Jump to content
Science Forums

An Examination Of Trump.


Recommended Posts

In this country we don't convict anyone of any crime, let alone one punishable by death, unless it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's guilty of what he's been accused of.

 

Monty, you seem to treat the danger that you're so sure Trump poses as though it were an indubitable fact, with no need for evidence.

 

Put another way, Monty, I think your fanaticism is what's being revealed here, not Trump's presumed "guilt."

I see that i've lost you and I can accept it's because my example was over the top. If you can't accept my apology for having to use the extreme example then I suppose that's all I can say directly to the topic.

 

I will say though, before we leave the topic, if that's your choice, that your comment on going out and killing some Jews, said a lot for 'your' character. 

Edited by montgomery
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The question is, What evidence? Jealous lefties often call him Racist: Have yet to see evidence for it. He's definatly against illegals, but that's not a race. He's talked widely about cad culture, cu

Just out of curiosity, Monty, do you, by any kind of wild-azz coincidence, just happen to be of the communist persuasion?

The only answer I need provide for all your loaded questions is:   The odds of Trump being a racist are very high because of other racist remarks and racist actions we can attribute to him. Why do you

 

And I think I have amply made my point. If however you disagree then the topic may be expanded upon with your further explanation of why you think not?

 

Perhaps the best direction in which to lead this thread would be for me to expand on my assertion that Trump fits all 4 of your examples which were quoted above. If you wish, I'll do that in order to substantiate my opinion. 

 

 

No need for that in my case.  I've heard it all hundreds of times.  And everyone I hear it from is quite satisfied, based on the flimsiest of grounds, that they've "amply made their point."  Easy to convince yourself, I guess.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that i've lost you and I can accept it's because my example was over the top. If you can't accept my apology for having to use the extreme example then I suppose that's all I can say directly to the topic.

 

I will say though, before we leave the topic, if that's your choice, that your comment on going out and killing some Jews, said a lot for 'your' character. 

 

 

No need to apologize.  I should have known that you would entirely miss my point about killing jews.  My last post might give you more insight into the intended meaning of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to apologize.  I should have known that you would entirely miss my point about killing jews.  My last post might give you more insight into the intended meaning of that.

What is your last point that would give me more insight as to the meaning? 

 

Fwiw, I direct my anger at the Zionist apartheid regime and not at Jews. There is a difference and the Zionists loudly deny it's so. 

 

But I doubt that the insight you suggest is going to negate the fact that you said it. 

 

To the topic in a way I wish to expand it: Trump has ordered the withdrawal of the US from the INF treaty, on the pretense that Russia was already violating the treaty and was trying to cause America to withdraw from the treaty iin order to place the blame on Russia.

 

And in order to make a case for Russia against Trump's contention, I'll provide a link for your consideration:

 

https://www.rt.com/news/450914-russia-us-inf-compliance-tomahawks-drones/

Edited by montgomery
Link to post
Share on other sites

From RT:

 

In early February, Washington unilaterally withdrew from the INF deal, which had been the cornerstone of European security since 1987. The US accused Russia of building prohibited missiles, but said that it may return to the accord if Moscow eliminates the violation within the next 180 days.

 

 

 

If that were true, which I know it aint cause it's RT saying it, then there would only be one possible course of action, to wit:  Kill Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a post yesterday that somehow didn't get through. I would doubt that it would have been deleted. From memory, it was something like this:

 

To talk about getting rid of Trump via the Kennedy solution makes it a political issue, and to talk about GWB would be too, but I'll mention the name to make my point. If Moronium or Gahd were standing outside a school and they observed an ISIS member with explosives strapped to his body, preparing to go into that school, would either stop him using lethal force? Let's assume they were both carrying a gun and were close enough to make a sure kill....

 

What would your god do? We know very well what Christians did to Muslims because the difference in those cases was different religious opinions. .

For the sake of argument, I will assume that I somehow know they are explosives (not something harmless) with empirical certainty, and that I also somehow know with the same kind of certainty what they are going to do based on previous actions. in that case, I aim for the legs and let the courts sort it out.

 

Those two provisos are important:

-KNOW there is a weapon/destructive device

-KNOW it is going to be used in action vs innocents based on previous actions.

 

Since this is very transparently a way to justify your thought process: Do you KNOW the THINGS, or are you being an Ignorant Ideologue off a "gut feeling" ? Cause again, regarding trump; there IS a prominent history to look at. A history that goes well beyond 500 character tweet-of-the-moment mis-quotes and hearsay that the bloody goldfish-memory people are trotting about.

Beyond that you've, much like a couple other people at this point, stepped away from the core of the thread.

 

On Christians and Muslims -> more of that generalizing and deflecting from the core topic, probably so you can avoid having to confront a reality that does not follow a flawed mental picture. I shouldn't entertain that kind of blatant misdirection, but I will point out that if you're talking about "the crusades" like so many do; the crusades were a retaliation towards generations of invasion, kidnapping/slavery, pillaging, etc from the south an east (AKA middle east.) We do know what they did; decided enough was enough and decided to remove an existential threat the only way that threat was responsive to. Look it up.

 

EDIT: post merge

 

What is your last point that would give me more insight as to the meaning? 

 

Fwiw, I direct my anger at the Zionist apartheid regime and not at Jews. There is a difference and the Zionists loudly deny it's so. 

 

But I doubt that the insight you suggest is going to negate the fact that you said it. 

 

To the topic in a way I wish to expand it: Trump has ordered the withdrawal of the US from the INF treaty, on the pretense that Russia was already violating the treaty and was trying to cause America to withdraw from the treaty iin order to place the blame on Russia.

 

And in order to make a case for Russia against Trump's contention, I'll provide a link for your consideration:

 

https://www.rt.com/news/450914-russia-us-inf-compliance-tomahawks-drones/

I find it terribly ironic that the treaty violation stuff is touted about at the same time that people claim he's only in power from russian influence and has some kind of russian agenda funding his overly rich posterior. Goldfish level attention span and memory with society at large, i swear.

 

I'm not sure that's on trump's shoulders. Treaty stuff need two-thirds majority of the United States Senate. Enough people agree after deliberation, it's not something that can be ham-fisted around with some abuse of executive orders.

Edited by GAHD
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of argument, I will assume that I somehow know they are explosives (not something harmless) with empirical certainty, and that I also somehow know with the same kind of certainty what they are going to do based on previous actions. in that case, I aim for the legs and let the courts sort it out.

 

Those two provisos are important:

-KNOW there is a weapon/destructive device

-KNOW it is going to be used in action vs innocents based on previous actions.

 

Since this is very transparently a way to justify your thought process: Do you KNOW the THINGS, or are you being an Ignorant Ideologue off a "gut feeling" ? Cause again, regarding trump; there IS a prominent history to look at. A history that goes well beyond 500 character tweet-of-the-moment mis-quotes and hearsay that the bloody goldfish-memory people are trotting about.

Beyond that you've, much like a couple other people at this point, stepped away from the core of the thread.

 

On Christians and Muslims -> more of that generalizing and deflecting from the core topic, probably so you can avoid having to confront a reality that does not follow a flawed mental picture. I shouldn't entertain that kind of blatant misdirection, but I will point out that if you're talking about "the crusades" like so many do; the crusades were a retaliation towards generations of invasion, kidnapping/slavery, pillaging, etc from the south an east (AKA middle east.) We do know what they did; decided enough was enough and decided to remove an existential threat the only way that threat was responsive to. Look it up.

My use of the ISIS member as an arbitrary example was just that and wasn't meant to promote a debate on Islam vs. Christianity. So I won't pursue your talking points any further. Unless you want to bring a question to my attention that you think I'm avoiding.

 

But I am interested in exploring 'Trump' more thoroughly and so I'll attempt to do that if you would like to post some examples of his earlier behaviour which could redeem him. 

 

Otherwise, I've furthered the debate with Moronium by asking him to examine the information in the RT.com link against Trump's withdrawal of the US from the INF treaty. Your views, as opposed to my contention that Trump is a dangerous psychopath who must be stopped soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, Monty.  Who all else are you angry at? Besides Christians, Zionists, and Trump, I mean.

 I was actually thinking that you would ask that question of me. The reason is, your behaviour either had to be because you are so completely off the wall or you are really a mental health professional who was/is baiting me for the benefit of furthering the overall topic 'Psychology'. 

 

Say it is so? Otherwise, you really do need some help ;yourself! 

 

If the former is the case, you're the professional and not me, then I'm more than happy to be your subject here on this board.

Edited by montgomery
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I was actually thinking that you would ask that question of me. The reason is, your behaviour either had to be because you are so completely off the wall or you are really a mental health professional who was/is baiting me for the benefit of furthering the overall topic 'Psychology'. 

 

 

There are more possibilities than that.

 

Ever hear of satire? Parody? Sarcasm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

More from RT:

 

 

 

Sounds like a "lame duck" treaty that needs to be renegotiated.  Trump knows how to play that game.

I think that what it really is, is another US attempt to draw Russia into another Cold war and I think that Trump has now been taught how to play that game. 

 

So the US rhetoric goes, in case you're unaware, blame the Russians for withdrawing from the treaty to make it appear that the US wanted out of it with clean hands. So my contention is that doesn't fly. 

 

And so, you're not a mental health professional. You're quite intelligent with some serious mental issues. I don't yet know just how bright you are but I'll be able to determine that in short order. As for me, I'm extremely gifted and bordering on genius, referring to IQ tests as a reference point. But I'm probably like you in other ways because I have 'mental' issues as it pertains to the norm of society. Those I admit with a degree of pride because I somewhat abhor the human condition. Is that something that can relate to you too? 

 

Your attempt to put off your behaviour to satire, parody, or sarcasm was an utter failure, just so you know I have you on that!

 

And then too, I have a very hard time trying to imagine any person within the 1% bracket on intelligence could be a Trump supporter. Although I suppose there could be some exceptions. That would be worth investigating further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little tidbit from "Defense News."   They aint the Daily Stormer, so I can't vouch for them, but they gotta be better than RT, know what I'm sayin?

 

The U.S. and Russia have been sparring over mutual alleged violations of the INF Treaty since at least 2014, when the Obama administration began issuing vague protests of Russian noncompliance. The Trump administration upped the ante last year with formal protests that a new Russian missile, dubbed the 9M729, had been tested at ranges prohibited under the treaty.

 

Few in the West doubt that Russia stands in violation...

 

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/02/06/russia-bids-farewell-to-inf-treaty-with-fresh-nuclear-development-plans/

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 'mental' issues as it pertains to the norm of society. Those I admit with a degree of pride because I somewhat abhor the human condition. Is that something that can relate to you too? 

 

 

My condolences.

 

The "human condition," as you put it, aint perfect, but it's all we got, eh? Being a hater doesn't accomplish anything.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the evil Ruskies thought Trump was bluffing.  Fraid not:

 

Russian officials scoffed at an ultimatum to return to compliance or face unilateral U.S. withdrawal....it is certainly a treaty Moscow wanted to scrap. But this is unlikely the way Moscow wanted things to play out, and the Kremlin now finds itself frustrated that Washington may be backing away from arms control entirely.  “Moscow sees itself diminished by the U.S. refusal to discuss Russia’s concerns about U.S. compliance with INF, as well as the New START treaty,” according to Vladimir Frolov, a Russian foreign affairs analyst.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...