Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

Look, there is a witch hunt against President Trump, and you would have to be totally naive to think that this is about his morals, or his approach to LBGTQ, or about the wall, or the fact that he isn't PC. My best guess is that he is seriously getting in the way of the military plans of the "Deep State".
Sheesh. Go out, get some fresh air, and talk to a few actual Americans. There is no need for a conspiracy as he has offended large groups of people with his own words. An entire population of citizens want the guy gone. So, the political machine that could profit from Trump going down (e.g., the Democratic Party) has mobilized to meet the stated goals of their base.

No conspiracy from the supposed "deep state" whatever the hell that may be.
 
Nothing to pin on him David? You are costing yourself whatever credibility as a rational thinker you had.

The man's own words have been his own worst enemy to the myriad of voting Americans that I talk to on a daily basis. Those on the right/conservative/Republican side of the aisle acknowledge a very real quandary here as they don't approve of much of his commentary but support much of his policy. Those on the left/liberal/Democratic side are insulted by much of what comes out of the man's mouth.

For many its not so much about the policy. Folks I talk to understand our system and embrace it. If the typical conservative policy fare isn't their bag, they patiently wait their turn to chime in by voting in elections. Same holds true for those who dislike the liberal policy fare. However, talking about grabbing women in the private parts, asserting a moral equivalency between white supremacists and counter protesters, broadly talking about immigrants as rapists, etc, etc. crosses the line for most folks I know regardless of their policy bent.

Some folks simply aren't hardcore "ends justify the means" proponents. For some of us, like myself, how we get where we are going is important too.

If you like the way he conducts himself, that's fine. But don't be so obtuse as to accuse those who do not as needing to "take up and smell the coffee". Ridiculous, inane, naïve, arrogant. I'm really not sure how to categorize such a statement.
 
Nothing to pin on him David? You are costing yourself whatever credibility as a rational thinker you had.

The man's own words have been his own worst enemy to the myriad of voting Americans that I talk to on a daily basis. Those on the right/conservative/Republican side of the aisle acknowledge a very real quandary here as they don't approve of much of his commentary but support much of his policy. Those on the left/liberal/Democratic side are insulted by much of what comes out of the man's mouth.

For many its not so much about the policy. Folks I talk to understand our system and embrace it. If the typical conservative policy fare isn't their bag, they patiently wait their turn to chime in by voting in elections. Same holds true for those who dislike the liberal policy fare. However, talking about grabbing women in the private parts, asserting a moral equivalency between white supremacists and counter protesters, broadly talking about immigrants as rapists, etc, etc. crosses the line for most folks I know regardless of their policy bent.

Some folks simply aren't hardcore "ends justify the means" proponents. For some of us, like myself, how we get where we are going is important too.

If you like the way he conducts himself, that's fine. But don't be so obtuse as to accuse those who do not as needing to "take up and smell the coffee". Ridiculous, inane, naïve, arrogant. I'm really not sure how to categorize such a statement.
You know, if the man had committed a rape, or a murder, or any number of other crimes, you would say so. Instead of that you report - well nothing really - I am sure there are plenty of Americans that would react as you say, but they too would find it hard to pin down exactly what they dislike about him.

His remark about grabbing women by their private parts was made years ago - no doubt as some kind of bantering humour, whereas George Bush Senior seems to have done the real thing repeatedly:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...r-claims-he-groped-second-woman-a3668431.html

Hillary Clinton was accused of bullying a woman not to report the fact that she had been raped by Bill Clinton. Your right thinking Americans probably don't even know either of those facts, because the media tend to filter out such stories.

If the media cover up all the misdemeanours of the politicians they approve of, and blacken the President in whatever way they can, you can understand Americans agonising over odd words Trump has uttered while ignoring far more serious issues - because they never hear about them.
Unrestricted immigration is a real problem - as Germany and Sweden are starting to realise.

Most of the immigrants are men, arriving from countries where women are covered up far more than in the West - this has resulted in a variety of sexual assaults including rape.

Some immigrants come with the intention of performing terrorist acts.

President Trump describes all that in his style, but what he says isn't without foundation.

You need to realise that the idea of countries without effective borders is extremely recent, and will probably die the death after it has caused no end of harm. One obvious problem with the concept, is that criminals take advantage of it, because they become harder to track.

You need to think why nearly half of those who voted, voted for Donald Trump. Perhaps you take the arrogant, elitist opinion that they are 'deplorables', whose votes should be discounted - I respect them.

War is the ultimate attrocity, far exceeding anything else because of the death and suffering it brings. Under successive presidents a whole range of those attrocities have been committed:

Vietnam

Cambodia

Laos

Afghanistan/Soviets

Afghanistan/Taliban

Iraq

Libya

Syria

Each one of those involved countless deaths, goodness knows how name lesser casualties, rapes, torture, the lot. That is what I very much hope President Trump will halt. He is already achieving something interesting in Korea.

David
 
Last edited:
when you reached for an example, you really didn't have much to report.
Seriously, you can't be this clueless, David. You just can't. I mean... can you? Is this really the same David Bailey who has offered such thoughtful critiques on everything from natural selection to artificial intelligence? I may not always have agreed with every aspect of every critique, but I have always perceived a strong grasp and acknowledgement of the facts in contention - of reality.

But here: a blanket denial of the facts. There's simply nothing in your eyes of which Donald might be accused - of which Donald has been accused - that warrants censure.

"Grab 'em by the pussy" - oh, you know, that's just "a coarse remark". Presumably, then, he didn't actually do what he said he did in that remark, in which case he was lying for notoriety amongst the lads, which presumably is plenty enough likeable to you. Never mind that at least sixteen women to date have confirmed that he does do the sort of things about which he was recorded boasting - and no doubt those are just the few who have been brave enough to come forward publicly and cop the inevitable push-back.

And the important aspect of the Stormy Daniels allegations? Oh, boy, that how unethical she is, to have blackmailed Donald! Never mind that the point in contention is Donald's bad behaviour, not anybody else's. Never mind that the fact that there's something about which Donald could be blackmailed (assuming "blackmail" is even the right word) in the first place confirms bad behaviour on his part.

According to you, I "really didn't have much to report". The irony is that you're behaving exactly analogously to pseudo-skeptics of psi: "There's no evidence for psi or anything paranormal. See how easily I debunked the couple of weak examples of supposed evidence that you were able to offer? [Whilst utterly ignoring the cache of evidence which somebody - in the case of psi, perhaps Dean Radin; in the case of Donald, malf - has helpfully compiled/provided]". That's what's so strange to me. You can spot it a mile off when they do it, but you're blind to it in yourself.

David, there's a cavern of reportables. I literally spent just a few seconds picking the examples I picked. Here is another sample:

1. Donald was recently ordered to pay $25 million to his former "students" of Trump "University":

“Trump University” ostensibly existed to educate students about the ins and outs of the real-estate business; in reality it involved “instructors” who may not have had high school degrees selling intellectually flimsy seminars that cost tens of thousands of dollars using infomercial-style high-pressure sales tactics. The for-profit institution was ultimately forced to change its name (becoming the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative) by New York officials who wrote that its “use of the word ‘university’ ” was “misleading” and violated state law. When disgruntled students’ lawsuits became an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump disparaged the judge handling the cases—a highly regarded former prosecutor who has Mexican ancestry but was born in Indiana—as a “Mexican” who was biased against him because of … Mexico
Ripping people off with a high-fee, low-grade pretense at "university" education by your "instructors" who often enough were even less educated than your "students", and then bringing up the race of the judge in the case to allege bias against your unscrupulous greed - what's not to like about that?

2. Donald has a long history of self-serving offensiveness towards native Americans:

In 2000, when New York was considering expanding Native American casinos in the Catskill Mountains, a series of TV, newspaper and radio ads popped up in the state accusing the Mohawk Indian tribe of having long criminal records and ties to the mob. The ads showed pictures of cocaine lines and syringes and asked: “Are these the new neighbors we want?”

As far as the public knew, the ads were sponsored by a newly formed group called the Institute for Law and Safety. The group claimed that it was funded by 12,000 “grass-roots, pro-family” donors.

But in reality, it was bankrolled by Trump’s casino company. Stone asked a friend to pose as the group’s leader, but Stone designed the ads and Trump signed off on them. “Roger, this could be good!” Trump scrawled on a proof of the ad with the cocaine lines and syringes, according to documents first reported last month by the Los Angeles Times. Another ad warned of the ills that casino gambling would bring to the community: “increased crime, broken families, bankruptcies, and in the case of the Mohawks, violence.” Trump paid more than $1 million for the campaign.

Trump and Stone never reported the ad spending as a lobbying effort, as state law required, and acknowledged their role only after regulators launched an investigation. In a deposition, Stone told regulators that the only reason the organization was set up was to hide Trump’s involvement because a “pro-family” group would have more credibility with the public. The state lobbying commission imposed its largest-ever civil penalty — a $250,000 fine — and Trump and his associates agreed to issue a public apology.

Even as he was warning of the dangers of Indian gambling in Upstate New York, Trump pushed for an Indian casino in nearby Connecticut, according to court records. Trump had a stake in the project, having struck a partnership with the Paucatuck Indians — a tribe that had not been recognized by the federal government.
Portraying native Americans as criminal drug abusers under the cover of a fake "pro-family" institute so as to further your commercial aims, and then, when it suits your commercial aims, allying yourself with native Americans: what's not to like about that? As Donald himself put it: this could be good!

David, this stuff goes on and on. I can smell the coffee alright. The stench is unbearable.
 
Last edited:
OK Laird and Silence,

If there is so much against Donald Trump, how come it is proving so hard to come up with an impeachable offence? I mean the Mueller investigation has gone on for ages, and meanwhile there have been several Senate reports announcing that no evidence of collusion with Russia has been found.

Who would have expected over a year ago, that it would still be President Trump busy negotiating over North Korea etc.

Wouldn't gross fraud have been grounds for impeachment? Why try to get him on what looks increasingly like an attempted frame-up?

The trouble is, the media has thrown everything at him, and when you look at the Mueller investigation, nothing seems to be sticking.

In fact, his former wife did in a deposition accuse him of rape (see the first link in my previous post). She later kind of weakly walked it back somewhat, under who knows what pressure?
Well who does know what - maybe she was offered some vast sum of money to make this accusation, and then thought better about perjuring herself. I don't know, but neither do you - we can't really run on allegations alone - particularly when the world's press have been trawling for stories - probably with an obscene budget.

Let me say this. The story of ψ tells us that just because a lot of loud-mouthed people tell us it is bunk, doesn't mean it has to be so. We have seen so many so called sceptics wriggle in Alex's interviews. 'Everyone ' will tell you ψ is total rubbish, fraudulent, anti-science, proved to be false, and yet most people here have heard enough to come to a different conclusion. I guess I feel somewhat similarly about President Trump.

Perhaps it is time to let this drop - it hasn't got too much to do with ψ (I think).


David
 
Last edited:
If there is so much against Donald Trump, how come it is proving so hard to come up with an impeachable offence?
Goalpost shifting - really?

The point in contention (yours) - and rhetorical though it may initially have been, you have in any case doubled down on it - is that there is nothing to dislike about Donald Trump, not (shifting the goalposts) that there is anything with which to impeach him (which there may well be - I honestly don't know at this point).

Being ordered by a court to pay $25,000,000 for scamming people out of money via a fake university makes Donald Trump pretty dislikeable in my eyes.

Being fined $250,000 for faking a grass-roots organisation labelling Native Americans as criminal drug-abusers for his commercial gain makes Donald Trump pretty dislikeable in my eyes.

Malf has just offered an article informing us that Donald Trump was denied a casino licence in Australia due to mafia connections.

The list goes on and on...

The guy's your run-of-the-mill corrupt, lying, greedy, egotistical, sexist, racist, exploitative capitalist without moral scruples, but somehow he's challenging business as usual? Get real, David.
 
Last edited:
Well who does know what - maybe she was offered some vast sum of money to make this accusation, and then thought better about perjuring herself.
Yeah, and maybe it's anaesthesia awareness, or lack of oxygen in a dying brain, or confabulation. Maybe she just bumped her head. Or maybe (as seems to be the case) she was offered a vast sum of money in her divorce settlement to walk back her accusation.

Perhaps it is time to let this drop
Please do drop it. Having to read your contortions is excruciating.
 
Last edited:
One more response before letting this drop.

You know, if the man had committed a rape
We've covered his first wife's sworn deposition to that effect. This is a whole other level of evil. Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl:

In a statement attached to her filing, the plaintiff (aka “Jane Doe”) asserted:

I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.

The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.

Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,

Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.
The case was dropped due to threats, it is claimed, so it hasn't been tested in court. But there is no doubt that Donald Trump was (is?) friends with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein - which says something in and of itself - so the allegations are prima facie plausible.
 
SJWs are out in force, outraged at Donald Trump but relatively quiet about Bill Clinton, a shady dealer if ever there was one.

Amongst the half of the population that Clinton's wife Hillary managed not to insult as deplorable are people who incessantly mewl and puke in an orgy of self-righteous sour grapes. But I wonder whether Trump's morals matter half as much as the fact he had the temerity to win: whether that's what really irks. The election didn't go according to orchestrated script, and amongst the deplorables, there's grim amusement at the ensuing pantomime.

Perhaps this is easier to grasp from the perspective of a Brit who has a low opinion of politicians of any stripe. Perhaps it's easier for him to sit back with a bag of popcorn and view the soap opera/cesspit of American politics: not so much with schadenfreude, as inveterate cynicism.

I see one amongst us is protesting that having to read David's contortions is excruciating. Is it? Or might it be the knee-jerk reaction of someone trying to have the last word in lieu of managing to shut down all opposition? Let's see what transpires and whether any of the innuendo holds up in court. Join me on my couch and bring along your own popcorn; whichever way it goes will make for fascinating entertainment.

Roll up, roll up, see them all go nuts in America! Watch it for free on a TV/PC near you! Or maybe you'd prefer to watch the other channel where they're showing the end of the world due to climate change!
 
Michael, you don't seem to get it. Donald Trump is the current president of the USA and the subject of the contested claim over the past page or two of this thread: that there is nothing to dislike about him. Bill Clinton is irrelevant to that claim. If you do want to know people's views on or claims about Bill Clinton, then just ask, for pity's sake!

I neither identify as an SJW (though I definitely support social justice) nor a Democrat, nor am I a particular supporter of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, nor of any "script". I'm not even American. If I had been an American voter, I probably would have voted for Jill Stein.

Trying to have the last word in lieu of managing to shut down all opposition? Are you trying to suggest that "one amongst us" (I wonder whether you realise how pretentious a phrase that is?) is a dreadful regressive leftist who just hates free speech and wants to SILENCE EVERYBODY WHO DOESN'T AGREE?

If so, you know what: don't be silenced. Keep on responding. You and/or David. Address every claim made about Donald Trump in this thread. Explain why it is either false or fails to demonstrate appalling character. But please, leave out the presumptuousness and pathetic argument from moral equivalence.

Or maybe you don't even contest the claim that there's plenty to dislike about Donald Trump? This seems to be implied by your argument from moral equivalence. If so, your own outrage seems to be misplaced (and, again, oh so presumptuous).
 
Last edited:
On a forum that tries search for meaning, purpose and (dare I say it) love in the universe, to see folk belittled for supporting social justice leaves a pretty nasty taste in the mouth.
The subtlety of a concept like SJW, is that its meaning is rather different from the one spelled out by its individual words.

David
 
OK, I know I wasn't going to continue this subject, but something turned up yesterday that is extremely relevant!
Seriously, you can't be this clueless, David. You just can't. I mean... can you? Is this really the same David Bailey who has offered such thoughtful critiques on everything from natural selection to artificial intelligence? I may not always have agreed with every aspect of every critique, but I have always perceived a strong grasp and acknowledgement of the facts in contention - of reality.
Right - I will try to make this discussion as thoughtful as possible!
As you may know (unless you read FoxNews or the Daily Mail, the story has, I think been downplayed), Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York State, has resigned because of a string of allegations made against him by former girlfriends:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

He revelled in his role as a prominent thorn in Trump's flesh, and was a prominent Democrat, and supporter of #MeToo. Let's look at part of the above report with my added emphasis:
“The slaps started after we’d gotten to know each other,” she recalls. “It was at first as if he were testing me. Then it got stronger and harder.” Selvaratnam says, “It wasn’t consensual. This wasn’t sexual playacting. This was abusive, demeaning, threatening behavior.”

When Schneiderman was violent, he often made sexual demands. “He was obsessed with having a threesome, and said it was my job to find a woman,” she says. “He said he’d have nothing to look forward to if I didn’t, and would hit me until I agreed.” (She had no intention of having a threesome.) She recalls, “Sometimes, he’d tell me to call him Master, and he’d slap me until I did.” Selvaratnam, who was born in Sri Lanka, has dark skin, and she recalls that “he started calling me his ‘brown slave’ and demanding that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’ ”

The abuse escalated. Schneiderman not only slapped her across the face, often four or five times, back and forth, with his open hand; he also spat at her and choked her. “He was cutting off my ability to breathe,” she says. Eventually, she says, “we could rarely have sex without him beating me.” In her view, Schneiderman “is a misogynist and a sexual sadist.”
Now it is my belief that essentially all politicians are in it for themselves, and when they become really puritanical, they have a cynical agenda and are often impossibly hypocritical.

Back in 2013 Trump tweeted "Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone - next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner".

So back to Selvaratnam's account - clearly she is saying that he is a racist, sexist, physically abusive individual - yet he held a prominent role in Democratic politics. We have to assume that if Donald Trump knew about his true nature in 2013, so did many others. In other words, the Democratic party was willing to accept this guy as one of them, despite everything they must have known about him. He is, of course not the first.

Of course, some politicians from the GOP have also had to resign in disgrace, but these were not participating in a puritanical crusade.

I would suggest that from time to time cynical individuals manage to present themselves as being ultra-puritanical - usually while hiding a private life that is totally different. Think for a moment of the tele-evangelists that ply their trade by making their flock feel wretchedly guilty about minor sexual flaws, until they themselves are caught with a prostitute or rent boy - maybe even paid for using Church funds.

Although the details vary, this story is probably as old as mankind.

Sadly, I think this is the modern Democratic party - willing to do whatever it takes to seize power, even if that includes bringing down a duly elected President. The Democrats were once so different, and I used to see them as the more enlightened US political party.

I am not American, but I hope that most Americans are beginning to learn the hard lesson, that people who present themselves as whiter than white are usually something else.

As I said above, politicians are by nature fairly self centred, and I am sure that is true of President Trump. However, I think he wants to be remembered for cleaning up the US, and reducing the ever-present danger of another world war. Yes he will beam with pride if he succeeds, (there is already talk of him getting the Nobel peace prize if he can solve the Korean problem).

David
 
Last edited:
As I said above, politicians are by nature fairly self centred, and I am sure that is true of President Trump. However, I think he wants to be remembered for cleaning up the US, and reducing the ever-present danger of another world war
This is where you continue to miss the point, or at least my point.

I think people with ambition for power often want to be "remembered" and specifically in some type of radiant light. However, this is not synonymous with ethical purity or altruism and seems to be more egocentric in terms of source. There is, literally, no evidence that Trump is altruistically motivated in anything he's doing. His persona surely seems to be screaming more about his ego than anything else. So, whether he ends up being effective somehow or not I simply can not get past the behavior. The disrespect. The rudeness. The myriad of other negative attributes of which I am attempting to teach my children the polar opposite. In this case I do not see the ends justifying the means.

The fact that a democrat may be as bad, or an even worse actor, has no bearing for me at all. I will certainly use those negative examples with my kids too as I think there are examples on both sides of the political aisle.
 
Top