotion that lead that person to the position. I've been there and been wrong too many times in my life. But when one is presented with superior, information based on logic and fact and still insists on presenting "alternate" facts........ then there really is nothing to discuss. A sincere "It's unfortunate that you feel that way" is the best we can do and we move on.

    This is correct, and Delta Tango absolutely stokes and in some cases ignites this fire. The media sensationalizes and twists and bends this in all kinds of ways but one cannot deny that this is exactly how Delta Tango operates. They all do it is not a defense. I'm talking strictly Delta Tango.

    Doug asks a good question.
     
    Fritz von Flotow likes this.
  7. #47 Fritz von Flotow, Jan 6, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    I have a lot of arguments, but I cannot see any value in a discussion where my views are as far away from the fellow community members and forum founder. Further, I am not a native speaker, for which Paul already criticized me (I'd like to know from him, in which other languages he can fluently write ... better than my English which sure as hell is not perfect!). It is certainly more difficult for me to get to the intricacies of these matters, than for any fellow members who posted in this thread. Also, you guys argue very much from an American standpoint. I get to know enough from US politics to form an opinion, but the US members can do a better job at providing the facts for US politics, as they already did.
    Further, I really cannot see a fruitful debate in that, when very informed and eloquent people like Noam tell you a few facts which are hard to look by and every pro-Trump guy here simply ignores it. As Gharun said it: There is no other choice than just moving along (agreeing to disagree), when there are these alternative facts on the other side, which make all argument useless. I wouldn't try to change the mind of a person who denies human influence on climate change, I wouldn't try to change the mind of a person who thinks the US moon landing was a hoax, I wouldn't try to change the mind of a person who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, I wouldn't try to change the mind of a person who thinks white people are a suppressed group in the US ... I would try to talk about it, but I can see no sense. It is just a waste of time. Luckily, as a German citizen I can afford that "arrogance" as you might call it, as the comparable group of people that would support a candidate like Trump is a minority in Germany. Unfortunately, these right wing tendencies have grown in Europe recently, but Germany is still an island of hope in that regard (from my standpoint - which does not mean I am all happy with German politics!!!).
    To end this on a positive notion, looking for something that might unite people with completely different standpoints:
    This is something I can whole-heartedly agree to, although I do not think Trump is anywhere close to being a solution to stop huge companies enslaving the population. If anything, he has shown that in spite of all his election rhetoric he has kissed those asses! You applaud the tax reforms showing positive signs? Well, every economic expert I heard from said, this would only have a temporary effect and there would be no reason to believe the save money would be invested by the majority of companies. Letting some tax dollars get lost to the country and communities will not help the US economy on the long term. That is Reagan economics and it has been proven wrong since ages.
    Well, I just realize it is really hard for me to in fact let this end on a positive note! And that is probably due to one important thing, which is: Trump is not only an asshole to the well-being of the American people, he is also the one person to quit Paris climate agreement, which is like the last hope for our children to survive on this planet. I am quite sure, you will now lecture me about the climate change being a completely natural thing or trying to prevent any of this form happening a waste of time ... but if you don't agree with Trump on that single thing, you should never have voted for him, as this is arguably the single most important project of humanity. We just have temperatures like in Spring here while parts of the U.S. is having record winter once more ...
     
  8. #48 Paul T McGraw, Jan 6, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    I appreciate what you are trying to do about the switching sides thing, I really do. But I am 65 years old, not a kid in school. The issues facing the USA today are far beyond a debate about how to spend the people's hard earned tax money, or whether 2,79 million federal employees are enough of a millstone on the neck of the people or should we add another few hundred thousand. At stake today is the very existence of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and equality for all men. These issues are far too important for a game of let's switch sides.

    I agree with you regarding the controlling elite being the enemy of freedom. But who are they? They are the folks who think the law does not apply to them. They are the folks who control most news media, entertainment media, universities, and government (the swamp). Now, through federal funding and common core curricula, they also want to gain a stranglehold on local education. But who are they? They are the Barabara Streisand types who want taxes raised on the rich, except her of course, the Hilary Clinton types who lie and take bribes and pay for fake dossiers to deceive the people, they are the Post Modernists who want "safe zones" and deny freedom of speech to anyone who disagrees with them. It is a testament to the power of truth that a little spark of resistance still lingers. But will the flame of freedom burst forth, or will the Democrats, the left, the oligarchs, the elite, succeed in the final destruction of this great experiment in freedom? This is not a contest of ideas. This is a war of good against evil, and evil is winning.
     
  9. #49 Paul T McGraw, Jan 6, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    Fritz, if you are going to insert yourself into US political debate, you should expect to be held accountable for your statements just like anyone else. Europe is even more messed up than the US. So perhaps you should focus on European politics. If Europe does not change course, the day will come when Muslims become the majority in Europe. They have a much higher birth rate, and Europeans are bringing in more and more of them by the millions. Islam does not tolerate dissent. Once they are in the majority, Sharia law will be enacted. While you may not have learned the value and contribution of Western Christian Civilization to mankind, I seriously doubt that you would want to live in a country with laws like Saudi Arabia. So perhaps instead of posturing about how superior you are to the AfD you should think about joining them.

    Noam mentioned an instance where President Trump is alleged to have told a lie. So what? The alternative was Clinton. The US electorate was not electing the next Saint, but a political leader. And the last time I checked, every single one of them in the past was less than a perfect person. We don't get the choice to elect the perfect person, we only get to elect the lesser flawed of two flawed humans.
     
  10. Gharum,

    Democrats, leftists, the elite, the swamp, these are all interchangeable terms. They are all the same. Each simply carries slightly different connotations. Your boss is the President of the United States. Right now that is President Donald Trump. I hope that as a paid employee of the executive branch of government that you can put aside your personal opinions and do the best job of which you are capable to carry out the foreign policy of the elected President of the United States.

    You mention facts but I have yet to hear of any facts that contradict anything I have posted.
     
  11. As I said, I only insert myself into that US political debate due to the fact that Mike requested it. I agree with you in so far as I am much more informed about the politics about my own country and Europe, but you seem to ignore what I am writing when forming your sentences ... I really would like to try to take Mike's comment serious to understand your PoV, but I am afraid, you make it rather impossible, because it would require me to unlearn all my knowledge about how things are and exchange it with the post-factual facts your claim to be the truth. I realize that you feel weakened and afraid of something you cannot quite grasp, but instead of looking for real answers to your questions you choose the easy explanations some dubious people on the internet and Mr.Trump have given you to explain the world to yourself. And you seem to know a whole lot about Europe or Germany getting a Muslim country with Sharia law, which is bollocks!
    Then, by throwing "leftists", Democrats, the elite, the swamp ... into one bucket, saying this is all the same, you perfectly demonstrate that in fact YOU are the person who doesn't accept any other viewpoint but the Trumpist republican one or whatever other strange view on the world you might have. I have a lot of friends from different political sides and we may argue, but we always find common ground. I bet you have quite a lot of democrats as your friends - let alone Bernie Sanders supporters (which by the way currently is almost the 'leftest' thing there is in the USA, while most of his views are just common sense in Europe ...)!
    I hope someone else is better at this thing in trying to talk you into some kind of sense, but all I can tell you is there is no common ground for people like you and me to work together in one society. Therefore, no common ground for any further discussion as long as you hold these ludicrous views.
     
    Paul T McGraw likes this.
  12. #52 Paul T McGraw, Jan 6, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    "Post-factual"? Do you mean "post-truth politics"? If so, I suggest that instead of generalities about your friends, which is neither interesting nor relevant, you focus on actual facts. Post-truth politics are the enemy of truth, facts and reason. So why not focus on facts, truth and reason?

    I agree that apparently there is no common ground between us, and your "ludicrous" attempt at amateur psychology ("you feel weakened and afraid") is a pitiful attempt to avoid facts in a very insulting manner. Then you insult me further by claiming that "some dubious people on the internet and Mr. Trump " have given me my views. You have yet to understand the basic point that everyone who voted for Trump, or supports Trump, is not a follower of Trump. He is better than the alternative. Get it? That is a very important point. While leftists march in lockstep, thinking people understand the concept of the individual and the lesser of two evils.

    And while no single person "gave me" my views, my biggest political influences are John Locke, George Wahington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Adams and the rest of the founding fathers of the USA. I include John Locke (you may not know who he is if you are the victim of modern public education) as a founding father since he was quoted so frequently by the founding fathers and set the foundation for their political philosophy.

    So what "facts" do you dispute? Do you think the FEC lied about election contributions of federal workers? Do you think the DNC actually DID NOT run the ad excluding heterosexual white men? Do you dispute that non-white and non-male people (everyone but white males) benefit from affirmative action? Let's stick with facts and rational discourse.
     
  13. You know, Paul - I think the issue here is that there's a difference between facts in the form of rough data, and facts in the form of truths of some sort that such data is meant to elucidate.

    Most of the things you've mentioned here seem to operate in a similar way: that some indicator describes the overall content of a group. In the case of the 'DNC e-mail,' your language is actually doing that in itself: the fact is that the content you talked about was never in an ad run, but in an e-mail sent between two people working within the DNC. So - no, the DNC did not actually 'run the ad,' because it wasn't an ad to begin with, but an e-mail about running an ad. What is interesting though, is that you're conflating the ideology of a group of people, the methods that the group as a whole would use, with the methods one individual would use. Would the DNC as a whole prefer more 'diversity' (which, presumably you would interpret as fewer heterosexual white men...)? - Yes. But would the DNC writ large agree with the methods that the e-mail suggests? I seriously doubt it.

    As for the FEC - I'm fairly sure that the information you're talking about was actually a study conducted by The Hill, based on data that they collected from the FEC. Which isn't quite the same thing as data directly from the FEC - it only dealt with contributions above $200. Now, there's a ton of problems that should be immediately obvious about this. First of all, the sample size is tiny - talking about less than $100,000 from the entirety of the Department of Defense. The maximum number of people that could possibly be talking about is 500. Now - do the actions of those 500 people represent in any way the entirety of the entire Department of Defense? Do you really believe that 84% of the DOD (the number that the Hill reports for DOD) would even identify as democrats, let alone be "Leftist"? I hope that your bullshit meter is significantly off the charts. Especially when you look at VA with 89% and Homeland Security at 90%.

    So - there must be some gap between the data, and the truth, right? For one thing, rank and file don't give more than $200. I was technically still DOD in the last election, and I gave about $50. (To Kasich, if you're interested...I'm not sure if that makes me a "leftist"!) The people who can afford to pay more than $200 are the well-educated, well-paid in the organizations, who will always tend left as a population. Also, given Trump's incendiary comments, which you love or hate - well, the crowd I ran with in my army dats definitely DOES NOT tend left, and I don't know any of them that donated, especially more than $200 to Trump. So - well, I hope it all just demonstrates some of the problems in looking at a small population's behavior as signs of some kind of global issue.

    I will say one thing that troubles me. A very simplified version of the history of Islamist Terrorism is basically that it didn't exist until Sayyid Qutb was chained and tortured in prison, and he basically came up with the idea that muslims who had been corrupted by the west could morally be killed because of the existential threat. Essentially radicalization is the process of identifying some threat as so existential, so invasive, that any means are justifiable in destroying that threat. It troubles me a bit in a sentence like this:

    "But will the flame of freedom burst forth, or will the Democrats, the left, the oligarchs, the elite, succeed in the final destruction of this great experiment in freedom? This is not a contest of ideas. This is a war of good against evil, and evil is winning."

    If you changed those nouns around, you'd be frightened by it, right? If it said "or will the Americans, the infidels, the unclean invaders, succeed in the final destruction of our homeland" etc., you'd likely identify it as radical Islamic thinking. Something to think about....
     
    Gharun Lacy and Doug Gibson like this.

  14. :confused:


    FACT: Over 7 million votes were cast for third party candidates in the 2016 presidential election. You are perfectly free to write in a vote.
     
    Gharun Lacy likes this.
  15. I'm a Brit, so I don't have any skin in this game, but I do find that some of anti-Trump hysteria would be comical if it weren't so alarming about the state of mind some people are in.

    I listened to an interview on Radio Four last week. It was an actress (I can't remember her name) but apparently she has been put in charge of a Hollywood fund that has raised $ 30 million dollars to help women who have been victims of men. Seems like something worthy to me. As the interview went on she said, with what sounded like a straight face, that it was Donald Trump's administration that had created the environment that allowed men like Harvey Weinstein to get away these assaults.

    Now, I am blessed with a sense of logic, so this surprised me somewhat: Weinstein had been behaving this for twenty years plus, and in fact that it was within a year of Trump being in office that this was all exposed. He obviously got away with it under the Obama administration for two whole terms. Yet it was caused by Donald Trumps administration ?

    However, since this entirely matches the BBC's narrative, it of course went completely unchallenged .

    I honestly don't know which worries me the most - Either this actress in charge of this huge amount of money is so stupid that she believes what she is saying, or that she is so cynical and believes the rest of us are stupid enough to swallow it.

    I am sure that those who wish to oppose Trump can find lots of real things with which to condemn him - but this kind of stupid just makes most people turn off - and there is so much of it.

    George W & Tony Blair are treated with much more respect by all, especially the media, and between them they de-stabilised an entire region with an illegal war, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, sent a lot of our fine young men to their deaths, and laid the groundwork for the insurgency we are still dealing with, and is still costing lives, today.

    But at least the didn't say anything sexist in a private conversation twenty years ago - Because that would have been unforgivable ....
     
    Gharun Lacy and Paul T McGraw like this.
  16. #56 Paul T McGraw, Jan 6, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    You are correct that it was an email, not an ad. I just checked and my memory was wrong. Do I think it represents the thinking of the DNC as a whole? Yes. I do.

    While your attempt to create some doubt regarding the FEC data is well written, it does not change the facts. Pollsters do not sample an entire population to make reasonably accurate estimations about a group. So your argument that the sample size is too low might be cause for a wider margin of error, it is not a cause to invalidate the data entirely. I do not grasp your distinction without a difference between leftists and Democrats. Do you prefer leftist and extreme leftist? Are you seriously suggesting that any Democratic party member of the Congress would vote in opposition to the party line on any issue of consequence? You argue that since the donations were $200 or more, this is only the elite of the elite. The highest ranking, most powerful "civil servants." So only the Democrats were allowed to be promoted to well-paid positions? So only Democrats could afford to make larger contributions? Is that what you are saying? But actually the little people, the poor stupid workers who are ill-educated and don't know what' is good for them they never get promoted, so they must not be Democrats. I hope you read this paragraph carefully several times.

    You must not know the history of Islam or the basic precepts of the religion. Have you actually read the Koran? I have, every page. Did you know that the first action of the US military outside of our own borders was the US action against Tripoli 1801 to 1805? You know, "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." The Muslims were capturing ships and enslaving Christian men, women, and children. You could call that terrorism I suppose, but it was fully justified by the Koran, and would be today. And if you want to try to justify it, you will have to also justify white slave ships buying African slaves on the Gold Coast and transporting them to the Carribean. Islam is the only major religion that did not spread by missionaries and peaceful conversion but by warfare and forced conversion. It was typical as the forces of Islam advanced in the seventh century and beyond that when they captured a city they would skin alive the leaders and then parade them through the streets as an example of what anyone who defied them could expect. When the Muslims conquered the Christian Balkankan countries, they began the horrific practice of Devshirme, literally the stealing of children. Could any act of terrorism be more horrific? And this went on from 1300 to 1700. Four hundred years of terrorism against Christians. I could write about Islamic history all day, but no one would read it, especially leftists. Leftists, that is the Democrats, love to take the side of Islam thinking, aha these guys hate Christians, we hate Christians, the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. It is so sad. Have you noticed any Feminists taking the side of the uprising in Iran?

    As far as your final point is concerned, in my opinion, the Washington elite will never understand the mind of a religious person since the elites are largely atheists. So thinking that spending money on infrastructure and medical care for children is going to make any kind of difference is nonsense. It is a waste of time and money. Muslim beliefs are not for sale any more than Christian beliefs are for sale. We need to bring our troops home. Nothing good can come from keeping troops in Muslim nations as human bait for Islamic aggression. I believe in the golden rule, treat others as you would want to be treated. (It's in the Bible.) So unless Americans would be perfectly happy with being occupied by foreign armies, then we should not have our armies occupying foreign countries.

    If you intended in your final point to somehow frighten me with "oh no, I don't want to sound like a terrorist" then it won't work. Nice ploy, but it is the conservatives who are being pushed off college campuses, fired from jobs for expressing views that are not leftist, denied promotions and marginalized by news media and entertainment media. Conservatives need to resign themselves to extermination, or learn to use the same methods against Democrats that Democrats use against conservatives.
     
  17. Fact: My name is Gharun. What you wrote is wrong.

    FACT: All Democrats are not elite. All of my family members are Democrats and half of them don't have two dimes to rub together. What you wrote is wrong.

    FACT: Sweeping generalizations with factual basis is not logical discourse.
    Opinion: What you wrote is a dismissive generalization that restricts nuance and leaves no room for discussion or middle ground.
    @Mike Verta I gotta call you out on this one. Paul needs some honest words of wisdom from someone he may (or may not listen too.) Help this man out.

    FACT: There is no proof to back this. You misread the quote and data. What you wrote here is wrong.

    FACT: I restated your argument but you refused to even attempt to restate mine. That shows a lack of willings to try to see another side to things.

    FACT: This is a passive aggressive attempt to question my dedication to my job. It's wrong.

    FACT: I spent most of December in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Baghdad. I'm writing this from Amman, Jordan. My job is to "Provide a safe and secure environment for the conduct of foreign policy". I've been doing it for almost 20 years under both parties. I've worked protective details for four Secretaries of State. I am the best at what I do. I was awarded the Security Engineering Officer of the year last year. I have served and will continue to serve my country even when I disagree with parts of who she is.

    FACT: I did not question your son's qualifications for the job he applied for but you saw fit to passively cast doubt on my dedication and professionalism.

    FACT: We all agree with this statement.

    I hope you find some peace with what you are dealing with @Paul T McGraw I sincerely do but I'm done here. This interaction is not productive (it never really was) but most importantly, it has ceased to be entertaining for me.

    Just to be perfectly clear, if that sounds dismissive..........it is because I meant it to be.
    [​IMG]
     
    Fritz von Flotow and Doug Gibson like this.
  18. Paul: First let me say, and sincerely mean this: I think you are a very nice person.
    I have read a number of your posts thru the years, and you are always very kind, courteous and bring a "good vibe" to this forum and VI-C.
    You love your family and religion and these influence your music. Beautiful..... All wonderful stuff.

    I certainly do not "look down" on you (or Mike V.) for supporting Trump. Not at all.
    Both of my parents, with whom I am very close and have a great relationship with, voted for Trump.
    (For what it's worth both are devout christians).

    I simply do not understand.
    We don't have to agree on politics, and I have no intention (and hope I have not said anything ever to you that conveyed this) of questioning the validity of religious beliefs.

    As Michael Antrum stated above, if we were talking about over-reaction to Trump..... totally agree there is plenty of examples of this.
    If the topic was: Are the Clintons "dodgy". Yeah..... I get it. I don't have any defense to make of them. No my favorite two people either.
    I can perfectly understand the outrage to when Bill "walked across the tarmac to just say hi to Loretta Lynch". Bill does indeed have a habit of having scandals follow him wherever he goes, so when something dubious does occur, to which we may never know the real answer to, I can see why people think the worst.

    To pick up on a point Michael made: I don't ever recall a time in my life when politics was this divisive.

    There simply are not a lot of places where people of contrasting opinions can have a meaningful exchange of discourse in a respectful way.
    I engage in this conversation, with the assumption that my past and frequent posting to forums demonstrates a background of respect.
    I would not be here if I did not have respect for the people here. It's called Redbanned for fuck's sake.

    Perhaps things are just too "hot". Without intending to "attack" I simply don't understand. It's just ranges from head scratching to "gobsmacked".

    I don't know why my comment "hit the rails of red banned" previously. No has to agree, but the feedback still befuddles me.

    When I read Brian's and Gharun's posts to me they come off as being pretty calm. Nothing "extreme left" about anything they said.
    Of course.....that's just my opinion.

    I just don't get it. How is spending money for children medical care a "radical left" point of view ? Won't it make a difference to the children who receive it ?

    Also.... Trump wants a huge infrastructure plan. So.... how is this a "left" thing ?

    You've mentioned "elites" a number of times. Aside from Trump being in the .0001 wealth bracket, he surrounded himself with Goldman Sacs guys.
    Steve Mnuchin - G.S. Gary Cohn- G.S Steve Bannon - G.S, Larry Kudlow - longtime walkstreet guy. Mercer - Hedgefund king.

    You have every right to your opinions and I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I simply don't understand.

    I don't know....... weird times.
     
    Matthias Calis and Paul T McGraw like this.
  19. Gharun Lacy,

    Sadly, everyone who supports the elitist Democrats does not benefit from that support. In fact, most do not. That is a good reason to abandon them. The black unemployment rate just fell to a record low.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/black-unemployment-rate-falls-to-record-low.html

    So exactly why are you on the side of the elites?

    I know it is difficult for a Democrat to actually hear a dissenting view, I am sure you never hear any at work. But asking Mike for help to try to silence my voice is probably not going to work. Typical Democrat reaction, "someone is saying something I do not agree with, they must be silenced!."

    I did not misread or misinterpret the FEC data. Don't know where you get that.

    You did write a few sentences that sort of restated some of my views. I thanked you for that and apologized that I could not participate. What more do you expect?

    Since I am very outspoken, you may be the first person in my life who has accused me of being passive-aggressive. You obviously have issues with President Donald Trump. Do you hold him in contempt? I don't know, but it sure seems a possibility. For that reason, I expressed my hope that you can put aside your personal political beliefs and support the President in his foreign policy agenda. No hidden agenda on my part. I (mostly) like the President's foreign policy. I hope you can help to make it happen.

    Interesting that you make the choice to be insulting as your last point. I guess that says a lot about you as a man. As for me, I wish you nothing but the best.
     
  20. Thank you for a very reasonable post. Thank you for your kind words. I also appreciate that you try to help fellow composers and do so without remuneration.

    I should have been more specific regarding the spending issue. It seems that President Bush and President Obama made policy and spending decisions regarding Iran and Afghanistan based on a belief that they could persuade the people of those nations to like American occupation if they spent a lot of money on good things. I am not opposed to helping children and poor people. But it should be done with no strings attached. No quid pro quo. Otherwise, it can do more harm than good. I am opposed to the idea that by doing some good things the USA will somehow buy the acceptance of US occupation in a foreign nation. The people that developed those ideas to "win the hearts and minds" of enemies were deceiving themselves. I think it started with Rumsfeld. What a waste of life has resulted from it. And the entire concept of the unending occupation of a foreign nation is repugnant to me.

    I have to go out to dinner now. I would be happy to discus any of this with you.
     
    Matthias Calis likes this.

Share This Page