XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 05/11/2016 22:25, dagnabit wrote:   
   > "Nobody in Particular"  wrote in message news:nvlhf9$9fu$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>   
   >> On 11/5/2016 3:31 AM, noname wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> > You listed a bunch of statements.  Apparently these are words that   
   >> Trump   
   >> > has spoken, but I don't know that to be a fact.  I've seen a lot of   
   >> > fact-checking sites.  American media has run fact-checking up as a   
   >> new > flag   
   >> > for voters to rally under.  Is your list above something you've   
   >> > collected... no, that doesn't matter really, it just doesn't matter.   
   >> > Tickey-mark buyers make up their lists and buy what their facts   
   >> indicate > to   
   >> > be the most widely approved product.  The tikey-mark buyers probably   
   >> > bought   
   >> > lots of Samsung devices before they started exhibiting their battery   
   >> > defects.   
   >> >   
   >> > I don't collect facts.  The bad thing about collecting facts is that   
   >> you   
   >> > have to validate them before entering them in your fact collection.   
   >> And   
   >> > then you have to wait for more facts to turn up and contradict them.  A   
   >> > fellow can end up as a 24x7 fact hoarder if he isn't careful.  And   
   >> then > the   
   >> > fact hoarder can end up sitting and wondering "how did that happen"   
   >> if > all   
   >> > this facts were in fact true, because if they were all true   
   >> something > else   
   >> > should've happened.  It's a lot more reliable not to depend on   
   >> facts, or   
   >> > laws for that matter.  It's the wording that makes facts slippery   
   >> and > laws   
   >> > filled with loopholes.  Facts are content, details of context, they   
   >> > change   
   >> > with the wind as the world shows you that whatever you knew it was,   
   >> it > was   
   >> > not.   
   >> >   
   >> > Does a statement state the actual facts, or does it present a view   
   >> of > the   
   >> > facts that makes them look happy or sad?  Is there a difference   
   >> between > the   
   >> > letter of the law and the spirit of the law?   
   >> >   
   >> > I don't remember everything Trump has said, and I don't remember any   
   >> > specific examples where he has been hoist by his own honesty, maybe the   
   >> > locker-room-talk thing where he said yeah, he made those words,   
   >> maybe > not.   
   >> > One thing I know for sure is that I don't have access to all the   
   >> facts, > or   
   >> > even to enough of the facts to work with in a reasonable way.   
   >> Knowing > one   
   >> > is bereft of factual information, whatever can one do, oh my.   
   >> >   
   >> > One can sometimes listen in a way that hears meanings instead of words.   
   >> >   
   >> > When I listen to Trump what I hear is this bombastic practical guy >   
   >> saying   
   >> > listen folks, there are problems here to be solved, and the >   
   >> establishment   
   >> > has not been solving them, let's get the work done for a change   
   >> before > it's   
   >> > too late.  I think that's true, there are problems, and the >   
   >> establishment   
   >> > has not been solving them, it's been exacerbating them.   
   >> >   
   >> > When I listen to Hilary what I hear is a pompous self-righteous failure   
   >> > smugly decrying anything other than the approach the establishment   
   >> has > been   
   >> > proving not to work for decades.  I hear how She knows better than >   
   >> anybody   
   >> > how true equality for the LGBT group is important (and they can   
   >> never be   
   >> > truly equal because they are not equal, they are different from   
   >> others > and   
   >> > from each other just like the rest of us are different from each   
   >> other) > and   
   >> > how the US has to stand by its treaties unaltered forever and how   
   >> the US   
   >> > has to defend other countries and how the US Government has to make   
   >> > things   
   >> > nice for the poor so they can continue to live in poverty.   
   >> >   
   >> > Some people make decisions based on "facts" and lists of tickey-marks,   
   >> > others don't make decisions the same way. Do what you need to do.  I   
   >> > need   
   >> > to stick by my opinion that popular opinion has damn little to do with   
   >> > what's right.   
   >>   
   >> Wow.   
   >> I've come across true-believers before with the attitude, "I have made   
   >> up my mind, don't confuse me with facts", but i have never come across   
   >> someone who actually defends that attitude, much less so eloquently.   
   >>   
   >> Anyway, when i listen to Trump, what i hear is this narcissistic   
   >> sociopath who says, "I want the ultimate ego-boost, the US presidency.   
   >> I will say anything, anything at all, true or not, actually mostly   
   >> lies, that you want to hear me say so you will vote for me. I have no   
   >> idea how to implement them, and actually have no intention whatsoever   
   >> to do any of those things, I only say that stuff because you want to   
   >> hear me say it. Don't look at "facts" that show that I have never,   
   >> ever done anything for others unless that benefits me directly, in   
   >> fact, I have shafted pretty much everyone I ever dealt with. I don't   
   >> give a shit what you want me to do for you, or for the country; I just   
   >> say all that stuff so I will get your vote."   
   >   
   > so all of a sudden, after how many years of dishonest politicians, we   
   > now expect trump to be the first honest one? strange how political   
   > expectations have become so unrealistic.   
   >   
   > politics is really just an odd form of advertising which has to be   
   > dishonest to work because there is no other model to choose from.   
   > same with politicians. if anyone running for office outlined exactly   
   > what they will do if elected, or what the true state of affairs currently   
   > was, they'd never get elected.   
      
   How could they outline exactly what they would do if they were elected   
   without knowing exactly what the future hold.. which they don't.   
      
   As you imply(?) Has there ever been a politician who has said they would   
   do this or that to get elected and then after being elected done exactly   
   that this or that?   
      
   Even if they weren't dishonest they can't escape the fundamental   
   ground of all being... ignorance.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)