Nein writes:


No doubt Trump is selecting folks with corporate and military back rounds.

Not all, be has selected some.

The thing is Trump is, probably, not going to run the government like a politician. He isn't going to treat it like some giant bank he can raid, or some bloated cash cow he can milk the way politicians have done for decades.

He will (try) to run it like a CEO. Like a business. That means trimming the fat so that costs go down and "capitol" goes up. It means that, unlike in the past, when government workers kept their jobs no matter how miserable they were at it, now you aren't pulling your weight, you're out.

After years of out-of-control spending and government corruption, it will be interesting to see a non-politician run this government.

Someone not beholden to the old ways.

Which is not the problem. The problem is with people being agents of special interests and indifferent to actual American interests, let alone global ones.

We could keep trading assertions, and I could go point-by-point. But at this time pretty much every emergency siren is blaring, left and right: no living ex-President endorses him, for example. Or I could say that Trump refuses to listen to experts from the intelligence community. Or I could say that as a businessman, Trump is a five-star flop. I wouldn't even know where to begin or end the list.

What is telling is that you do not seem to care about these warning bells. Instead, you want to subvert the "establishment". But your meaning seems to be that you want to overturn (or starve) the federal government down to the level of a feral dog. Meaning: decrease aid, increase poverty and disenfranchisement, increase the level of civil chaos, and increase the need for military xenophobic rule. I think this road leads to serfdom.

Anyway. You have, broadly speaking, my view of things. If I'm going to defend them further, it will have to involve me starting to link to newsmedia and objective outside sources. But before I do, you'd have to signal that you're interested in that conversation. Otherwise it's just my opinions, and you likely aren't going to benefit from some anonymous dude just asserting things.

Nein writes:


The only "emergency siren" that is blaring must be the ringing in your ears.

Of course no living ex-President is endorsing him... three of them (Carter, Clinton, and Obama) are all DEMOCRATS. They naturally aren't going to endorse a REPUBLICAN. The only Republican, George W. Bush, isn't endorsing him mostly because of little feud between Trump and his brother, Jeb Bush.

I mean, why would former President Bill Clinton endorse Trump when he was running against his wife, Hillary?

It seems not only do you have trouble with fascism, but also with American politics.

And no, Trump is not a "five star flop" at business. :ohbruther: He has done very well in the business world, but like everyone else on the planet, he has had some successes and some failures. No one said he was the perfect businessman.

For the record, I don't object to you putting up links. I just didn't want you to put up nothing but links because I'm not going to debate words from a website. I'd rather debate people.

However, go ahead and put up a link or two. I'd be interested to know where you are getting your info from. I have my suspicions, but put up a couple anyway.

Nein writes:


It's hilarious that you are complaining about Trump, claiming he is going to be a fascist, yet at the same time you are pushing for a big-government nanny state, where we all, in effect become slaves to that government on their "plantation", controlling everything about our lives. A government high on regulations, and short on individual freedom.

So if I am to understand, you are actually all for fascism. As long as the "fascist" is pushing the political and social ideas you agree with. :ohbruther:

And instead, you got Trump. Oh well, maybe next time.

This is the fundamental misconception at the heart of your claims here, I think. It's a hoary right-wing canard that bears no relationship to any actual reality in American history (nor to fascism, incidentally, a comparison you seem to be trying to make). When the Bundys seize federal land and then wonder where their snacks are coming from, this is the irrational fantasy from which they're operating. The people who benefit from that paranoia are plutocrats, not the working or middle class. The rest of us want roads and drinkable water and Medicare and understand that a functioning federal government is necessary to ensure a basic standard of living. You seem to be cheering on the pretty real possibility that Trump will plunder the treasury and reduce our government to dysfunction, but I'm honestly not clear on how you expect to personally benefit from that or (alternatively, perhaps) who you want to punish.

Some mental inferior who cannot do logic responds to any hypothetical question or question about the legality of something with
"Trump won." Congratulations. All that means is a law in his favor.

Guess what? It is a law that I, a civilian antinatalist animal rights mathematician, do not have to respect or care about paid government soldiers or about nationalism or about any other cause besides ending factory & fur farm - although I choose to.

But the ONLY thing that matters to JediKnight is that heroic antinatalist animal rights lobbyists/soldiers/protestors
such as seen here in video taken in Spain, have the right NOT to give a FUCK about any issues or wars that presidents & politicians whom THEY did not vote for yammer on about.

I have absolutely ZERO obligation to give a shit about mythical non-existent greatly exaggerated
bullshit such as "illegal" immigration or Pizzagate or
conservatives EVER being "silenced" or "oppressed" on university campuses, or when a political opponent dies of cancer or dies
by any means or their child dies or their parent dies.

The ONLY thing that matters to the knee-jerk "Trump won" assholes
who accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRACTICAL with their
irrelevant & unimportant response, is that NO LAW REQUIRES
me or any antinatalist or animal rights vegan or atheist or (fill in the blank...
really.. it does not matter) to give a fuck about issues that Trump
talks about.

In fact, the HUGE problem with campuses is the ENORMOUS RIGHTWING BIAS that ALWAYS puts TRIVIAL NON-EXISTENT ISSUES, such as
racist or sexist or antigay on campuses or somebody making a
"bigoted" opinion against some dumb culture or ethnicity,
and CONSTANTLY putting those non-issues above the the rights of nonhuman animals tortured for meat fur or entertainment in those cultures from around the world.

(Black people being specifically targeted by police & justice systems
outside of universities is a different thing entirely.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNSuegP5elg

Unbelievably, I actually feel (almost, but not really) a tiny bit sorry for Trump
shown here in this video putting up with childish insane behavior from grown adults.

Of course, these subhumans have no feelings & are worthless garbage
& if Trump had guts he'd tell them to go fuck themselves. But, of course, like all Republicrats & Demopublicans, he is a coward & won't do that.

It takes ACTUAL courage to support causes with a current MINORITY
of support: ufo disclosure, animal rights, antinatalism, climate activism.
Of course, UFO disclosurists are NO friends of veganism or antinatalist
& many are climate deniers & 9/11 toofers & believe all sorts of unfalsifiable or provably false bullshit. Their brains have practically ZERO critical thinking skills & NO mental ability to stay on focus on the political task at hand. Nevertheless, for the sake of the tiny 0.001% of
hard-to-explain UFO cases, demanding a government to be TRANSPARENT & OPEN, because WE PAY TAXES TO IT, matters more
than anything else, even more than the results of what true disclosure are.

If I'm wrong about UFOs, I'm wrong. Nothing practical changes in my life or the government's. But if I'm right, & there is something there, then that's HUGE news. Hell - the Bigfoot issue is the ONE time I side with hunters.

But, the point is: why isn't Trump going to UFO conferences & new-age types & pandering endlessly to all THEIR unchecked fantasies?
Obviously OBJECTIVE TESTABLE PROOF does not matter to him nor to any mainstream politician (Dem or Repub).

Let's see how silent opponents would be if politicians or university professors or Hollywood starts cozy up to atheist meetings, or antinatalist conferences, or animal rights conferences.

But demanding disclosure (over any issue, not just UFOs, but of wars)
from governments requires NOTHING of individual citizens to change their habits: go vegan, not have kids, and to vote differently.

Unlike passing more & more restrictive laws against some TINY minority
of the world's population - e.g. women getting abortion & abortion doctors, or scientists working on GMOs or even a small number of gun manufacturers - it requires TRUE political GENIUS
to get large numbers of people to go vegan, go childless, drive less.

Technically, getting those who already own guns to give them up in the USA would be roughly as hard as getting those not owning guns to own guns, if one wished to mandate that, because it's about half-&-half
gun-owner vs non-gun-owner right now. So, computing who the "underdog" is is trickier in this case.

Anyway - here's the maximum-cringe video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXiIS7nxLos

Of course the federal government is necessary. The founding fathers set it up to deal with our national security and run our armies because they felt that would be better than having thirteen (at that time) different militias.

That is the primary job of the federal government. National security.

Not running our education. Not running the health industry. Not giving welfare to anybody and everybody. You realize food stamp usage has gone up nearly 50% under Obama. Among blacks, that number is more like 70%. More government regulations have been imposed on us than any other administration has done, and the Obama administration has spent more and added to the U.S. debt than ALL the other presidents combined going all the way back to George Washington.

So what Treasury is there for him to plunder? The country is approaching $20 TRILLION in debt. It's because corrupt, establishment politicians have been "plundering" it for decades and decades.

It's about time to try a non-politician who won't do things the same old way.

Of course, what you and I quibble about is the size of government, and it's role in the individual American's life.

You evidently think it should be in every facet of our lives. Running it. Controlling it.

I think government should be very limited in our lives. There, yes. But mainly to protect us and the country. Not act like our mommy and daddy, and run our lives.

We'll see how Trump's way goes.

George HW Bush is still alive, but I take it you aren't considering him either.


If that is true, you're keeping your reasons for believing it pretty close to your chest. So far as I can see, you're mainly complaining about the left when the issue is Trump. And as I put it, the case comes down to his contempt for reasons and truth, his corporate cronyism, and his militancy.


Not every businessperson goes bankrupt six times. Some even make money and brag about it by releasing their tax returns.


Well, that's fine. I have restricted myself to reputable mainstream news dailies: things in the "New York Times", "Washington Post", and "BBC" category (mainstream and reputable), as opposed to the "Fox News" or "Huffington Post" category (infantile but half-reliable), or the "Slate", "Atlantic", or "Salon" category (analysis from somebody else's perspective). Here's his Cabinet, summarized by the CBC. And here are some remarks made on the Washington Post, with additional points made about the ideology of chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Those observations are broadly representative of how his Cabinet picks are being portrayed by reputable mainstream dailies (not to speak of periodicals, which are more scathing). You only need to look beyond the zany fascist fringe (say, Infowars and Brietbart) to see that you're talking about a guy who is, broadly speaking, freaking everybody out. So, as I mentioned before, that you may find that in the course of the run up to the election, only a very small minority news dailies across the whole of the United States endorsed Trump: twenty, by my count, as opposed to Mitt Romney's 106 in 2012, Obama's 104 in 2012, or Clinton's 243 in 2016. And that's on Wikipedia, so if you find more, and can prove it, you're free to change the score.

Nein writes:


Being Canadian, you may not realize this, but the majority of news networks in the U.S. are dominantly liberal. That ESPCIALLY includes newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. Most of the major networks here in America (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) are liberally biased. That is pretty much true of most of mainstream media and Hollywood.

Where it isn't true is Middle America and the average citizen. It is why these networks got the election so wrong because they were seeing things through their liberal mindset, and could not see the actual mood of the country.

You don't have to take my word for it, Nein. Just do your own research and you will see how many folks in the "Mainstream media" (as it is called here) donated to the Democratic party, attended their fundraisers, and were actually members of the Democratic party and worked on election campaigns for them in the past.

Don't forget, as well, the 'wikileaks' story that came out during the election that provided proof in the form of emails and memorandums of many in the "mainstream media" actually colluding with the Clinton election team, trying to help her win. That is a breach of trust with the public for organizations that claim to be neutral watchdogs.

There is a reason why the media in this country only had a 6% approval rating in the last poll I saw. Most in this country don't like the media and don't trust them. They don't reflect our values or who we are. Only those who live in parts of the Northeast and southern California.

To me, it is why FOX News looks so conservative. While FOX does lean right, the other networks lean so far to the left, that they make FOX News look that much more to the right in comparison. However, FOX News connects with the America public better, which is why they get sometimes 4 to 7 times better ratings than the other networks that have lost the trust of many.

You said it yourself, Nein. You pointed out all those news outlets that were against Trump. Yet Trump still won. That should tell you right there the political leanings of these networks is not exactly neutral, and tell you exactly what much of America thinks of them.

Possibly, but then we aren't having the debate on the messy board anyway.

It is on the off-topic board.

LOL!

Well, might as well. I grow weary of this debate now anyway. I think all parties have made their positions perfectly clear.

Time to move on.

I think that's a myth. The Washington Post editorial page is notoriously conservative, for example, but still a respectable mainstream daily. And this matters quite a bit: the distance between Huffington Post and the New York Times, or between Washington Post and Fox News, is wider than the distance between Washington Post and New York Times.

Now, that is not to suggest that the mainstream media lacks bias. Certainly not: establishmentarianism can be a bias. But that's not a bias in favour of liberalism, it's a bias towards laziness, flak-control, and sensationalism. To counter it, you might read respectable news sources from non-American countries, e.g., the BBC.

Before I accept any invitations from you into doing a special research project, you would have to indicate a willingness to (a) acknowledge that I have proposed some reasons for your consideration that you ought to worry about, (b) address them.

Of course, class antagonism is the current mood. It should be, in my opinion. I see no good reason to defer to the very small minority of the population who control the majority of the wealth. Your institutions need to be rebuilt.

The problem is that one must not be so enthusiastic about revolution that one forgets about the lives of actual human beings that face the business end of Trump's segregationism.

Indeed. There are plenty of mainstream US "news" organizations that are openly right-wing - not just Fox News, but Breitbart and a lot of talk radio - and those are far more extreme and more deceptively biased (that is, more willing to pass off opinion and outright falsehood as fact) than any equivalent outlets that might be described as liberal (and by liberal, we're really talking centrist, not far-left).

And, more importantly, while a majority of people who work in the media may identify as liberal, media ownership is mostly conservative. Which is why liberal points of view on social issues may get a fair airing, but critiques of capitalism and plutocracy tend to get quashed on TV and covered squeamishly even by so-called liberal outlets like the Times and the Post (which published a bunch of hit pieces on Sanders, for instance). The heads of CNN and CBS bragged openly about how much money their coverage of Trump was raking in. A system can't be liberal if it's driven only by profit.