XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   liaM  wrote:   
   > 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 :)   
   >   
   >   
      
   The other thing you do when you "outline a plan" is to spell out the rules   
   through which your opponents can cheat.  A plan is almost as bad as a   
   treaty.  Good trades are cash, not promises.  Obligations are the kiss of   
   death.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)