Trump Consciousness

I just wanted a add a small thing here but it is quite interesting from a personal ethics point of view. So, here is my status on all this:
- I have not dug into the evidence that "liberal forces" have stolen the election for Biden. My point of view has very much been the mainstream media point of view (Biden won legitimately). I don't want to get into the details to settle that question. I want to make a different point.
- I do, however, have a strong opinion that Andrew Paquette is a very intelligent and reasonable kind of guy. Andrew and I have had a few dealings on the forum over the years and I have read his book Dreamer which I very highly recommend as a VERY remarkable book.
- So, QUITE AMAZING to see Andrew here "fighting the corner" for Trump. It is my experience that "reasonable" and "intelligent" are rarely words that can be applied to Trump supporters. Let me also say that I don't actually know Andrew's position - maybe he is "fighting the corner" for Democracy rather than Trump.
- Now, here's the interesting thing, it is VERY CLEAR to me that Trump is a bona fide threat to American Democracy. He is basically a moronic, narcissistic, incompetent dictator "wanna be". He has DESTROYED the Republican Party that I grew up with. The Republican party of today is, to my mind, is no longer a "democractic" party but rather an autocratic party. Trump is the biggest threat to America since the Confederacy.

So, now the interesting point. Let's say the election really has been stolen by some guys in Wisconsin at 3 in the morning. How do I feel about that? Stealing an election is a criminal and amoral thing yet whoever has done this has done a GREAT SERVICE to the United States and really the whole World. If I was at the pub and ended up chatted with some guy and then he admitted to stealing the election for Biden, would I buy him a beer and shake his hand?

But, of course, there is also the danger of unintended consequences. So, for example, maybe this steal will be uncovered properly in a year or two. Maybe that will open the door to Trump's successor. And, of course, maybe that successor will be intelligent, competent and ruthless. Then we suddenly have Hitler... instead of the clown show of the Trump Administration.

Anyway. Just an interesting thought on it all :-) I don't actually know what I think about it.
 
The Republican party of today is, to my mind, is no longer a "democractic" party but rather an autocratic party.

Stealing an election is a criminal and amoral thing yet whoever has done this has done a GREAT SERVICE to the United States and really the whole World.

You contradict yourself.

If Democracy is a good thing, stealing elections cannot also be a good thing.

Decide which one you want.
 
"This guy"? Which guy? There are dozens of people in this video. Which one is the "hack"? And what does "hack" mean in the context of presented evidence? You obviously decided to read some kind of comment on this video or someone featured in it, instead of watching the video. In other words, you remain utterly ignorant of the evidence it contains. It becomes clear why you think Biden won.

Ignoring evidence will only make coming events more mysterious to you. Enjoy the feeling of superiority while it lasts. It won't be long before you are tasting humility.
I am too busy to watch a five hour video. I'm referring to Pullitzer. It seems like he has the "smoking gun" from what I've read.
 
"This guy"? Which guy? There are dozens of people in this video. Which one is the "hack"? And what does "hack" mean in the context of presented evidence? You obviously decided to read some kind of comment on this video or someone featured in it, instead of watching the video. In other words, you remain utterly ignorant of the evidence it contains. It becomes clear why you think Biden won.

Ignoring evidence will only make coming events more mysterious to you. Enjoy the feeling of superiority while it lasts. It won't be long before you are tasting humility.
I don't feel superior...I just trust sources that had something to lose by going against what Trump says. This is just a hearing. Anyone can say anything. I want to see arguments for and against. Pullitzer is a sketchy guy and seems to love the limelight. But like I said, we'll see what happens.
 
I hope the Republican Party clues in to an important point. They have been pandering to Trump, figuring they need him to get his base to vote. But it's obvious that Trump also gets out the Democrat and RINO anti-Trump vote, which is much larger than his base.

The Georgia senate election results will be interesting.
 
I have read his book Dreamer which I very highly recommend as a VERY remarkable book.
- So, QUITE AMAZING to see Andrew here "fighting the corner" for Trump. It is my experience that "reasonable" and "intelligent" are rarely words that can be applied to Trump supporters. Let me also say that I don't actually know Andrew's position - maybe he is "fighting the corner" for Democracy rather than Trump.
-

I support Trump now, but didn't when he first announced his candidacy. At the time, all I knew about Trump was what I remembered from tabloid articles I read when I lived in New York City in the 1980's. What those articles told me is that Trump had committed adultery, he is very wealthy, and he owned a lot of property, including the Plaza Hotel and a casino in Atlantic City. I later heard that he was on a TV show called "the Apprentice" but to this day I haven't seen even a commercial for it. My mother-in-law owned an apartment in his Trump Plaza building, now sold.

I lived in Europe when Trump announced his candidacy. At the time, not knowing any better, I accepted without question the media assertion that that Trump wasn't a serious candidate. When they described him as a "clown", I adopted the term in my communications with colleagues in the Netherlands. At some point before the 2016 election, I saw a full speech by Trump. Later, I saw a story about the speech in the media. Two things struck me about it. First, at no point in the full, unedited speech did Trump sound like a clown. Second, the media materially misrepresented his comments to make him sound like a racist. There is no doubt they did this. When they presented commentary on the speech, they edited it to eliminate context that undermined their claim of racism. From this point on, I stopped accepting media descriptions of Trump at face value.

That also means that I looked at alternate sources more carefully. My preference was to see Trump himself, unedited or live if possible. As far as I could tell, the media missed no opportunities to defame Trump by falsely reporting on his statements and actions, or artfully misconstruing his meaning. They did it so often that by the time the election came around, I thoroughly distrusted the media. From then on, I assumed that anything they wrote about Trump was false unless proven otherwise.

Backtracking a little further, I did not take an interest in politics until 2003, when I witnessed malfeasance on a military project I worked on for a large entertainment company. At the time, I thought of it as a few people trying to scam the government. In other words, it was about money, not politics. But then I read about some scandals involving the Clintons. Bill Clinton had personally authorized the money for my project and a few other related projects. The style of the other scandals I read about matched the signature of what I saw on my project. It was at that time that I realized I was conservative. Until then, perhaps because I was a vegan long-haired artist working in Hollywood, it never occurred to me that I might want to have any political ideas of my own. When I thought about it, I did not like the idea of politicians and their cronies profiting on the backs of taxpayers for no commensurate benefit. I also didn't like the idea of supporting what I saw as dishonesty, such as in the politicization of climate science, environmentalism in general, education, etc.

Getting back to Trump, if you bother looking for the original source of any mainstream (negative) story about him, you will discover either a liar, conjecture, or what amounts to purported telepathy to see Trump's motives. I believe telepathy is real but I do not believe that every reporter at the New York Times can exercise the ability at will when writing about Trump. If you look at what Trump actually does and says, you will get a completely different picture of him. I went from thinking he was a clown, compromised by multiple failed marriages and dubious businesses in New York to thinking he is one of the most honest men to have ever held political office.

Keep in mind, my original opinion was not based on evidence. It was based on what I read in the media, and that material, in turn, had an unsound basis. My current position is based on evidence. I have seen Trump fulfill promises in the face of fierce opposition. I have seen him maligned and even impeached for asking about a crime while the person who actually committed the alleged crime was ignored, then nominated for president. I saw Trump attacked for non-crimes, normal business practice, and often laudable activity. Meanwhile, his accusers clearly had to manufacture evidence to use against him and his allies, in every case using underhanded means to do it.

Even my anarchist uber-liberal hippie colleague in the Netherlands admitted that he was amazed by how vicious and dishonest the press was regarding Trump. Students, many of whom were Socialists, could tell the press was lying about Trump. They asked me about it occasionally, though I never brought up politics while I taught there.

In the end, I think the press has lied consistently, brazenly, and libelously about Trump. They have persuaded many, perhaps because they are their only source of news. In my case, I might never have discovered conservative news if not for the fact that I liked to paint way out in the middle of nowhere. On those long drives, I usually listened to CDs of John Denver singing about Colorado. One day, I got bored of that and turned on the radio. I heard Matt Drudge interviewing Ann Coulter. It was interesting enough to warrant further investigation, which I did when I got home.

If you look at the citations in anti-Trump books and articles, you will find they form a circular group that is ultimately self-referential and without any serious substance. They may refer to a real quote from Trump, but without important context. More often, they will cite another reporter's subjective impression of what Trump meant rather than what he actually said. If you look through the citations in a pro-Trump book, you are far more likely to find a full quote with context so that it cannot be misconstrued.

Over the years, several conservative news organs have been bought by liberals and co-opted to their cause. Disney bought Fox media a few years ago, Fox News excepted. However, shortly after taking control of every other Fox property, liberal leadership was installed at Fox and it became a liberal news outlet. The DrudgeReport became liberal more than a year ago. It is rumored to be the result of a sale but I have never seen confirmation. There are a number of conservative journals, like the New Republic, that have never supported Trump. Peter Schweizer's book, "The Secret Empire", explains why. There are just as many corrupt Republicans as Democrats.

After having had a few years to look it all over, I have come to the conclusion that the worst I can say about Trump is that he had a mistress and divorced more than once. Compared to the millions of dollars accepted by Republican and Democrat politicians from foreign donors (mostly Chinese), Trump comes off much better in the comparison. An interesting thing about Bill Clinton is that he did a lot of things I objected to, but the country was prosperous while he was president. I cannot say that for Obama. From what I saw from my vantage in Europe, Obama made America poorer and more dangerous. Trump did a lot of good by restoring American business and helping all Americans overall. He actually didn't start any wars, got us out of others, and accomplished more in the middle east than any American before him had even attempted to achieve.

I do not believe Trump is a racist. If I did, I wouldn't support him. I do not believe he has used the presidency for financial advantage. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if he has lost money by becoming president. I do not believe he is incompetent, foolish, boorish, or dangerously aggressive. As far as I can tell, he is far more reasonable and intelligent than he is given credit for being. More than that, although I don't know him personally, I know several people who do. All of them have nothing but praise for him. They do not praise him for his intelligence or business acumen but for his kindness, which seems to be his most distinctive trait to those who know him.
 
I support Trump now, but didn't when he first announced his candidacy. At the time, all I knew about Trump was what I remembered from tabloid articles I read when I lived in New York City in the 1980's. What those articles told me is that Trump had committed adultery, he is very wealthy, and he owned a lot of property, including the Plaza Hotel and a casino in Atlantic City. I later heard that he was on a TV show called "the Apprentice" but to this day I haven't seen even a commercial for it. My mother-in-law owned an apartment in his Trump Plaza building, now sold.

I lived in Europe when Trump announced his candidacy. At the time, not knowing any better, I accepted without question the media assertion that that Trump wasn't a serious candidate. When they described him as a "clown", I adopted the term in my communications with colleagues in the Netherlands. At some point before the 2016 election, I saw a full speech by Trump. Later, I saw a story about the speech in the media. Two things struck me about it. First, at no point in the full, unedited speech did Trump sound like a clown. Second, the media materially misrepresented his comments to make him sound like a racist. There is no doubt they did this. When they presented commentary on the speech, they edited it to eliminate context that undermined their claim of racism. From this point on, I stopped accepting media descriptions of Trump at face value.

That also means that I looked at alternate sources more carefully. My preference was to see Trump himself, unedited or live if possible. As far as I could tell, the media missed no opportunities to defame Trump by falsely reporting on his statements and actions, or artfully misconstruing his meaning. They did it so often that by the time the election came around, I thoroughly distrusted the media. From then on, I assumed that anything they wrote about Trump was false unless proven otherwise.

Backtracking a little further, I did not take an interest in politics until 2003, when I witnessed malfeasance on a military project I worked on for a large entertainment company. At the time, I thought of it as a few people trying to scam the government. In other words, it was about money, not politics. But then I read about some scandals involving the Clintons. Bill Clinton had personally authorized the money for my project and a few other related projects. The style of the other scandals I read about matched the signature of what I saw on my project. It was at that time that I realized I was conservative. Until then, perhaps because I was a vegan long-haired artist working in Hollywood, it never occurred to me that I might want to have any political ideas of my own. When I thought about it, I did not like the idea of politicians and their cronies profiting on the backs of taxpayers for no commensurate benefit. I also didn't like the idea of supporting what I saw as dishonesty, such as in the politicization of climate science, environmentalism in general, education, etc.

Getting back to Trump, if you bother looking for the original source of any mainstream (negative) story about him, you will discover either a liar, conjecture, or what amounts to purported telepathy to see Trump's motives. I believe telepathy is real but I do not believe that every reporter at the New York Times can exercise the ability at will when writing about Trump. If you look at what Trump actually does and says, you will get a completely different picture of him. I went from thinking he was a clown, compromised by multiple failed marriages and dubious businesses in New York to thinking he is one of the most honest men to have ever held political office.

Keep in mind, my original opinion was not based on evidence. It was based on what I read in the media, and that material, in turn, had an unsound basis. My current position is based on evidence. I have seen Trump fulfill promises in the face of fierce opposition. I have seen him maligned and even impeached for asking about a crime while the person who actually committed the alleged crime was ignored, then nominated for president. I saw Trump attacked for non-crimes, normal business practice, and often laudable activity. Meanwhile, his accusers clearly had to manufacture evidence to use against him and his allies, in every case using underhanded means to do it.

Even my anarchist uber-liberal hippie colleague in the Netherlands admitted that he was amazed by how vicious and dishonest the press was regarding Trump. Students, many of whom were Socialists, could tell the press was lying about Trump. They asked me about it occasionally, though I never brought up politics while I taught there.

In the end, I think the press has lied consistently, brazenly, and libelously about Trump. They have persuaded many, perhaps because they are their only source of news. In my case, I might never have discovered conservative news if not for the fact that I liked to paint way out in the middle of nowhere. On those long drives, I usually listened to CDs of John Denver singing about Colorado. One day, I got bored of that and turned on the radio. I heard Matt Drudge interviewing Ann Coulter. It was interesting enough to warrant further investigation, which I did when I got home.

If you look at the citations in anti-Trump books and articles, you will find they form a circular group that is ultimately self-referential and without any serious substance. They may refer to a real quote from Trump, but without important context. More often, they will cite another reporter's subjective impression of what Trump meant rather than what he actually said. If you look through the citations in a pro-Trump book, you are far more likely to find a full quote with context so that it cannot be misconstrued.

Over the years, several conservative news organs have been bought by liberals and co-opted to their cause. Disney bought Fox media a few years ago, Fox News excepted. However, shortly after taking control of every other Fox property, liberal leadership was installed at Fox and it became a liberal news outlet. The DrudgeReport became liberal more than a year ago. It is rumored to be the result of a sale but I have never seen confirmation. There are a number of conservative journals, like the New Republic, that have never supported Trump. Peter Schweizer's book, "The Secret Empire", explains why. There are just as many corrupt Republicans as Democrats.

After having had a few years to look it all over, I have come to the conclusion that the worst I can say about Trump is that he had a mistress and divorced more than once. Compared to the millions of dollars accepted by Republican and Democrat politicians from foreign donors (mostly Chinese), Trump comes off much better in the comparison. An interesting thing about Bill Clinton is that he did a lot of things I objected to, but the country was prosperous while he was president. I cannot say that for Obama. From what I saw from my vantage in Europe, Obama made America poorer and more dangerous. Trump did a lot of good by restoring American business and helping all Americans overall. He actually didn't start any wars, got us out of others, and accomplished more in the middle east than any American before him had even attempted to achieve.

I do not believe Trump is a racist. If I did, I wouldn't support him. I do not believe he has used the presidency for financial advantage. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if he has lost money by becoming president. I do not believe he is incompetent, foolish, boorish, or dangerously aggressive. As far as I can tell, he is far more reasonable and intelligent than he is given credit for being. More than that, although I don't know him personally, I know several people who do. All of them have nothing but praise for him. They do not praise him for his intelligence or business acumen but for his kindness, which seems to be his most distinctive trait to those who know him.

My Trump experience is the same. I actually have no affinity for the man other than he has the balls to stand up to what is called "the swamp", but I love his policies. I think he is the least corrupt person in Washington, DC. If he was corrupt, he would have been prosecuted by his enemies, who're legion, by now. I have seen no evidence of corruption.

Allegations of Trump's "racism" are either based on outright lies (e.g. the "fine people" thing) or twisting of events by hyper-sensitive Marxists or Trump hating swampees.

Having once worked for the swamp; albeit more than 20 years ago, I can tell you from my limited view (low level and stayed in my lane, etc) that it is all that Trump says it is. Actually, in my current career I still work with the federal bureaucracy; albeit in a totally different area (ACA insurance). Very wasteful and stupid they are. I also have old once close personal friends that were also swamp dwellers (DoD, etc). Their experience is the same as mine. I currently have family members that are deep state types in the current intelligence community. IMO, Trump is very much correct in his assessment.

All I know about the media for sure is that whenever they discussed a matter of which I had personal knowledge, they got it materially wrong, on purpose, I imagine, to present a preferred narrative to sway the populace.

Anyone putting faith in the federal government or media is an idiot ignoramus of the first order, living in a fantasy world.

Anyone who doubts my perspective need look no further than the current so called covid relief bill. All that tax payer money going overseas and not to US citizens most impacted. Taxation without representation. No American wanted that, but the swamp doesn't care. They represent themselves and their crime rings. It's our money, not theirs.
 
Last edited:
You contradict yourself.

If Democracy is a good thing, stealing elections cannot also be a good thing.

Decide which one you want.

Ahhh. That's my point. I'm not sure which I want :-) Trump is a THREAT to democracy so a Biden win is a good thing (from all points of view, Republicans should support Biden as WELL as the first duty is to the REPUBLIC not to the party). But, am I willing to take a "win" even if it is accomplished through nefarious means?

It is kind of like the old having a time machine and going back to murder Hitler.

So, if the Delorean with the Flux Capacitor was sitting outside with a rifle in the passenger seat and I had a suitable history book which clearly identified a suitable "grassy knoll", what do I do? If I go back and murder Hitler then I prevent much evil but I am also committing murder. So, what is the "moral position"? What is the correct course of action?

And, of course, it is not quite the same as Trump. Trump is a danger to democracy but he is not murderous. And, must be said, Trump has provided a huge number of belly laughs.

And, of course, if I decide to murder Hitler I don't really know how history will turn out. Could even be worse...
 
Ahhh. That's my point. I'm not sure which I want :) Trump is a THREAT to democracy so a Biden win is a good thing (from all points of view, Republicans should support Biden as WELL as the first duty is to the REPUBLIC not to the party). But, am I willing to take a "win" even if it is accomplished through nefarious means?

It is kind of like the old having a time machine and going back to murder Hitler.

So, if the Delorean with the Flux Capacitor was sitting outside with a rifle in the passenger seat and I had a suitable history book which clearly identified a suitable "grassy knoll", what do I do? If I go back and murder Hitler then I prevent much evil but I am also committing murder. So, what is the "moral position"? What is the correct course of action?

And, of course, it is not quite the same as Trump. Trump is a danger to democracy but he is not murderous. And, must be said, Trump has provided a huge number of belly laughs.

And, of course, if I decide to murder Hitler I don't really know how history will turn out. Could even be worse...

How, exactly, is Trump a threat to democracy?

You people keep repeating that mantra, but never explain your reasoning.

Is China a democracy? Is it really a friend? Yet Biden and so many others are deeply involved with China. How is the a good thing for America?

Did you vote for American tax payer $s slated for covid relief to go to Africa, Israel, big global business and gay nonsense in Pakistan? Yet that is the bill. How is that "democracy"?

Explain yourself.
 
Last edited:
All I'm saying is that I can't watch the whole thing. You're side has the burden to prove these claims. Just saying things doesn't make it so. Prove it in court.
I'm sorry, did you want me to inject the information directly into your brain with a needle? If you aren't serious about looking at evidence, anything you have to say on the subject is worthless.
 
All I'm saying is that I can't watch the whole thing. You're side has the burden to prove these claims. Just saying things doesn't make it so. Prove it in court.
And if the courts won't hear the evidence?

You know Al Capone was horribly slandered. People said he was a bootlegging murdering gangster, but that was never proven in court. None of it! He was actually philanthropically minded man of Italian descent. No doubt RACISM! played a role in all of the maligning of his character. You agree, no?
 
And if the courts won't hear the evidence?

You know Al Capone was horribly slandered. People said he was a bootlegging murdering gangster, but that was never proven in court. None of it! He was actually philanthropically minded man of Italian descent. No doubt RACISM! played a role in all of the maligning of his character. You agree, no?
Well then they aren't very good lawyers if they can't get into the courts. Do they know procedure?
 
Who cares what CNN says or what Sasse says?

What is your link supposed to prove? That you're afraid? Who cares about that?
I thought it was interesting that he said all the colleagues he's talked to, none think voter fraud is real. They are just riding Trump's coattails. Going down with the sinking ship, apparently.
 
Well then they aren't very good lawyers if they can't get into the courts. Do they know procedure?
There is a difference between honest disagreements and purposeful obfuscation. An honest disagreement can be dealt with by exchanging information. Obfuscation is dealt with in a completely different way. Of some importance is that while honest disagreements can be frustrating, intentional obfuscation can inspire rage. Every time someone, whether it is you, a politician, a media personality, or anyone else, supports obfuscation, you increase the rage by orders of magnitude in intensity.

I am really amazed by how dangerous this game played by Democrats is, and how blind to the risk they seem to be. You may look at this as a charming discussion but I'm looking at posts and videos across the country becoming more and more angry. At first it was the militias. Next came the "patriots", then a few select politicians, then some witnesses in hearings. Now, I'm watching timorous little old ladies who are apoplectic with anger, one after another. When you have half the grandmas in the country mad at you, you have a serious problem.
 
There is a difference between honest disagreements and purposeful obfuscation. An honest disagreement can be dealt with by exchanging information. Obfuscation is dealt with in a completely different way. Of some importance is that while honest disagreements can be frustrating, intentional obfuscation can inspire rage. Every time someone, whether it is you, a politician, a media personality, or anyone else, supports obfuscation, you increase the rage by orders of magnitude in intensity.

I am really amazed by how dangerous this game played by Democrats is, and how blind to the risk they seem to be. You may look at this as a charming discussion but I'm looking at posts and videos across the country becoming more and more angry. At first it was the militias. Next came the "patriots", then a few select politicians, then some witnesses in hearings. Now, I'm watching timorous little old ladies who are apoplectic with anger, one after another. When you have half the grandmas in the country mad at you, you have a serious problem.
It's not just the Democrats, right? Seems like Republicans are ready to move on too.
 
It's not just the Democrats, right? Seems like Republicans are ready to move on too.
Not sure what you mean by "Republicans" and "move on." That is because Republican politicians and Republican voters are not the same. This year, Many Republican politicians have acquiesced to Democrat demands. Many Republican voters are so repulsed by what their elected officials have done that the groups are now behaving in very different ways.

As for "moving on", that's the kind of thing a rapist suggests to a victim as he exits the crime scene. The purpose of the suggestion is self-serving. It is equivalent to saying, "you better let me get away with this."
 
Back
Top