Trump's Last Line of Defense

[Ridgerunner]

As I said, I don;t think that this is true in general, or, especially, in the particular case of calling people haters on this forum. Not needed to “survive on this world”.

There’s no blame in encouraging others to self-examine, perhaps even to recoil from hatefulness.

But to recoil from it, one has to first recognize it in oneself. For those who intend to be hateful, it might not serve a useful purpose. But hope springs eternal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Define hateful.

Depends on the context. One can be a “hateful” person, and that’s one thing. One can say things that are “hateful” and that’s another.

But it might be useful to consider what “hate” means. It’s akin to thievery. It means actively desiring the detriment of another, combined with acting thereon in some manner beyond the confines of our own skulls.

I think a person would have to deaf and illiterate not to consider much of the trump critiques as “hateful”, inasmuch as many are simply condemnations or mockery of the man himself and, more often than not, intended to harm. And when they’re expressed incessantly and stridently, and particularly when combined with personal attacks on the person who might disagree, it is more and more difficult to dismiss them as something other than expressions of hate. Oftentimes they are just plain false. A person could fill a book with them just from CAF alone.

 

[J_Peterson]

Depends on the context. One can be a “hateful” person, and that’s one thing. One can say things that are “hateful” and that’s another.

But it might be useful to consider what “hate” means. It’s akin to thievery. It means actively desiring the detriment of another, combined with acting thereon in some manner beyond the confines of our own skulls.

I think a person would have to deaf and illiterate not to consider much of the trump critiques as “hateful”, inasmuch as many are simply condemnations or mockery of the man himself and, more often than not, intended to harm. And when they’re expressed incessantly and stridently, and particularly when combined with personal attacks on the person who might disagree, it is more and more difficult to dismiss them as something other than expressions of hate. Oftentimes they are just plain false. A person could fill a book with them just from CAF alone.

We can hate things and actions. I hate the Trump administration’s policies and pretty much everything they stand for. As far as hating people, I can’t say I hate Trump. He’s a buffoon so puffed up on himself he can’t see anything other than himself. I think he may actually believe his lies too which is troubling. BUT, he is not really the problem because he isn’t doing any of the heavy lifting, just a useful idiot who will go down in history as an embarrassment. You can be angry with someone and not hate them.

In the interest of honesty, I think I may actually hate Jeff Sessions but that’s my problem. I want him out of office. He is far scarier than Trump will ever be.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

In the interest of honesty, I think I may actually hate Jeff Sessions but that’s my problem. I want him out of office. He is far scarier than Trump will ever be.

I liked Sessions for a long time because he was the most outspoken Congressman against the H1-B program which pushed me out of IT years ago. I saw that freight train coming right at my job and hence changed careers to a trade that cannot be outsourced. At least not yet. I’m sure there are those who are trying to figure out how to petition Congress to outsource my trade too, but I think I’m safe for now.

So Sessions is now a bad guy? Ok I don’t agree with everything he’s done, but if he acts against H1-B, he’s still alright with me. Remember people often vote their own interests and I’m not shy about admitting mine.

 

[MaryT777]

We don’t have to judge hearts. We are forbidden from doing so. We do have to judge whether a given action was intentional or unintentional, because we usually assign culpability under human justice according to seeming intention. We also have a frequent duty to judge the most likely future course of action of a person placed in a position of trust. That requires judging whether their true will, intention and capacity match their self-reported will, intention and capacity.

That’s a lot of judging in one paragraph. I’ll leave that to God.

 

[ProVobis]

In the general discussion of remarks about the president that would be understood by anyone as gratuitous insults or assertion of defamatory statements having nothing to do with policy, and/or having no real foundation, there just isn’t a more descriptive word for it than “hateful”.

Possibly someone will come up with a more nuanced descriptor that still fits.

A thesaurus might help.

“Nasty,” “obnoxious,” “abhorrent,” “despicable,” “disgusting,” “heinous,” “odious,” …

thesaurus.com/browse/hateful?s=t

Just sayin…

 

[Ridgerunner]

We can hate things and actions. I hate the Trump administration’s policies and pretty much everything they stand for. As far as hating people, I can’t say I hate Trump. He’s a buffoon so puffed up on himself he can’t see anything other than himself. I think he may actually believe his lies too which is troubling. BUT, he is not really the problem because he isn’t doing any of the heavy lifting, just a useful idiot who will go down in history as an embarrassment. You can be angry with someone and not hate them.

A remarkable statement. I couldn’t have asked for a better example.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s a lot of judging in one paragraph. I’ll leave that to God.

So…you would think it is OK to hire someone with pedophilia on their record to work with children, because it’s not for you to judge? You would think it is reasonable to give someone a job working as a bank teller when they have a history of embezzlement, because it is not for you to judge? You would think if you were on a jury, you could not find a person guilty if the law required that an action be intentional before it is deemed criminal, because it is not for you to judge? You would hire someone for a job that required punctuality even though their entire job record indicates they frequently showed up late for work?

I have a hard time believing that.

 

[randomuser]

So…you would think it is OK to hire someone with pedophilia on their record to work with children, because it’s not for you to judge? You would think it is reasonable to give someone a job working as a bank teller when they have a history of embezzlement, because it is not for you to judge? You would think if you were on a jury, you could not find a person guilty if the law required that an action be intentional before it is deemed criminal, because it is not for you to judge? You would hire someone for a job that required punctuality even though their entire job record indicates they frequently showed up late for work?

I have a hard time believing that.

I have a difficult time believing that for all the gossip and debunked rumors there are exactly 0 criminal convictions. The goose egg. If there’s evidence of wrongdoing, then let’s LOCK HER UP.

 

[dvdjs]

There’s no blame in encouraging others to self-examine

Not in the least.

Perhaps even to recoil from hatefulness.

Ah, but this would involve ill-formed and uneccasary conclusions that likely violate form guidelines.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So…you would think it is OK to hire someone with pedophilia on their record to work with children, because it’s not for you to judge? You would think it is reasonable to give someone a job working as a bank teller when they have a history of embezzlement, because it is not for you to judge? You would think if you were on a jury, you could not find a person guilty if the law required that an action be intentional before it is deemed criminal, because it is not for you to judge? You would hire someone for a job that required punctuality even though their entire job record indicates they frequently showed up late for work?

I have a hard time believing that.

Would you hire someone to a position who is anti-family and anti-life?

That seems even more irresponsible than what words come out of his/her mouth.

Unless of course Catholics are going to replace the Bible and catechism with post-modernism.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

One of the Democrats just announced that he might have to reach out to the pro-life crowd and the feminists in the Democrat party said they might have to break away.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Answer

Bad hair pieces?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Answer

Bad hair pieces?

Trump already called them out.

But this is interesting:

theresurgent.com/now-we-know-why-so-many-feminists-are-humorless-bitter-and-ugly-hearted/

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Trump already called them out.

But this is interesting:

theresurgent.com/now-we-know-why-so-many-feminists-are-humorless-bitter-and-ugly-hearted/

Finding it hard to get past the photo, he is grimacing, she looks like she has been a bit too close to her nail polish fumes.

It’s good to see cufflinks are a must in some circles.

In that photo , the perspective seems wrong on that hand emerging from
behind his back…

Like her arm is an acme extend an arm.

I don’t think that is her hand, no nail polish… and a very large ring.

Something very suss about that half hand

 

[PRmerger]

I think a person would have to deaf and illiterate not to consider much of the trump critiques as “hateful”, inasmuch as many are simply condemnations or mockery of the man himself and, more often than not, intended to harm. And when they’re expressed incessantly and stridently, and particularly when combined with personal attacks on the person who might disagree, it is more and more difficult to dismiss them as something other than expressions of hate. Oftentimes they are just plain false. A person could fill a book with them just from CAF alone.

All of the above, yes, should apply…for folks here who were against Hillary.

Don’t have a double standard, please. “When I object to Hillary or Obama it’s totally legit, but when folks do that for Trump, well, it’s just hateful!”

This sounds exactly like what you’re describing above, Ridgerunner.

I would vote for Trump over Hillary. I would vote for the 1,001 listed name in the New York City phone book before Hillary.

I will not support an abortion supporter. Is Trump one? I don’t know, but he would have no chance of re-election if he acted that way, and one suspects he would be mindful of that. Hillary on the other hand is dyed-in-the-wool for abortion and we know for sure what she will do.

Who is the more corrupt? Well, having inherited some, Trump made his own money. Perhaps it was always honestly, perhaps he cut corners. But if he made it by selling out his own country, we would already know about it. And we don’t. Hillary on the other hand has made millions by selling influence as Secretary of State. And if she becomes president, how much more can she sell us out for money? A lot.

Is Trump a super-hawk, a war-monger? No, he isn’t. Hillary is, as she amply demonstrated not only in her support of a war on Libya without even telling Congress about it. And I, for one, thought her “I came. I saw. Quadaffi died” and that hideous cackle were absolutely creepy. I would rather the president of the U.S. was not one who enjoyed killing so much.

 

[PRmerger]

Finding it hard to get past the photo, he is grimacing, she looks like she has been a bit too close to her nail polish fumes.

LOL!

 

[Ridgerunner]

All of the above, yes, should apply…for folks here who were against Hillary.

Don’t have a double standard, please. “When I object to Hillary or Obama it’s totally legit, but when folks do that for Trump, well, it’s just hateful!”

This sounds exactly like what you’re describing above, Ridgerunner.

Omigosh! You mean Hillary Clinton did not get $145 million from Russia, that Bill didn’t get half a million for a speech in Russia, that Hilllary did not participate in the sale of 20% of American uranium to a Russian company?

And she didn’t say she supports “a woman’s right to choose”? She didn’t say that?

And she never did say “We came, we saw, Quaddhaffi died?” then laughed? She didn’t support war in Libya?

Let’s be real here. Those are just statements of fact that nobody denies or ever did.

Well, okay, I’ll admit “hideous laugh” was a bit over the top, though it did strike me that way at the time…not so much the laugh itself but the context. Maybe “macabre” would have been better.

Statement of incontrovertible facts is not really the same thing as calling a person “stupid”, “Cheetos”, or calling for boycott of his daughter’s business. Those kinds of things come quite a bit closer to “hateful”, wouldn’t you say?

 

[dvdjs]

Omigosh! You mean Hillary Clinton did not get $145 million from Russia, that Bill didn’t get half a million for a speech in Russia, that Hilllary did not participate in the sale of 20% of American uranium to a Russian company?

She did not. In fact there has been no such sale, and the ostenoble quid pro undercut by timeline and HRC’s limited authority in the matter.

Let’s be real here. Those are just statements of fact that nobody denies or ever did.

Be real? The phony narrative on uranium has been debunked over and over again on this forum.

The narrative is not an incontrovertible fact. Calling it one compounds the problem.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have a difficult time believing that for all the gossip and debunked rumors there are exactly 0 criminal convictions. The goose egg. If there’s evidence of wrongdoing, then let’s LOCK HER UP.

Whoa, whoa. Clarification: I was talking about when it is necessary to judge generally.

Like the current President, however, the Clintons have been caught in lies that do not rise to the level of criminal misbehavior but that do give a reasonable person a cause to seek independent verification of pretty much anything they say that puts them in a good light, and no, not at a “they all stretch the facts” level. That’s an earned reputation. Because they have earned that reputation–I mean both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump–it is only prudent to refrain from taking what they say at face value without independent verification. That is not the kind of judging we are forbidden from doing. That is the kind of judging we have to do because we are citizens and voters.

Does that mean they never tell the truth? No. It means they cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. There is a lot of that in this world and a lot of honestly-held misinformation on top of that. A prudent person needs to do some work at independent verification. Sad, but true, and sad that it is so true of the two people we had to choose from for President of the United States.

If your choice for President was between two people who you know have been willing to lie to you, well, you have to choose one of them. You’re going to get a President whose word cannot be taken at face value. It is not reasonable to choose the one you think the best choice and then forget what you know about that candidate’s honesty because that was the candidate you voted for. That isn’t even rational.