A Few Words On Censorship

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

tokeless wrote:.... a police officer also died day Richard. Trump said "See you there as he told them to March... he never got there... surprise?

Seriously, do you actually think Trump wasn't rousing the rebels? Do you actually believe he didn't know how they would act or that he was ever going to be there? He could have staged his talk there and kept it peaceful and patriotic... couldn't he?

-1- Which police officer? You mean Brian Sicknick, the officer that was ruled to have died the day after the protests from two strokes?
But let's assume you are correct. Let's pretend that the pepper spray was the cause of death and the medical examiner was bought and paid for. Dozens of officers are killed each year in the US. It doesn't make it the fault of any president.

Big case of whataboutery there Richard. The examiner was a bought guy??? Really? Not that you can't buy experts in whatever you want... Trump is no angel there.
Yes, dozens are killed every year, tough job with lots of risk. You were a cop once weren't you? If you believe Trump wasn't the antagonist then we can leave that there because it's your belief... no problem.

-2- If I'm a politician and say, "peacefully and patriotically" and then am informed some supporters have started using violence, it should be no surprise to anyone that I don't show up, that I never "got there".

That is just denial of the behaviour of politicians or people of power... you'll tell me he wanted everyone to get on in life next.


I get why you believe what you believe. You don't actually offer anything other than exactly what the liberal content creators have offered up. You deviate from the liberal narrative by 0%.

Liberal as in? Liberal by definition is free or open, so I believe in free or open content and you think that makes me biased??? You'll need to elaborate that point because I'm not sure you mean that. Should I read right wing media to get the truth?

Personally, I hope Trump never runs for office again. I think it is sad that out of 330 million people the best we had to offer up to the nation was Trump vs. Hillary.

Hey, that's your countries politics. Why do you think you have such limited choice? Trump stands for Trump, thinks only of what's in it for Trump, his loyalty is to Trump. Unless, all the information about Trump, his early years, the failed business and debts, dodgy friends in the criminal world is all fake news... people that know and worked with him are liars, staged actors or bought guys.... that must be it??

tokeless wrote:Hey, that's your countries politics. Why do you think you have such limited choice? Trump stands for Trump, thinks only of what's in it for Trump, his loyalty is to Trump. Unless, all the information about Trump, his early years, the failed business and debts, dodgy friends in the criminal world is all fake news... people that know and worked with him are liars, staged actors or bought guys.... that must be it??

Again, 100% the talking points of the liberal media. Not a single deviation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... nald_Trump

A list of all his executive actions.

I get why people might buy into the left wing demonization leading up to the election and even while he was in office. It's politics. Day after day of spinning every sliver of information as Trump being the devil. But now that he is no longer in office and you can actually read the executive actions, one might think a bit of sober reality might set in.

There is a difference between the emotional reaction to his Tweets and how he was portrayed by the media you absorb and his actual actions.

Do you see the liberal media as a bad thing Richard? What media do you trust is telling us the truth?

Do you see the liberal media as a bad thing Richard? What media do you trust is telling us the truth?

The wiki page probably makes more sense to you in terms of the proclamations and admimstrative stuff, as it's your country's set up. Do you think he was an honest president with genuine integrity? Why do you think he's being pursued legally?

tokeless wrote:Do you see the liberal media as a bad thing Richard? What media do you trust is telling us the truth?

I see “the media” as a dangerous thing. By the media I mean the profession of journalism or anyone claiming that they are reporting news. And I don’t trust any media to tell the truth. You do?

Do you not see…or maybe you just do not agree, that there has been a major shift in the ethics of journalism that has taken place over the last few decades? Roughly aligned with the rise of the digital age.

In the early 1900’s the term “Yellow Journalism” surfaced. The term was used to denote the use of sensationalism to generate profits. It evolved into discussions of ethics in journalism.

When I was younger the tabloids were the “journalists” that sensationalized gossip to turn a profit. I use quotations around journalist, because anyone working for a tabloid was not reporting facts, but rather a version of the facts that would paint a narrative to pump up the gossip, make people look horrible, and get more people to buy that trash. And the business model worked.

At the same time you had the news. There were a handful of stations where actual journalists reported the facts and tried to maintain some ethics in how they relayed information to the public. Certainly there was still some bias, but it was not blatant or intentional like the tabloids.

My opinion is that we are in a new “dark age” of journalism. We have not come to grips with the impacts as it is now normal for a mainstream news organization to employ “Yellow Journalism” to push a particular view that makes a profit and serves their overall strategy, e.g. power through political affiliations.

So how do I know what is true? I will see an issue in the media, and if it peaks my interest I will find information posted by non-journalists on various social media platforms. For example, the Freedom Convoy in Canada. I don’t trust the media, but you can find hundreds of videos posted by people actually participating. They are not journalists, just people sharing what they see happening.

Does that mean I know “the truth”? Nope. But I’ll trust multiple sources from non-journalists any day over these unethical $hitb@gs claiming they are journalists as they post sensationalized twisted crap on behalf of XYZ media.

The wiki page probably makes more sense to you in terms of the proclamations and admimstrative stuff, as it's your country's set up. Do you think he was an honest president with genuine integrity? Why do you think he's being pursued legally?

Look at his actions tokeless. That is my point. Like any politician, I don’t trust a damn thing that comes out of their mouth. I only care about what they actually do. You can look at what he actually signed. You don’t need to agree with his actions, but his actions do not demonstrate the emotional narrative that paints him as some demonic, evil, narcissistic, racist, self-absorbed, wanna be dictator. Far from it.

And why is he being pursued? Because politically he is still a major threat. You do realize that legal action is a very common political weapon, right? Hillary Clinton has been sued over 900 times. She was sued 20 times just over the email scandal. Over 3,000 lawsuits were filed against Obama.

Journalism has always had its leanings. In the UK the labour papers are the Daily Mirror, whereas Tory or even right wing include The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and the tabloid The Sun. When you see their headline or stories you need to bear that in mind. I think it comes down to the press Barons like Murdoch as they set the tone. This is a concern because what is believable these days? Despite your assertions that I believe what I am told without question, I don't and am naturally cynical of what authority tells me. I trust none without question. I have read about Trump, watched documentary on him and about him. The guy is narcissistic without doubt, he is corruptible without doubt. He may have signed lots of things off, but how many did he actually care about? How much was done to gain favour by the people who pushed for it? I don't believe he does anything of significance if he doesn't benefit. His tax is very questionable and for a POTUS I think that's wrong. The UK is no better and Johnson has enacted the Trump approach with disastrous results.... for others, not him

tokeless wrote:The guy is narcissistic without doubt, he is corruptible without doubt. He may have signed lots of things off, but how many did he actually care about? How much was done to gain favour by the people who pushed for it? I don't believe he does anything of significance if he doesn't benefit.

This is the issue. The above labels a person as good or evil, placing them in a no win situation. If they do something you consider negative it reinforces that your perception is correct and that they are a horrible human. If they do anything you might consider positive, then you assign some ulterior motive. The person is in a lose lose situation, because you have put them in a box. No matter the persons actions, because you are so 100% dead set that they are some version of Hitler, it becomes impossible to look at any of the actions as positive.

He is one of a handful of presidents that left office with less money. The Clintons increased their wealth 200x, the Obamas 70x. How exactly did Trump benefit?

And the canned response is of course the spin that while Trump is completely self serving and as you stated, “I don’t believe he does anything of significance if he doesn’t benefit,” yet you will explain away how he left office with less wealth as him somehow being stupid, or the people being smart, etc.

It’s such an interesting set of hurdles you need to jump to resolve that paradox. You have to paint the picture of the stupid genius. Talented enough to get elected President, but not talented enough to make it profitable like the vast majority of other presidents, e.g. Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc.

You say you are %100 sure about a win then you claim he is %100 dead. What do you want the guy to do?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

tokeless wrote:The guy is narcissistic without doubt, he is corruptible without doubt. He may have signed lots of things off, but how many did he actually care about? How much was done to gain favour by the people who pushed for it? I don't believe he does anything of significance if he doesn't benefit.

This is the issue. The above labels a person as good or evil, placing them in a no win situation. If they do something you consider negative it reinforces that your perception is correct and that they are a horrible human. If they do anything you might consider positive, then you assign some ulterior motive. The person is in a lose lose situation, because you have put them in a box. No matter the persons actions, because you are so 100% dead set that they are some version of Hitler, it becomes impossible to look at any of the actions as positive.

He is one of a handful of presidents that left office with less money. The Clintons increased their wealth 200x, the Obamas 70x. How exactly did Trump benefit?

And the canned response is of course the spin that while Trump is completely self serving and as you stated, “I don’t believe he does anything of significance if he doesn’t benefit,” yet you will explain away how he left office with less wealth as him somehow being stupid, or the people being smart, etc.

It’s such an interesting set of hurdles you need to jump to resolve that paradox. You have to paint the picture of the stupid genius. Talented enough to get elected President, but not talented enough to make it profitable like the vast majority of other presidents, e.g. Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc.

Richard, it's rarely the person on the throne that gets there on talent...the people that back them make the kings. Murdoch is known as the King maker here. He has that much influence. I mentioned before that according to many, Trump didn't want to win, he wanted runner up because you don't investigate the loser.... his aim was to use the race to make money. When you say he left office with less than others... have you seen his accounts? If so, let the IRS know because they can't get at them.

This is the issue. The above labels a person as good or evil, placing them in a no win situation. If they do something you consider negative it reinforces that your perception is correct and that they are a horrible human. If they do anything you might consider positive, then you assign some ulterior motive. The person is in a lose lose situation, because you have put them in a box.

Narcissists can sometimes be helpful and caring. However, more often than not, they only pretend to have these qualities. Moreover, even when they act giving and helping, they are not motivated by empathy because they severely lack it, and as a result, their help is often not very productive.

tokeless wrote: I mentioned before that according to many, Trump didn't want to win, he wanted runner up because you don't investigate the loser.... his aim was to use the race to make money.

According to many. And according to many the virus is made up.

Again, the hurdles one must jump to believe he didn’t actually want to win. You label him a narcissist that seeks power and will do anything to win, no matter what the cost. Heck, according to how evil you make him out to be he would boot stomp babies not to lose. Yet in the same breath you want to paint him as someone willing to take second place? You can’t make that make sense.

If his goal was to make money there are much easier ways than trying to intentionally throw an election to get second place. I mean, what kind of ridiculous business plan is second place? Who makes money tokeless? THE WINNER!

It doesn’t matter if it is winning a gold medal in the Olympics, or being the Vice President, or XYZ, the person that gets second place doesn’t make the money. EVER. They don’t get the endorsements, they don’t get the power, they don’t get the money.

If you want to stick with your narcissist, Trump wants to win at all costs narrative, fine. I can get behind that. I can see Trump envisioning his family as the next Kennedy’s or Bushes, or Rockefellers. But to accomplish that level of narcissism, you don’t intentionally try to lose.

It’s just a ridiculous narrative and I truly don’t understand why you buy into it.

When you say he left office with less than others... have you seen his accounts? If so, let the IRS know because they can't get at them.

I haven’t seen Clintons or Obamas accounts either. I also haven’t seen the personal accounts of Zuckerberg or Elon Musk or any Hollywood celebrities. I also have not seen the accounts of Jeff Besos or Meghan Markle. But that doesn’t mean there are not ways to estimate a person’s wealth. People own things that are public record, for example hotels, e.g. Trump Tower. Net worth can and is estimated, not just for Trump.

Fire and Fury by Michael Wolfe: A year inside the Whitehouse. Testimony from friends, advisors but all made up obviously. It's in this about the election. The real one, not the stolen one.

Tokeless, I get that you have read and absorbed a lot of negative information about Trump. It’s the exact same thing a friend of mine did with the Clintons. You will not find a single book she has bought that paints anything other than a negative outlook. Hillary to this friend is the equivalent of what you think of Trump. Hillary is evil through and through. And how could it be otherwise? All she has ever absorbed, and continues to absorb is that narrative. She has HDS the same way you appear to suffer from TDS.

You are both wrong. Neither Hillary or Trump are super villains. Both of you have to twist the narrative to place your chosen villains into the box you have created. You explain away any good they have done as some ulterior motive, some strategic move that appears good on the surface, but really is all about their evil vision.

I posted a link to all the executive orders Trump enacted. And instead of guiding me to the evidence of how these orders were racist or evil or self-serving, you used the excuse that you are not familiar with the politics in the USA.

I posted a link to all the executive orders Trump enacted. And instead of guiding me to the evidence of how these orders were racist or evil or self-serving, you used the excuse that you are not familiar with the politics in the USA.

That's true though. It doesn't make sense to me in the context it would for you. Also, I would be too biased to see the good he does. Btw, did you ever look at what I offered you on Gaza, Wuhan? Of course you didn't... you don't need to.

Just read the lobbying ban executive order. Sounded quite ethical....

Trump revoked the order on the final day of his presidency without explanation.[4][6][12] This allowed his appointees, some of whom had had trouble finding work after the White House, to immediately begin working as lobbyists.[4][5][6] President Bill Clinton similarly revoked his comparable executive order at the end of his presidency, something Trump criticized him for during the 2016 campaign.[6]

So, not that much really. It was suggested that he used much of the wording from the former Democrats one.
If I get chance I'll look at some more as they aren't always what they seem... or is that just me looking for it?