Oh My!

[Angry Floof]

They're certainly not mutually exclusive. People who are drawn to stupid shit are generally not even aware of the contradictions that arise between the different sets of stupid shit to which they subscribe. As you have vividly demonstrated...

Don't be such a Drama Queen. Clearly I didn't raise the topic but certainly Trump was perceived as being fascist, then a few posts ago of acting in the perceived way of L Ron Hubbard.

The present and past presidents have not made more money but borrowed more money to compensate for money pushed their over spending.

Changing the subject to borrowing money doesn't answer the question about a Presidential candidate who plans to immediately use his power to punish enemies. That's where the first association with L. Ron Hubbard was made. From there, it's really a no-brainer to notice a few other similarities as well between Ron's personality (and that of the cult itself through tenets and policies) and Trump's.

Now that that's cleared up, what are your thoughts on a Presidential candidate who plans to use his political power to ruin enemies?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Don't be such a Drama Queen. Clearly I didn't raise the topic but certainly Trump was perceived as being fascist, then a few posts ago of acting in the perceived way of L Ron Hubbard.

The present and past presidents have not made more money but borrowed more money to compensate for money pushed their over spending.

Changing the subject to borrowing money doesn't answer the question about a Presidential candidate who plans to immediately use his power to punish enemies. That's where the first association with L. Ron Hubbard was made. From there, it's really a no-brainer to notice a few other similarities as well between Ron's personality (and that of the cult itself through tenets and policies) and Trump's.

Now that that's cleared up, what are your thoughts on a Presidential candidate who plans to use his political power to ruin enemies?

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong), he is legally entitled to raise law suits on an individual basis. Making money and lots more money is the mantra of all entrepreneurs and business groups. However as I pointed in government it would be borrowing money and lots more money which has constantly been happening no matter which administration was in power. The comparison is really too generalised to comment on more than this. A dolphin and shark both swim and eat smaller fish but that does not mean they are more similar than that.

 

[Elixir]

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong)

"Unless"?
UNLESS??? Why the hell do you think he's not filing suit against those women right now? Because he wants TAXPAYERS to pay for the 22 suits and counter-suits he promises to pursue in his personal vendetta, that's why.

Same thing regarding "lock her up" - he is overtly planning to use every resource available to the President of the United States to further his petty personal revenge campaigns.

 

[Angry Floof]

Changing the subject to borrowing money doesn't answer the question about a Presidential candidate who plans to immediately use his power to punish enemies. That's where the first association with L. Ron Hubbard was made. From there, it's really a no-brainer to notice a few other similarities as well between Ron's personality (and that of the cult itself through tenets and policies) and Trump's.

Now that that's cleared up, what are your thoughts on a Presidential candidate who plans to use his political power to ruin enemies?

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong), he is legally entitled to raise law suits on an individual basis. Making money and lots more money is the mantra of all entrepreneurs and business groups. However as I pointed in government it would be borrowing money and lots more money which has constantly been happening no matter which administration was in power. The comparison is really too generalised to comment on more than this. A dolphin and shark both swim and eat smaller fish but that does not mean they are more similar than that.

The question was about the character and fitness and dedication of a Presidential candidate whose first thought is for revenge and ruining people.

I said before that scientology is a machine that produces right wing authoritarian followers, but it might be more accurate to say it conditions the humanity right out of its followers.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Changing the subject to borrowing money doesn't answer the question about a Presidential candidate who plans to immediately use his power to punish enemies. That's where the first association with L. Ron Hubbard was made. From there, it's really a no-brainer to notice a few other similarities as well between Ron's personality (and that of the cult itself through tenets and policies) and Trump's.

Now that that's cleared up, what are your thoughts on a Presidential candidate who plans to use his political power to ruin enemies?

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong), he is legally entitled to raise law suits on an individual basis. Making money and lots more money is the mantra of all entrepreneurs and business groups. However as I pointed in government it would be borrowing money and lots more money which has constantly been happening no matter which administration was in power. The comparison is really too generalised to comment on more than this. A dolphin and shark both swim and eat smaller fish but that does not mean they are more similar than that.

Trump wants to be a dictator. Not only does he want to sue the women brave enough to fight back against him, but he also wants to jail his opposition; fire all the generals and admirals who have helped Obama; hire generals and admirals who agree with him; and set up a private police force to evict those that he doesn't like. He's a menace.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong)

"Unless"?
UNLESS??? Why the hell do you think he's not filing suit against those women right now? Because he wants TAXPAYERS to pay for the 22 suits and counter-suits he promises to pursue in his personal vendetta, that's why.

Same thing regarding "lock her up" - he is overtly planning to use every resource available to the President of the United States to further his petty personal revenge campaigns.

Are you suggesting that he would be stupid enough to directly use government powers, (for which there is no evidence but speculation). As president, what resources would he have at his disposal for such things?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong), he is legally entitled to raise law suits on an individual basis. Making money and lots more money is the mantra of all entrepreneurs and business groups. However as I pointed in government it would be borrowing money and lots more money which has constantly been happening no matter which administration was in power. The comparison is really too generalised to comment on more than this. A dolphin and shark both swim and eat smaller fish but that does not mean they are more similar than that.

The question was about the character and fitness and dedication of a Presidential candidate whose first thought is for revenge and ruining people.

I said before that scientology is a machine that produces right wing authoritarian followers, but it might be more accurate to say it conditions the humanity right out of its followers.

If it's about fitness as a Presidential candidate, I cannot comment on speculation as to what he would do nor would I particularly endorse Hilary Clinton. The one thing they both have in common is they will rack up more to the National Debt even topping Obama's achievements that surpassed those of the previous administration.

You can google some spoofs about Trump and Scientology but I am not aware of any right wing fanatics produced by that organization.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong), he is legally entitled to raise law suits on an individual basis. Making money and lots more money is the mantra of all entrepreneurs and business groups. However as I pointed in government it would be borrowing money and lots more money which has constantly been happening no matter which administration was in power. The comparison is really too generalised to comment on more than this. A dolphin and shark both swim and eat smaller fish but that does not mean they are more similar than that.

Trump wants to be a dictator. Not only does he want to sue the women brave enough to fight back against him, but he also wants to jail his opposition; fire all the generals and admirals who have helped Obama; hire generals and admirals who agree with him; and set up a private police force to evict those that he doesn't like. He's a menace.

Then as a departure from your usual analytical skills you talk about women brave enough to fight against him who suddenly turned up at the election. Hilary looked after Bill regarding accusations against him. Has he stated he will jail the opposition, fire the generals and admirals who helped Obama. Where does all this drivel originate from. Bad as she is I don't see Hilary doing anything quite like that either. I think the Americans have been brainwashed by the Media.

 

[Angry Floof]

The question was about the character and fitness and dedication of a Presidential candidate whose first thought is for revenge and ruining people.

I said before that scientology is a machine that produces right wing authoritarian followers, but it might be more accurate to say it conditions the humanity right out of its followers.

If it's about fitness as a Presidential candidate, I cannot comment on speculation as to what he would do nor would I particularly endorse Hilary Clinton. The one thing they both have in common is they will rack up more to the National Debt even topping Obama's achievements that surpassed those of the previous administration.

You can google some spoofs about Trump and Scientology but I am not aware of any right wing fanatics produced by that organization.

The phrase is "right wing authoritarian followers." "Fanatic" implies a fringe element or exception. I'm talking about a collective made up of people with specific cognitive tendencies and ideological traits, such as willingness to go along with punishment or eradication of "enemies" as defined by an authority. Otherwise good, intelligent people. Your friends and neighbors. They're just people who can't question some authority or other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Unless he is using State machinary to abuse his power (which would be wrong), he is legally entitled to raise law suits on an individual basis. M

Yes, he is.
But then, he could sue them RIGHT NOW, if he wanted to access his rights.
Of course, the campaign is stating that there's no truth to these rumors and they only exist as an effort to reduce the votes he gets. SO if he does win the election, the 'fake' attacks will have failed and there's no point in suing them. No logical point, anyway.
But he's making this a priority of his administration. Sue them AFTER he wins. Pure revenge. He's putting this out as a reason people should vote for him, to become president and get revenge upon his enemies, people his followers hate.

I think it's very likely he'll appoint special prosecutors for this. And to prosecute all his libel complaints. This IS the man who wants to make legislation happen that'll make it easier for him to sue newspapers that make him angry, right?

It's ludicrous to think that once he's in the oval office, he's going to take care not to abuse the privileges he's been seeking and promising he'd abuse.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump wants to be a dictator. Not only does he want to sue the women brave enough to fight back against him, but he also wants to jail his opposition; fire all the generals and admirals who have helped Obama; hire generals and admirals who agree with him; and set up a private police force to evict those that he doesn't like. He's a menace.

Then as a departure from your usual analytical skills you talk about women brave enough to fight against him who suddenly turned up at the election. Hilary looked after Bill regarding accusations against him. Has he stated he will jail the opposition, fire the generals and admirals who helped Obama. Where does all this drivel originate from. Bad as she is I don't see Hilary doing anything quite like that either. I think the Americans have been brainwashed by the Media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nship-between-the-president-and-the-military/

I'm not going to look up every wacky thing that Trump says, but it's all findable through google. Trump is dangerous.

 

[arkirk]

Seems that Trump's plan for the first 100 days pursuing 10 - no, - make that 11 different lawsuits against women he has assaulted, and trying to get Hillary locked up. Good to know he has America's interests front and center.

So we know Trump has a volcanic temper and would use the office to attack these women. Amazing how Hillary doesn't have to say a word to defend herself when her agenda will no doubt be equally self serving. I don't think Trump will get elected and I feel more and more he never intended to get elected. He and the Clintons socialized frequently before this campaign.

 

[Elixir]

Seems that Trump's plan for the first 100 days pursuing 10 - no, - make that 11 different lawsuits against women he has assaulted, and trying to get Hillary locked up. Good to know he has America's interests front and center.

So we know Trump has a volcanic temper and would use the office to attack these women. Amazing how Hillary doesn't have to say a word to defend herself when her agenda will no doubt be equally self serving. I don't think Trump will get elected and I feel more and more he never intended to get elected. He and the Clintons socialized frequently before this campaign.
View attachment 8491

Heh! One of them is going to get elected IMHO. I'd prefer the one who got the better of THAT deal, if there was a deal... which I too have suspected for over a year. Lately I doubt it though - Trump is going o turn every single one of those 25+ million estimated "deplorables" into a ten dollar a month annuity for himself, if he possibly can. I think it's more likely that that was the plan from the start. Besides, Hillary is probably too smart to make any deal with the Donald - she knows him too well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Trump is going o turn every single one of those 25+ million estimated "deplorables" into a ten dollar a month annuity for himself, if he possibly can. I think it's more likely that that was the plan from the start. Besides, Hillary is probably too smart to make any deal with the Donald - she knows him too well.

Trumpy will make millions if not billions off these hapless emotional bozos. That much is certain.

 

[fromderinside]

That's true. I know that because I went up to the bell tower of my church and prayed that this very noon Pacific time.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If it's about fitness as a Presidential candidate, I cannot comment on speculation as to what he would do nor would I particularly endorse Hilary Clinton. The one thing they both have in common is they will rack up more to the National Debt even topping Obama's achievements that surpassed those of the previous administration.

You can google some spoofs about Trump and Scientology but I am not aware of any right wing fanatics produced by that organization.

The phrase is "right wing authoritarian followers." "Fanatic" implies a fringe element or exception. I'm talking about a collective made up of people with specific cognitive tendencies and ideological traits, such as willingness to go along with punishment or eradication of "enemies" as defined by an authority. Otherwise good, intelligent people. Your friends and neighbors. They're just people who can't question some authority or other.

These traits as you correctly say would apply to (ultra) right wing fanatics, but can equally apply to the ultra left. .

 

[Angry Floof]

The phrase is "right wing authoritarian followers." "Fanatic" implies a fringe element or exception. I'm talking about a collective made up of people with specific cognitive tendencies and ideological traits, such as willingness to go along with punishment or eradication of "enemies" as defined by an authority. Otherwise good, intelligent people. Your friends and neighbors. They're just people who can't question some authority or other.

These traits as you correctly say would apply to (ultra) right wing fanatics, but can equally apply to the ultra left. .

Nope. Once again, the right wing authoritarian traits do NOT apply equally to the left as to the right, "ultra" or not. That is a complete falsehood.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If it's about fitness as a Presidential candidate, I cannot comment on speculation as to what he would do nor would I particularly endorse Hilary Clinton. The one thing they both have in common is they will rack up more to the National Debt even topping Obama's achievements that surpassed those of the previous administration.

You can google some spoofs about Trump and Scientology but I am not aware of any right wing fanatics produced by that organization.

The phrase is "right wing authoritarian followers." "Fanatic" implies a fringe element or exception. I'm talking about a collective made up of people with specific cognitive tendencies and ideological traits, such as willingness to go along with punishment or eradication of "enemies" as defined by an authority. Otherwise good, intelligent people. Your friends and neighbors. They're just people who can't question some authority or other.

.
That would be an apt description of an (ultra) right wing fanatic but would equally apply to those on the ultra left. In other words their pattern of behavior would be the same. They see everything in black and white and not in different shades. However providing he is not using government privileges then he is entitled to sue.

 

[whichphilosophy]

These traits as you correctly say would apply to (ultra) right wing fanatics, but can equally apply to the ultra left. .

Nope. Once again, the right wing authoritarian traits do NOT apply equally to the left as to the right, "ultra" or not. That is a complete falsehood.

Try talking to National Front supporters (UK), and Trotskyites and in rare case I came across a full blown Muslim fanatic. They are essentially filled with excessive and a singled minded zeal in their philosophies and applications of their doctrine.

 

[Elixir]

...Trump is going o turn every single one of those 25+ million estimated "deplorables" into a ten dollar a month annuity for himself, if he possibly can. I think it's more likely that that was the plan from the start. Besides, Hillary is probably too smart to make any deal with the Donald - she knows him too well.

Trumpy will make millions if not billions off these hapless emotional bozos. That much is certain.

It will be interesting to see if Trump can hold them together... it will probably reduce itself to nothing more than a coalition of Obama-haters, now Hillary haters. They will probably need some fresh enemies over the course of her term, pretty much as Orwell predicted.