On the Nature of Things | Forum

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:You must be reading the old approved history of the Republican Party by Mr.Perfect.

In the new one, Boehner is not only on the outs, he's airbrushed from all the pictures!

I can see that. Mr Perfect went from "purge" to "it's time for his well earned rest" in the space of a few posts.

The New Approved History of the Republican Party, by Mr.Perfect

YMix wrote:The New Approved History of the Republican Party, by Mr.Perfect

Gotta say, beats the old history books.

I found this new section about Senator Smith interesting as well:

2uOva_pZJ6Q

YMix wrote:

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:You must be reading the old approved history of the Republican Party by Mr.Perfect.

In the new one, Boehner is not only on the outs, he's airbrushed from all the pictures!

I can see that. Mr Perfect went from "purge" to "it's time for his well earned rest" in the space of a few posts.

It's going to look the same.

YMix wrote:The New Approved History of the Republican Party, by Mr.Perfect

Man that's awesome.

Well its going to be interesting to watch who gets distraught with a return to American greatness. Why that is a distress is a bit beyond me but...

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Parodite wrote:He makes some common sense remarks about making deals. But just wonder how a trade war with countries like China (and others) would look like.

America winning.

Not sure about that.

mrdjM6qtkrs

Man, I hope what we saw with Ramos is just the beginning.

Typhoon wrote:Many Republican leaders view Donald "I'm Not A Bully" Trump like a sudden rash which broke out on the GOP primary. Like any reckless freshman frat boy the GOP had three options when they saw "The Donald" flaring up; they could ignore the rash, scratch at the rash, or treat the rash.

And yet, we are to believe these [GOP] candidates can be trusted to stand up to terrorist groups like ISIS or negotiate tough nuclear non-proliferation treaties with Iran. They can't even stand up to an impotent circus act.

Looks like an anti-establishment candidate more and more and more and more.

And I guess if we want stock off the shelf left wing bilge we know who to turn to now that Tinker is gone.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Looks like an anti-establishment candidate more and more and more and more.

Still doesn't.

Well there is you and a couple of other people in the OTNOTverse, against well just about everyone else. So if you are interested in changing minds, you'll probably have to start forming some sentences. Soon. Because that is how almost everyone else views him now, left right center, all over the world.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Because that is how almost everyone else views him now, left right center, all over the world.

I think that most people all over the world don't know who Trump is and don't care.

Those who do by all evidence consider him anti-establishment. Except you, and a couple of other people here. And just a couple.

So I'm wondering, usually I know all of your guyses arguments before you even say them, but in this case I don't even know how to frame an argument that Trump is an establishment candidate. Perhaps you could put together a few sentences explaining your pov, because I can't even imagine what it is. I promise I won't even rebut it.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Those who do by all evidence consider him anti-establishment. Except you, and a couple of other people here. And just a couple.

I'd like to see that evidence.

So I'm wondering, usually I know all of your guyses arguments before you even say them, but in this case I don't even know how to frame an argument that Trump is an establishment candidate. Perhaps you could put together a few sentences explaining your pov, because I can't even imagine what it is. I promise I won't even rebut it.

I don't know what kind of candidate Trump is. So far, he's really light on specific details and heavy on bloviating about what a great man he is. Plus, he could be lying his ass off anyway. The point is that a candidate the establishment doesn't like does not equal an anti-establishment candidate. That's basic logic.

I said I wouldn't rebut but if you are ok with it I have some thoughts.

Post whatever you like.

YMix wrote: I'd like to see that evidence.

Google "Trump anti-establishment" and the articles from every quarter are endless.

Google "Trump establishment candidate", I could only find Alex Jones types, who I disregard when it comes to partisan politics.

I don't know what kind of candidate Trump is. So far, he's really light on specific details and heavy on bloviating about what a great man he is. Plus, he could be lying his ass off anyway.

So on the specifics, this is a weird argument. obama made outlandish promises he had no hope of keeping and not one MSM outlet ever grilled him on it, at all. Ever. So it's strange now they think they can do it to Trump.

obama was a completely unknown entity when he ran and so you would ask someone like that how they intended to things. Someone like Trump has been a public figure over 30 years and a long long long track record of accomplishments, like them or no, and so many of us aren't worried about his ability to do what he says.

The lying is hard to believe. It's hard to imagine someone that public with no discernible reason to put on an elaborate ruse doing just that. I'm not buying the lying argument.

The concern is realpolitic. obama was crushed by realpolitic in the most painfully embarrassing way, no other reason that being completely a green executive. He never stood a chance.

Trump OTOH, like Clinton, is not as susceptible to what obama was. HRC would have had us in grey smocks within a month. And not because she is anything great, she isn't, but she at least knew where the bathrooms were and wasn't dazzled by corporate jets and CEOs on speed dial. obama had never been in that sphere.

Not so with Trump. No dazzling that guy, been there done that, he knows all the power players, already has relations and opinions of them been rubbing shoulders with them his whole life.

So obama was b!tslapped by realpolitic right out of the gate, literally. The traditional idea of beating realpolitic is to outjudo the thing, OR overcome it with force of personality. The Trump possibility would be the latter.

The point is that a candidate the establishment doesn't like does not equal an anti-establishment candidate. That's basic logic.

I don't know. I think if the establishment hates you, you very well could be antiestablishment. We disagree there.

Mr. Perfect wrote:Google "Trump anti-establishment" and the articles from every quarter are endless.

You Google and let me know what the Germans, South Africans and Chinese think of Trump.

Obama made outlandish promises he had no hope of keeping and not one MSM outlet ever grilled him on it, at all. Ever.

Not my problem, has nothing to do with this conversation.

Someone like Trump has been a public figure over 30 years and a long long long track record of accomplishments, like them or no, and so many of us aren't worried about his ability to do what he says.

Trump has zero experience when it comes to running a public institution. He also has no military experience that I know of.

The lying is hard to believe. It's hard to imagine someone that public with no discernible reason to put on an elaborate ruse doing just that. I'm not buying the lying argument.

I don't care what you're buying either. I can discern a power reason and it's quite enough.

The concern is realpolitic.

Your concern, not mine.

I don't know. I think if the establishment hates you, you very well could be antiestablishment. We disagree there.

Or the establishment hates you because they have their own candidates, their own deals and their own games to play. Why would they want Trump butting in and demanding a piece of the action for his big ego?

YMix wrote: You Google and let me know what the Germans, South Africans and Chinese think of Trump.

Well the whole world that cares. All I could find was Alex Jones types. Were you able to find anyone else?

Not my problem, has nothing to do with this conversation.

It's relevant because you are also guilty of long standing double standards.

Trump has zero experience when it comes to running a public institution. He also has no military experience that I know of.

Same with obama. Didn't bother any of you when he ran, so it shouldn't bother any of you now.

I don't care what you're buying either. I can discern a power reason and it's quite enough.

So what is he lying about specifically and what is the strategy.

Your concern, not mine.

I don't know why realpolitic wouldn't be the concern of everyone.

Or the establishment hates you because they have their own candidates, their own deals and their own games to play. Why would they want Trump butting in and demanding a piece of the action for his big ego?

Let me see if I am following you. Are you saying Trump is running for office in order to make money? Do you understand his current income stream is order of magnitudes larger than Bill Clinton's (the highest income former pol in the world)? How would this graft work, in your mind. I don't understand it.

Bill Clinton's net worth is estimated to be 1% of Trump's. Not 10%, but 1%. What graft is available to him that would possibly be more than he makes now.

I watched the whole thing. I got sucked in. I can't even remember the last time I watched a political speech. If this kind of thing gets across to the public Trump wins with 60% of the vote.

He obviously speaks haltingly and imprecisely, but you get the point. This is a new politics and a lot of you guys are about to be obsolete.

He speaks almost an hour with no text. I can't even remember the last guy who did that.

GCzkoS8bfDQ

From my point of view, as an European, Trump President would be a great thing. Nothing could do more for Europe to take its distance from the US. Besides, he would be pretty busy trying to keep all those Latinos out of the US, so that he might leave the rest of the world alone...

Mr. Perfect wrote:Well the whole world that cares. All I could find was Alex Jones types. Were you able to find anyone else?

And so we've gone from "just about everyone else", "all over the world" to "the whole world that cares". Which isn't that many people outside the USA and even internally it's limited to part of the population.

It's relevant because you are also guilty of long standing double standards.

I do not represent or defend Obama, the Democratic Party or the US media. I'm not responsible for what they say or do.

Same with Obama. Didn't bother any of you when he ran, so it shouldn't bother any of you now.

It doesn't bother me. You make certain claims about Trump and I question them.

So what is he lying about specifically and what is the strategy.

I don't know if he's lying or not. So far, he's giving the impression (and I'm sure it's fully deniable) that he would take on the establishment for the sake of the common man. I see no reason to believe him.

Let me see if I am following you. Are you saying Trump is running for office in order to make money? Do you understand his current income stream is order of magnitudes larger than Bill Clinton's (the highest income former pol in the world)? How would this graft work, in your mind. I don't understand it.

Bill Clinton's net worth is estimated to be 1% of Trump's. Not 10%, but 1%. What graft is available to him that would possibly be more than he makes now.

Money - probably not. Ego, power - more likely. Personal aggrandizement. We'll see.