Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Meanwhile Trump and Pence are on the ground in Louisiana helping flood victims with supplies and touring the damage. Both physical and moral support to the worst natural disaster since Sandy.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/t...hit-louisiana/

Clinton and Obama? Not even a flyover?!


https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/N4...d4_RTRM4X5.jpg

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

if they are the ones [mostly] to live with the consequences, i say let them choose.

to say you know better, absent a crystal ball, is imo disrespectful paternalism.

Now, we wouldn't be trying to imply that I have race animus with that "disrespectful paternalism" bit, were we, doctor? These things can get easily misconstrued, especially when some folks seem inclined to do the misconstruing. Not that I think you intended that, never. But in these times it pays to be clear, wouldn't you agree doctor?

I didn't say I knew better. I didn't say that they should do what I do.

...demonstrating that the trust of Black voters was tragically misplaced. And since they were wrong about him (twice) the rest of us should, based on their demonstrably false predictive record, trust their opinion now?

I said their expectations were disappointed and consistently so. I noted that their trust seems misplaced and that they were wrong in their expectations twice in a row and that makes me doubt the value of their predictions. And for myself and myself only, that makes me less inclined to follow their lead.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Meanwhile Trump and Pence are on the ground in Louisiana helping flood victims with supplies and touring the damage. Both physical and moral support to the worst natural disaster since Sandy.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/t...hit-louisiana/

Clinton and Obama? Not even a flyover?!

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/N4...d4_RTRM4X5.jpg

I do remember when Candidate Obama chastised Bush for his New Orleans flyover, but I think unless we forget it, we're racists or bigots or something really bad.

That's not the same when as President he plays golf while Candidate Trump visits the victims. In fact, Trump is the bad guy here, although I'm not exactly sure why.

As we are discovering, there are rules for Democrats, rules for Republicans, rules for Clinton and rules for Trump. It's sort of hard to follow and shifts around based on the issue, but as far as I can tell it works like this:

Anything Trump does is illegitimate.
Anything Hillary does is legitimate.
Hillary can lie and tell the truth simultaneously and to multiples of different audiences. A lie to one audience is a truth to the other and vice versa.
Everything Trump says is a lie, even if it is true. Any statement even if categorically true and verifiable becomes a lie the moment Trump utters it.
Hillary cannot be held accountable for any of the things she has done as there is always a mitigating circumstance or excuse.
Trump must be held accountable for things he has done and also not done and may yet do and there is never a mitigating circumstance or excuse.

There are probably more rules and it's likely they can change without notice. Forgive me, but I am having trouble keeping up.

Orwell called it "Doublethink."

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

George Orwell, "1984"

Also, I owe you a YUGE apology for past transgressions. I tell you, as a mitigating circumstance, Democrats were different in my day. Of course they were in the majority back then and so could afford things like honesty and fair dealing.

Lo siento mucho, amigo.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'Four.'

'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'

'Four.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four.'

The needle went up to sixty.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Five! Five! Five!'

'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'

'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'

Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.

'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Hey, JK! This fact based approach is going gangbusters, dotcha think?

I deliver facts, studies and arguments and you fellas use conjecture and speculation to tell me I'm wrong.

Enjoy your "facts" Woody, I'm out on this thread. You remind me of clueless and his "facts" regarding global warming. I think your "facts" are going to work out about as well for you as his "facts" have worked out. There is no global warming and Trump is sincere. Words to live by.

From yesterday: Last night in Charlotte, North Carolina, the notoriously unrepentant Donald Trump shocked observers by expressing "regret" for words that "may have caused personal pain."

The entire quote: Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.


Wow, after a year, Trump's handlers got him to offer a "sincere" apology.



Oops, not so much.

This is religion for you Woody, it's just an election for me with only one clear choice.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

No problemo, amigo

The elite in the Democrat party and current Republican establishment only care for power and privilege. As flawed as Trump may be he's the only one to shake up and change the system to help the middle and lower classes.

My idea of a New majority party may be taking shape and will hopefully evolve into something we can all be proud of.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Clueless you say? I sure wasn't clueless saying both parties are corrupt have to be replaced. It may happen this election or maybe the next but the American people have woken up.

Your condescending attitude destroys any credibility you think you have.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...This is religion for you Woody, it's just an election for me with only one clear choice.

Doubleplusgood brother!

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

too bitter for me. from hot anger to cold anger. my hope was we could get past the anger but i guess not.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

too bitter for me. from hot anger to cold anger. my hope was we could get past the anger but i guess not.

Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Must be a habit:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/19/powell-...te-email-book/

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

if they are the ones [mostly] to live with the consequences, i say let them choose.

to say you know better, absent a crystal ball, is imo disrespectful paternalism.

i apologize for characterizing your stance as paternalism. it was an unnecessary dig. but i stand by the idea that those who live with the consequences should get the choice, and they seem to feel pretty strongly.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Must be a habit:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/19/powell-...te-email-book/

Stop. You're not getting it. Read over the last dozen or so posts among Woodsman and the situational twins, JK and Santa and understand, it's not lying. It's doublethink.

It's knowing and then not knowing as a supreme act of human intellect and will. It's consciousness of complete truthfulness held while delivering exquisitely constructed lies. It's the mental capacity to hold simultaneously two opinions that cancel each other out, knowing them to be a contradiction yet still believing them both with absolutely certainty. It's the expert use of logic to defeat logic. It's laying claim to morality while at the same time repudiating it.

It's not mere lying like you and I might lie, to protect ourselves or gain advantage. No, it's the truth of forgetfulness empowered by infallible memory and a willful amnesia applied to the process of lying itself.

It's exquisite and perfect and requires a discipline and commitment no mere truth teller or factualist could possibly achieve. I'm not sure that it's possible to defeat. I think one can only recognize it and call attention to it, as one would a toxic plant or dangerous animal.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i apologize for characterizing your stance on "law and order" as paternalism. it was an unnecessary dig. but i stand by the idea that those who live with the consequences should get the choice, and they seem to feel pretty strongly.

Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.

you'll have to explain this to me. i can't even tell if you're referring to yourself, to me, or someone else, or if you mean "mad" as a play on words, especially since it's a reply to a post about your anger. it sounds like a quote but i don't recognize it.

ahhh, 1984 again google informs me. there is indeed truth and untruth, but in complicated matters it might not be so simple, or even if it's simple it might not be clear.

most of what we write here, however, is neither truth nor untruth. it is opinion. it is prediction. it is hope and it is fear.

shouldn't you reconsider the picture at the bottom of your signature? or are we to understand that it is no longer ironic?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

you'll have to explain this to me. i can't even tell if you're referring to yourself, to me, or someone else, or if you mean "mad" as a play on words, especially since it's a reply to a post about your anger. it sounds like a quote but i don't recognize it. ahhh, 1984 again google informs me. there is indeed truth and untruth, but in complicated matters it might not be so simple, or even it's simple it might not be clear.

most of what we write here, however, is neither truth nor untruth. it is opinion. it is prediction. it is hope and it is fear.

shouldn't you reconsider the picture at the bottom of your signature? or are we to understand that it is no longer ironic?

It is whatever you say it is, until you say it isn't. And then it never was, until you require it to be again.