Donald John Trump gets “a little political” on Fox and Friends.

[Hypatia]

I don't see any mention of protestors until you brought them up. Perhaps you interpreted his comment of "making things worse" to mean the BLM protests? But he might have different definitions of what is meant by "making things worse". He wonders, as I am starting to wonder, why you are now making the conversation about protestors in a thread that you said was about Trump.

You were the one who started talking about protestors. I don't see him or anyone else in this thread mention BLM, January 6th, or any other kind of protest. Perhaps you meant to ask how he felt Trump made things worse, and which things were worse? I don't see you doing that, just going on about BLM for some reason.

The whole point about having a thread devoted to a topic, is that people can create posts they are interested in in relation to that topic. In this one specific instance, yes, I was asking Dr. Anaximander's opinion about how he would have handled that situation or more to the point, as I have already mentioned, how he felt about the way Trump handled that situation, as this thread is about things related to him (Trump). I have already apologized twice, yet you two are still putting words in my mouth. I have spent 99% of my energy just trying to prevent both of you from painting me as a shouting racist when I have said and implied nothing of the sort, and am putting in nearly an hour of my time trying to keep this thread off topic, stop myself from being unfairly attacked before *an argument is even levied or attempted,* and have to tolerate some grotesque depiction as "art," which I had kept my mouth shut, out of respect for your disrespect.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The whole point about having a thread devoted to a topic, is that people can create posts they are interested in in relation to that topic. In this one specific instance, yes, I was asking Dr. Anaximander's opinion about how he would have handled that situation or more to the point, as I have already mentioned, how he felt about the way Trump handled that situation, as this thread is about things related to him (Trump). I have already apologized twice, yet you two are still putting words in my mouth. I have spent 99% of my energy just trying to prevent both of you from painting me as a shouting racist when I have said and implied nothing of the sort, and am putting in nearly an hour of my time trying to keep this thread off topic, stop myself from being unfairly attacked before *an argument is even levied or attempted,* and have to tolerate some grotesque depiction as "art," which I had kept my mouth shut, out of respect for your disrespect.

Oh, this is about being a holy martyr for Trump, much as I expected. Got it. Yeah, not interested in this thread.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

One more thing:

I remember you saying earlier you wanted to "troll the ultimate troll" and somehow I had a feeling you meant me, although I didn't know your political views at the time. (Maybe that's egotistical. ) I somehow feel like this thread is made in this spirit.

 

[Hypatia]

One more thing:

I remember you saying earlier you wanted to "troll the ultimate troll" and somehow I had a feeling you meant me, although I didn't know your political views at the time. (Maybe that's egotistical. ) I somehow feel like this thread is made in this spirit.

I am going to interpret this as an invitation for general communication, though it may not be, and I intend to find out— through enacting the performative aspect (interacting with you) rather than casting aspersions at a virtual stranger before any exchange of ideas has taken place.

First of all, no, that post was in no way shape or form directed at you. I do recall making some, you might call slightly “cheeky” posts directed you because I took offense in some context where I think something regarding my personal life was being discussed. Perhaps my attitude wasn’t the most constructive, and I am sorry if that has caused you to behave more cautiously towards me. That specific post was directed at someone who engaged in what I would consider verbal acts of aggression on me, and at the time, I believe I was, what you would call, “returning the favor.” I believe we have since then pretty much resolved the confusion that was creating the enmity.

This thread was intended to broaden my political view and to anybody that wants to participate, as my question— what would you do if you had been Trump in this situation (this was the relative meaning, and if you’ll pardon me, I’d rather not repeat this clarification for the 3rd or 4th time); however, I would very much consider you and Dr. Anaximanders’ continuous attempts to vilify me as a shouting racist or ‘just another martyr’ for Trump’s cause or some other bullshit like that (I’m calling it bullshit, because it is a baseless accusation, and needlessly disparaging) as unnecessary derails. Not to mention the clearly inflammatory image.

I am willing to perform as many clarifications as possible if my past behavior has made you uncomfortable in any way, and invite you to private message me to point to any specific instances in the past, furthermore, that has aroused any kind of suspicion against my character. However, that being said, I must insist and repeat that this thread had no malicious intent to either the BLM movement or Mexicans. Yes, I read that there’s been an influx of fentanyl into our country (the United States, I’m presuming), so the initial topic addressed Trump’s stance on these issues. I read that he was in the middle of building a wall on the southern border. I am not sure whether that would be efficacious or not, but I believe (as I think I made it clear in the OP) that I would support efforts to keep the border between the U.S. and Mexico more secure, to stop drug traffickers. I don’t know how you could possibly conclude I am a shouting racist based on that belief. Perhaps not all drug traffickers are Mexican, but it seems that currently, I would prefer if fentanyl consumption and travel be reduced. Perhaps I am ignorant on this issue somehow. I know people have different opinions concerning issues like the “War on Drugs,” and of course I’d be happy to converse with you on that as well.

I hope I’ve finally assuaged your fears that I would have no malicious intent towards you if you had a different opinion to me. I was just simply pointing out the obvious— that I am here to seek out a different opinion. If you had any further concerns you’d like to drag out from our past interactions on the forum, maybe it would be more appropriate to hash them out with me via PM, although I don’t necessarily mind it here. I would just prefer that the end result be that my initial question hopefully gets a proper address.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am going to interpret this as an invitation for general communication, though it may not be, and I intend to find out— through enacting the performative aspect (interacting with you) rather than casting aspersions at a virtual stranger before any exchange of ideas has taken place.

First of all, no, that post was in no way shape or form directed at you. I do recall making some, you might call slightly “cheeky” posts directed you because I took offense in some context where I think something regarding my personal life was being discussed. Perhaps my attitude wasn’t the most constructive, and I am sorry if that has caused you to behave more cautiously towards me. That specific post was directed at someone who engaged in what I would consider verbal acts of aggression on me, and at the time, I believe I was, what you would call, “returning the favor.” I believe we have since then pretty much resolved the confusion that was creating the enmity.

This thread was intended to broaden my political view and to anybody that wants to participate, as my question— what would you do if you had been Trump in this situation (this was the relative meaning, and if you’ll pardon me, I’d rather not repeat this clarification for the 3rd or 4th time); however, I would very much consider you and Dr. Anaximanders’ continuous attempts to vilify me as a shouting racist or ‘just another martyr’ for Trump’s cause or some other bullshit like that (I’m calling it bullshit, because it is a baseless accusation, and needlessly disparaging) as unnecessary derails. Not to mention the clearly inflammatory image.

I am willing to perform as many clarifications as possible if my past behavior has made you uncomfortable in any way, and invite you to private message me to point to any specific instances in the past, furthermore, that has aroused any kind of suspicion against my character. However, that being said, I must insist and repeat that this thread had no malicious intent to either the BLM movement or Mexicans. Yes, I read that there’s been an influx of fentanyl into our country (the United States, I’m presuming), so the initial topic addressed Trump’s stance on these issues. I read that he was in the middle of building a wall on the southern border. I am not sure whether that would be efficacious or not, but I believe (as I think I made it clear in the OP) that I would support efforts to keep the border between the U.S. and Mexico more secure, to stop drug traffickers. I don’t know how you could possibly conclude I am a shouting racist based on that belief. Perhaps not all drug traffickers are Mexican, but it seems that currently, I would prefer if fentanyl consumption and travel be reduced. Perhaps I am ignorant on this issue somehow. I know people have different opinions concerning issues like the “War on Drugs,” and of course I’d be happy to converse with you on that as well.

I hope I’ve finally assuaged your fears that I would have no malicious intent towards you if you had a different opinion to me. I was just simply pointing out the obvious— that I am here to seek out a different opinion. If you had any further concerns you’d like to drag out from our past interactions on the forum, maybe it would be more appropriate to hash them out with me via PM, although I don’t necessarily mind it here. I would just prefer that the end result be that my initial question hopefully gets a proper address.

I will apologize for assuming that the thing about trolling the ultimate troll was directed at me.

I will not apologize for that image I posted. I do not believe politicians warrant some kind of special respect and reverence that means it is inappropriate to post ridiculous images of them. (Death threats are another matter). I think it is more significant that we have a tradition of selecting leaders that do not warrant respect (and to be honest, it seems to be a bipartisan thing). To me that is the more serious issue and the more grievous offense.

People who abuse fentanyl should count themselves lucky that they are being treated with a level of compassion and care in the national discourse that was not extended to African Americans who used crack or even marijuana which is now legal in many states. Joe Biden is part of that legacy as well. Again, it comes down to why I don't believe politicians deserve my respect when they have, whether out of corruption or just incompetence, mismanaged things so acutely.

I am frankly tired of hearing about drugs as public enemy number one when there are far larger problems the political system seems indifferent to. I grew up in the 90s with "Just say no" and all kinds of anti-drug propaganda in schools and about 75% of it was garbage. If drugs are so dangerous and life-destroying, then how come the previous four presidents all used them? ( I don't know about Biden but there is no way Trump never did cocaine).

They made it sound like if you even tried pot just once your life would be ruined.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

To put this number into perspective, COVID-19 has killed 61,885 people ages 0-49 years in the United States since the pandemic began. By contrast, fentanyl overdoses numbered around 65,000 between May 2020 and April 2021.

Also... curious that they are covering Covid deaths ages 0-49 but not limiting fentanyl deaths to ages 0-49.

The figures on total (not some cherry-picked demographic) U.S. Covid deaths are 937K. That's over 10 times more than the 65K given for fentanyl. There would have to be a massive spike in fentanyl deaths for this current 12-month period to overtake that total. If you have evidence of a massive enough spike in ODs during this time, please share.

 

[Hypatia]

I will not apologize for that image I posted. I do not believe politicians warrant some kind of special respect and reverence that means it is inappropriate to post ridiculous images of them. (Death threats are another matter). I think it is more significant that we have a tradition of selecting leaders that do not warrant respect (and to be honest, it seems to be a bipartisan thing). To me that is the more serious issue and the more grievous offense.

That's fair.

I believe the forum rules stipulate it has to be a pattern, and I assumed, (deemed to be) unwarranted by other forum members on a consistent basis in order for it to be truly considered a problem. I respect your ideas regarding free expression and now find it to be understandable given you were trying to pre-emptively prevent some anticipated negative response from me. I will still hold that it would probably be found by 'the average reasonable person' (according to that legal theory/idea of reasonableness) to probably be unnecessarily interpersonally inflammatory, but I understand why you posted it, and I support your right to free expression in general in the context that you thought I would behave unreasonably, so it didn't really matter what you said (right?). I would say that I would probably not call it high art, but perhaps I sound like a snob. I don't know if this is relevant, but I associate images like that with postmodernist schools instinctively and I remember that school giving me the heeby jeebies in college, but perhaps that is too subjective of a consideration. I do agree with your subjectivity that artists are free to express what they wish (within reason-- meaning, I believe even artists should consider the impact of certain forms of 'art' on society but not necessarily barred from proselytizing what they create. I think education is the key here. If they intend for something to be grotesque, I think I would be a lot more comfortable with viewing it or sanctioning it as art. Otherwise, I might be afraid that grotesqueness, or what I consider to be grotesque, might be all they're capable of thinking in/creating, but perhaps I jumped to a conclusion there, since I have no information about the author of that painting). I guess maybe it's a personal flaw to be so judgmental if I don't really consider it wholly inspiring, but a discussion on our beliefs about art are neither here nor there.

People who abuse fentanyl should count themselves lucky that they are being treated with a level of compassion and care in the national discourse that was not extended to African Americans who used crack or even marijuana which is now legal in many states. Joe Biden is part of that legacy as well. Again, it comes down to why I don't believe politicians deserve my respect when they have, whether out of corruption or just incompetence, mismanaged things so acutely.

This seems to me to be an inherently flawed notion. As time progresses and quality of life does as well (presumably and/or hopefully), then society has more resources (both physically and spiritually/mentally) to extend itself to more minorities. This is just how I feel intuitively, I don't have actual data to support this belief. So, it doesn't seem fair to characterize the national concern over fentanyl abuse as something 'unfair' compared to the supposedly plight of another group in times past. When I say supposed, I mean to prioritize the nature of personal responsibility and accountability for one's personal history, regardless if its objectively deemed as 'better or worse' in another's eyes. I mean, isn't fentanyl considered more severe? I suppose I support drug legalization for many drugs, but I'm not sure if I would support it for extremely severe ones. This is just mostly my kneejerk reaction. (Although the path to legalization and just not expending more resources on combating fentanyl are separate issues.)

I am frankly tired of hearing about drugs as public enemy number one when there are far larger problems the political system seems indifferent to. I grew up in the 90s with "Just say no" and all kinds of anti-drug propaganda in schools and about 75% of it was garbage. If drugs are so dangerous and life-destroying, then how come the previous four presidents all used them? ( I don't know about Biden but there is no way Trump never did cocaine).

They made it sound like if you even tried pot just once your life would be ruined.

The first part seems reasonable in some respects but also not reasonable in others. I did bring up fentanyl because it specifically seemed more dangerous than even drugs like cocaine or marijuana, so that is why I commended Trump for bringing up. That being said, I acknowledge that I do not know the full picture of drug trafficking and economics in our (once again, presumably) U.S. history. Since fentanyl seemed so serious, I empathized with Trump for bringing up. I also know that he is a conservative, and I believe that conservatives tend to be more protectionist, so I also felt that it was a reasonable issue to promote given his political leanings, though once again, I do not know the full picture, and I do not know if there is an alternative that would be more helpful. But it seems you are saying something like... don't bother with it? That seems kind of callous.

Also, I agree that the public school way of educating kids on drug protection, use, etc. etc could be improved. Getting kind of tired. And can see your point maybe that it might not be that worth it to care about fentanyl as a whole? (Without making it a race issue?)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I have already explained this thread was created to embolden a more initially neutral picture of Trump, at least from the outset, so I don't agree with your conclusion that my post in my own thread is off-topic. Since you made a general statement about how he offers "no workable solutions" and "many things got worse," I was curious how you felt about that specific situation. I, once again, apologize if something I said rubbed you the wrong way. I also disagree with you that I am shouting or complaining in any way.

Done

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That's fair.

I believe the forum rules stipulate it has to be a pattern, and I assumed, (deemed to be) unwarranted by other forum members on a consistent basis in order for it to be truly considered a problem. I respect your ideas regarding free expression and now find it to be understandable given you were trying to pre-emptively prevent some anticipated negative response from me. I will still hold that it would probably be found by 'the average reasonable person' (according to that legal theory/idea of reasonableness) to probably be unnecessarily interpersonally inflammatory, but I understand why you posted it, and I support your right to free expression in general in the context that you thought I would behave unreasonably, so it didn't really matter what you said (right?). I would say that I would probably not call it high art, but perhaps I sound like a snob. I don't know if this is relevant, but I associate images like that with postmodernist schools instinctively and I remember that school giving me the heeby jeebies in college, but perhaps that is too subjective of a consideration. I do agree with your subjectivity that artists are free to express what they wish (within reason-- meaning, I believe even artists should consider the impact of certain forms of 'art' on society but not necessarily barred from proselytizing what they create. I think education is the key here. If they intend for something to be grotesque, I think I would be a lot more comfortable with viewing it or sanctioning it as art. Otherwise, I might be afraid that grotesqueness, or what I consider to be grotesque, might be all they're capable of thinking in/creating, but perhaps I jumped to a conclusion there, since I have no information about the author of that painting). I guess maybe it's a personal flaw to be so judgmental if I don't really consider it wholly inspiring, but a discussion on our beliefs about art are neither here nor there.


This seems to me to be an inherently flawed notion. As time progresses and quality of life does as well (presumably and/or hopefully), then society has more resources (both physically and spiritually/mentally) to extend itself to more minorities. This is just how I feel intuitively, I don't have actual data to support this belief. So, it doesn't seem fair to characterize the national concern over fentanyl abuse as something 'unfair' compared to the supposedly plight of another group in times past. When I say supposed, I mean to prioritize the nature of personal responsibility and accountability for one's personal history, regardless if its objectively deemed as 'better or worse' in another's eyes. I mean, isn't fentanyl considered more severe? I suppose I support drug legalization for many drugs, but I'm not sure if I would support it for extremely severe ones. This is just mostly my kneejerk reaction. (Although the path to legalization and just not expending more resources on combating fentanyl are separate issues.)


The first part seems reasonable in some respects but also not reasonable in others. I did bring up fentanyl because it specifically seemed more dangerous than even drugs like cocaine or marijuana, so that is why I commended Trump for bringing up. That being said, I acknowledge that I do not know the full picture of drug trafficking and economics in our (once again, presumably) U.S. history. Since fentanyl seemed so serious, I empathized with Trump for bringing up. I also know that he is a conservative, and I believe that conservatives tend to be more protectionist, so I also felt that it was a reasonable issue to promote given his political leanings, though once again, I do not know the full picture, and I do not know if there is an alternative that would be more helpful. But it seems you are saying something like... don't bother with it? That seems kind of callous.

Also, I agree that the public school way of educating kids on drug protection, use, etc. etc could be improved. Getting kind of tired. And can see your point maybe that it might not be that worth it to care about fentanyl as a whole? (Without making it a race issue?)

I think you are not as neutral on Trump as you are claiming to be, which is making me suspicious of your motives. I think that much of your objection to the image I posted has to do with the specific individual in question.

As for fentanyl, I should also note that the article you posted misrepresented statistics to make a false claim that fentanyl overdoses are a larger cause of death than Covid-19. Is the issue we want to talk really that fentanyl is a big problem, or is it about what a great president Trump was? If it's the former, why are statistics being displayed in such a misleading function to make it look like covid-19 (which Trump bungled) is a distraction from "real problems".

I'll be happy to talk about fentanyl if you can admit that Covid-19 is a bigger problem, rather than believing in an assertion based on something totally baseless because it makes Trump look better.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Programs like Dare and the 80s war on drugs were expensive PR campaigns which allegedly led to increased drug use among minors. Some people who were students during the DARE campaign have since alleged that some of the cops visiting schools to lecture about drugs would try to spot children of potential potheads and used intel gained from DARE visits to bust said parents.

Unfortunately Trump and most GOP politicians seem to want to go back to the failed and costly prohibition of all drugs and criminilization of people with addictions which are better treated when regarded as sicknesses than as moral transgressions.

But we can just keep trying that same approach, even though prohibition has never been proven to work toward its desired effects.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Programs like Dare and the 80s war on drugs were expensive PR campaigns which allegedly led to increased drug use among minors. Some people who were students during the DARE campaign have since alleged that some of the cops visiting schools to lecture about drugs would try to spot children of potential potheads and used intel gained from DARE visits to bust said parents.

Unfortunately Trump and most GOP politicians seem to want to go back to the failed and costly prohibition of all drugs and criminilization of people with addictions which are better treated when regarded as sicknesses than as moral transgressions.

But we can just keep trying that same approach, even though prohibition has never been proven to work toward its desired effects.

Naturally this is the case even though both Dubya and Trump have done drugs. "But it's ok when they do it because they're rich and tell me they like the Bible now."

Disgusting bootlickers.

 

[Hypatia]

I think you are not as neutral on Trump as you are claiming to be, which is making me suspicious of your motives. I think that much of your objection to the image I posted has to do with the specific individual in question.

As for fentanyl, I should also note that the article you posted misrepresented statistics to make a false claim that fentanyl overdoses are a larger cause of death than Covid-19. Is the issue we want to talk really that fentanyl is a big problem, or is it about what a great president Trump was? If it's the former, why are statistics being displayed in such a misleading function to make it look like covid-19 (which Trump bungled) is a distraction from "real problems".

I'll be happy to talk about fentanyl if you can admit that Covid-19 is a bigger problem, rather than believing in an assertion based on something totally baseless because it makes Trump look better.

I'm not sure you are understanding how hypocritical you are behaving. This is not a thread about me. This is a thread about Trump. The fact that you are levying baseless accusations towards what you project my 'real private judgments are,' despite me already having the integrity, honesty, and assiduousness to tackle each of your 'private judgment accusations,' makes me think you are not interested in having open dialogue with me, and are more interested in controlling 'what I really think" with more accusations. I have already told you what I am interested in discussing-- you have not brokered enough trust and agreement from me to unilaterally dictate the terms of this conversation, and to be frank, you are acting as if I am your enemy, which I suspect is because I angered you because you detected I do not wholly disapprove of Trump, which I already admitted. You are creating a false polemic that I must either have similar sentiments as you, or I must be a hero worshipper.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I'd be shocked if Trump could quote more than a few verses form the bible.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm not sure you are understanding how hypocritical you are behaving. This is not a thread about me. This is a thread about Trump. The fact that you are levying baseless accusations towards what you project my 'real private judgments are,' despite me already having the integrity, honesty, and assiduousness to tackle each of your 'private judgment accusations,' makes me think you are not interested in having open dialogue with me, and are more interested in controlling 'what I really think" with more accusations. I have already told you what I am interested in discussing-- you have not brokered enough trust and agreement from me to unilaterally dictate the terms of this conversation, and to be frank, you are acting as if I am your enemy, which I suspect is because I angered you because you detected I do not wholly disapprove of Trump, which I already admitted. You are creating a false polemic that I must either have similar sentiments as you, or I must be a hero worshipper.

I think you are misrepresenting your feelings towards Trump, and I wonder why someone would do that.

Why did you quote an article that painted a false picture of the fentanyl epidemic as worse than Covid if this is not the case? Can we address that?

I'll be happy to have an open discussion with you if you demonstrate that you are a person who is willing to actually acknowledge facts, in this case, the fact that many more people have died from Covid than fentanyl over the past two years. If we aren't operating from a shared assumption that objective reality is a thing that exists and there are facts that can confirm or deny a particular assertion, there is no point in me discussing things with you.

Do you believe that the death toll from Covid is higher than the death toll from fentanyl?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'd be shocked if Trump could quote more than a few verses form the bible.

He had trouble deciding if he liked the old testament or new testament better when asked. I wish I could find the clip, it's hilarious.

Evangelicals are so stupid.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Here it is:

Wow Evangelicals gotta be some excellent judges of character to trust that man.

 

[Coriolis]

Programs like Dare and the 80s war on drugs were expensive PR campaigns which allegedly led to increased drug use among minors. Some people who were students during the DARE campaign have since alleged that some of the cops visiting schools to lecture about drugs would try to spot children of potential potheads and used intel gained from DARE visits to bust said parents.

Unfortunately Trump and most GOP politicians seem to want to go back to the failed and costly prohibition of all drugs and criminilization of people with addictions which are better treated when regarded as sicknesses than as moral transgressions.

But we can just keep trying that same approach, even though prohibition has never been proven to work toward its desired effects.

I remember being forced to sit through a program similar to DARE. I wanted to say: I don't do drugs and never will; can I leave now and do something useful? Approaching kids - or anyone - as if they are miscreants in the making sends the wrong message and undermines efforts to engage them in positive and productive activities.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Here it is:

Wow Evangelicals gotta be some excellent judges of character to trust that man.

The scary thing about evangelicals supporting morally questionable candidates is that they are often quite aware of these candidates' character and knowingly support them as means to an ends. Many don't actually care if Trump is devout or has read the bible, so long as he is working toward the vision they want.

Evangelicals are a breed entirely their own, apart from other christians.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The scary thing about evangelicals supporting morally questionable candidates is that they are often quite aware of these candidates' character and knowingly support them as means to an ends. Many don't actually care if Trump is devout or has read the bible, so long as he is working toward the vision they want.

Evangelicals are a breed entirely their own, apart from other christians.

Yeah, to me that never made much sense either (and people do this is numerous countries).
They just vote for the bad guys out of spite and think this will achieve something.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah, to me that never made much sense either (and people do this is numerous countries).
They just vote for the bad guys out of spite and think this will achieve something.

The annoying thing to me is how after they do this, they whine about the unreasonable "hatred" being shown towards them and how unfair it is and people are just being so gosh darn mean to them. (Let's keep in mind that they got excited by someone promising to treat someone like shit). I mean literally part of the reason they loved Trump is because he upset the right people (and I wouldn't be surprised if any policy goals or achievements were really secondary to that). Now they feel sad and persecuted when those people don't like them, or if people don't like them in general? Poor babies.

Social consequences for poor behavior isn't oppression, it's how society works. If you support destroying your own country just out of spite, maybe it's not really a problem that there are consequences for that?