XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: cuddly@mindless.com   
      
   On 11/5/2016 10:39 PM, Julian wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
      
   Amen :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)