Fox News: Democrats projected to win control of U.S. House

[mtls2005]

Sizing Up the Blue Wave

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/07/us/politics/how-democrats-took-the-house.html

[Nilats]

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

So let's just examine this sentence. First, let's start with "integrity". Seems you don't understand its meaning.

Integrity - 

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

"he is known to be a man of integrity"

synonyms:honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness

"I never doubted his integrity"

 

So...honesty? There's the 6,000 lies that have been documented and which are increasing by around 20 per day. Do you believe what he says? Then there's ethics and morals - he cheated on his three wives numerous times, he's notoriously corrupt in his business dealings...actually, let's save time. Can you give me one of these words in the definition that describes him? 

 

You seem to recognize though that governing the USA is a difficult thing, mainly because you have this opposition to whatever it is you wish to do. Do you recognize that the same conditions are in place for Democrats as well? Hence when they had control over the Congress they too couldn't just do whatever they wanted, there was this process called "rule of law" that makes things go slowly and carefully and require people who are opposed to be informed about what's happening and to have the right to try to get it changed. That's why the health care issue hasn't been resolved. Even when the Democrats have control of the Presidency and Congress, just as Trump has had for the last 2 years, they are not able to just do whatever they want, it has to be done according to rules and laws. 

 

If it makes you feel better, I believe that this slowness in getting things to change was deliberately cooked in at the start to prevent radicals from being able to shift things too quickly and easily. 

I meant integrity in my personal understanding which comes from my personal observations, some studies in psychology about non-conformism, Nietzsche and to much lesser degree Ayn Rand( just recently I found out she talked about similar things). It's a school of philosophy which stands in almost direct opposition to the traditional stoic philosophy which is where most generally accepted "definitions" come from. I find it interesting for my personal curiosity - in traditional Stoic philosophy Trump is the arch-enemy of the whole system. In Nietzsche's or maybe some similar post-modernist philosophies Trump is the main character and the new hero so to speak - it's like he's applying Nietzsche's textbook in real life and so far it looks like he's winning.

[Nyezhov]

46 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I find it interesting for my personal curiosity - in traditional Stoic philosophy Trump is the arch-enemy of the whole system. In Nietzsche's or maybe some similar post-modernist philosophies Trump is the main character and the new hero so to speak - it's like he's applying Nietzsche's textbook in real life and so far it looks like he's winning.

OK. ????

 

I dont think President Trump knows what a stoic is, and if someone said Nietzsche to him he would say "scratch it".

 

But he is a masterful politician in his own way, even though he is a crude NY developer.

[Nilats]

45 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

OK. ????

 

I dont think President Trump knows what a stoic is, and if someone said Nietzsche to him he would say "scratch it".

 

But he is a masterful politician in his own way, even though he is a crude NY developer.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong - he's definitely not stupid. I understand the whole Nietzschean/Ayn Rand, Anti-Socialist camp... and that's the position which he firmly acts from - he's a convinced anti-stoic, and I wouldn't be surprised that he's well aware of it.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nilats said:

I meant integrity in my personal understanding which comes from my personal observations, some studies in psychology about non-conformism, Nietzsche and to much lesser degree Ayn Rand( just recently I found out she talked about similar things). It's a school of philosophy which stands in almost direct opposition to the traditional stoic philosophy which is where most generally accepted "definitions" come from. I find it interesting for my personal curiosity - in traditional Stoic philosophy Trump is the arch-enemy of the whole system. In Nietzsche's or maybe some similar post-modernist philosophies Trump is the main character and the new hero so to speak - it's like he's applying Nietzsche's textbook in real life and so far it looks like he's winning.

The President Who Doesn't Read

Trump’s allergy to the written word and his reliance on oral communication have proven liabilities in office.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/americas-first-post-text-president/549794/

 

 

[direction BANGKOK]

Anybody every look at it like this: the history we have of flip flopping power back and forth indicates people's discontent with their lives. Maybe that is too simple, but I think there is something to it.

 

People just will not be happy no matter what. What do you do when you are not happy? You tend to go the other way. This is why "change" and all the other slogans are based around too. I am telling you, politicians essentially market themselves based on people's discontent. But it is all BS. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by direction BANGKOK

[Nyezhov]

35 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I'm afraid you are completely wrong - he's definitely not stupid. I understand the whole Nietzschean/Ayn Rand, Anti-Socialist camp... and that's the position which he firmly acts from - he's a convinced anti-stoic, and I wouldn't be surprised that he's well aware of it.

Clearly he is not stupid and never implied that, but a philosopher hes not nor does he have a consistent philosophical basis for his policy preferences.  In this regard, there is a difference between educated street smarts/autodictats and a high falutin education in the classics, and developing a consistent political philosophy based thereon. One is not better than the other in terms of good and bad, Ron Reagan was great but not the smartest intellectual in the refridgerator, Barack Obama was an "intellectual" and ineffective. The most dangerous ones are the ones who have a consistent philosophical weltanshaaung derived from either or both education and autodictatism, together with the street smarts to carry out the philosophy, the voracious reader Iosef Vissarionovich comes to mind.....

Edited November 10, 2018 by Nyezhov

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I'm afraid you are completely wrong - he's definitely not stupid. I understand the whole Nietzschean/Ayn Rand, Anti-Socialist camp... and that's the position which he firmly acts from - he's a convinced anti-stoic, and I wouldn't be surprised that he's well aware of it.

Sure, the guy who spent most of his career schmoozing with politicians.

Good to know you're not in the Trunp camp. God knows what sycophantic factoids you'd invent if you were. Although this one would be pretty hard to top.

[Nilats]

16 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Clearly he is not stupid and never implied that, but a philosopher hes not nor does he have a consistent philosophical basis for his policy preferences.  In this regard, there is a difference between educated street smarts/autodictats and a high falutin education in the classics, and developing a consistent political philosophy based thereon. One is not better than the other in terms of good and bad, Ron Reagan was great but not the smartest intellectual in the refridgerator, Barack Obama was an "intellectual" and ineffective. The most dangerous ones are the ones who have a consistent philosophical weltanshaaung derived from either or both education and autodictatism, together with the street smarts to carry out the philosophy, the voracious reader Iosef Vissarionovich comes to mind.....

I give you this point, I think you are right, it does concern me a little bit because his approach does seem maybe a bit too literal - but then who's there to say at the moment - this movement allows a lot of flexibility and a theory is just a theory until it's put into practice - he's the first who's ever taken the whole camp this far - after he's done with his term or maybe halfway through the second one - we can perhaps start to draw some conclusions. It's not really any kind of a fundamentalist ideology - so hopefully we'll be alright ???? As for the Iosef Vissarionovich factor - I think you are a bit correct but then I think Angela Merkel fits this comparison much better than Trump does at the moment imo ????

[mtls2005]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

I dont think President Trump knows what a stoic is, and if someone said Nietzsche to him he would say "scratch it".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I give you this point, I think you are right, it does concern me a little bit because his approach does seem maybe a bit too literal - but then who's there to say at the moment - this movement allows a lot of flexibility and a theory is just a theory until it's put into practice - he's the first who's ever taken the whole camp this far - after he's done with his term or maybe halfway through the second one - we can perhaps start to draw some conclusions. It's not really any kind of a fundamentalist ideology - so hopefully we'll be alright ???? As for the Iosef Vissarionovich factor - I think you are a bit correct but then I think Angela Merkel fits this comparison much better than Trump does at the moment imo ????

In your philosophical studies, have you by any chance come across the precept from a certain William of Occam? The precept called Occam's Razor? you know the one that says the best explanation for the facts is the simplest one.  It pretty much the governing principle not just for science but all serious scholarchip. Is there any evidence at all that Donald Trump has ever even read philosophy? Was he ever spotted with a book of it? Has anyone ever mentioned having a conversation with him about it? Or is it that in this one aspect of his life, he's reticent about his accomplishments? 

Next you'll be telling us that Copernicus got it wrong and the Sun moves around the Earth.

[bristolboy]

And the "trickle" keeps on getting bigger. It might even get as high as 39 seats for the Democrats. Right now 36 looks like a pretty sure bet.

GOP Rep. Denham falls behind Democrat as 3 other Republicans lose ground in Friday's ballot tally

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-house-vote-counts-20181109-story.html

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by bristolboy

[candide]

10 hours ago, Nilats said:

I meant integrity in my personal understanding which comes from my personal observations, some studies in psychology about non-conformism, Nietzsche and to much lesser degree Ayn Rand( just recently I found out she talked about similar things). It's a school of philosophy which stands in almost direct opposition to the traditional stoic philosophy which is where most generally accepted "definitions" come from. I find it interesting for my personal curiosity - in traditional Stoic philosophy Trump is the arch-enemy of the whole system. In Nietzsche's or maybe some similar post-modernist philosophies Trump is the main character and the new hero so to speak - it's like he's applying Nietzsche's textbook in real life and so far it looks like he's winning.

A Nietzschean perspective on Trumpism. Lol! Trump the Ubermensch! Ah! Ah!

Trumpism is more like men of resentment pretending to be masters!

Anyway, any simple interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy (including the one I just made) is irrelevant due to its complexity and its aestetic stance. 

 

 

[Nilats]

1 hour ago, candide said:

A Nietzschean perspective on Trumpism. Lol! Trump the Ubermensch! Ah! Ah!

Trumpism is more like men of resentment pretending to be masters!

Anyway, any simple interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy (including the one I just made) is irrelevant due to its complexity and its aestetic stance. 

 

 

I've discovered a lot of connect points with that camp of Philosophy during Trump's campaign... also many connect points in his ancestry, his family, the way he runs the country, foreign policy, his behaviour, his domestic policies etc... Btw Trump's favourite book is the main novel written by Ayn Rand.

[candide]

5 hours ago, Nilats said:

I've discovered a lot of connect points with that camp of Philosophy during Trump's campaign... also many connect points in his ancestry, his family, the way he runs the country, foreign policy, his behaviour, his domestic policies etc... Btw Trump's favourite book is the main novel written by Ayn Rand.

I'm not particularly a fan of Rand, but it seems to me that the golden boys and digital entrepreneurs  that Trumpists despise are very near to her ideal of heroic man.

And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit.

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

 

[Nilats]

3 hours ago, candide said:

I'm not particularly a fan of Rand, but it seems to me that the golden boys and digital entrepreneurs  that Trumpists despise are very near to her ideal of heroic man.

And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit.

I wouldn't put any emphasis on Rand, she never wrote anything original imo... she based all her works on earlier thinkers who explored all these ideas much more thoroughly and better. You are veering off topic... I simply pointed out that you need to understand Trump's background better to rate his *integrity* relative to many other politicians, he doesn't really deviate that much from any of his personal convictions.

[mtls2005]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Right now 36 looks like a pretty sure bet.

 

Yes, that looks like the likely outcome in the House, at a minimum. It might tick up to 37?

 

No clue what happens to indicted Republican Congressmen Hunter and Collins? I guess they can serve - under a cloud - until exonerated or found/plead guilty? Any subsequent special election to replace one/both would presumably be won by a republican candidate?

 

 

[Nilats]

7 hours ago, candide said:

I'm not particularly a fan of Rand, but it seems to me that the golden boys and digital entrepreneurs  that Trumpists despise are very near to her ideal of heroic man.

And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit.

"And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit." This one line what cheap propaganda.

 

Not a fan but she argued against Statism for 3 main reasons - because it's responsible for Nazism, Communism and Crony Capitalism - all which hurt free society, individual rights, wealth and so on... I don't see exactly how you increase the quality of this debate when you and your comrades continuously fabricate and twist facts around in this way. "Quite Trumpist in this way"... lol you don't even know what she ever argued in the first place... educate yourself... Hillarist ???? 

[candide]

6 hours ago, Nilats said:

"And of course, after promoting selfishness as key value and despising "statism", she was happy to register to social security and medicare when she had a cancer. Quite Trumpist in this way, I admit." This one line what cheap propaganda.

 

Not a fan but she argued against Statism for 3 main reasons - because it's responsible for Nazism, Communism and Crony Capitalism - all which hurt free society, individual rights, wealth and so on... I don't see exactly how you increase the quality of this debate when you and your comrades continuously fabricate and twist facts around in this way. "Quite Trumpist in this way"... lol you don't even know what she ever argued in the first place... educate yourself... Hillarist ???? 

I know why she argued against statism and it does not weaken my point. She was for ultra-liberal capitalism, a minimal role for the state, and against altruism. And was happy to benefit from it when she needed it.

Edited November 11, 2018 by candide

[bristolboy]

On 11/8/2018 at 7:34 AM, Nyezhov said:

The large majority of citizens, even ones who voted against Trump, are doing better right now than they have in years. Thats why the blue wave was a blue trickle. But you dont live there so what do you know?

That "trickle" is now looking like a likely gain for the democrats of 38 seats. The biggest win for them in 44 years. And that in face of widespread gerrymandering by the Republicans.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

That "trickle" is now looking like a likely gain for the democrats of 38 seats. The biggest win for them in 44 years. And that in face of widespread gerrymandering by the Republicans.

Yeah but the "trump" fans heard their dear leader say it was a great victory for him and that the lesson he learned from the vote is that people like him, so that's the alternative truth world we're dealing with here. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Yeah but the "trump" fans heard their dear leader say it was a great victory for him and that the lesson he learned from the vote is that people like him, so that's the alternative truth world we're dealing with here. 

Nate Silver says he expects the final total to be a 38 seat gain for the Democrats. Trump is winning!

[Patriot1066]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Nate Silver says he expects the final total to be a 38 seat gain for the Democrats. Trump is winning!

It doesn’t matter if it’s two or 200 he lost the house but Shad the most important bit the Senate.

 

And of course his Supreme Court pick! 

[Patriot1066]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah but the "trump" fans heard their dear leader say it was a great victory for him and that the lesson he learned from the vote is that people like him, so that's the alternative truth world we're dealing with here. 

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

I know why she argued against statism and it does not weaken my point. She was for ultra-liberal capitalism, a minimal role for the state, and against altruism. And was happy to benefit from it when she needed it.

Sounds like most of these people with high and mighty words, they still tend to put themselves before the very things they insisted we should do. They are all pretty much the same in all political colours. 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

It doesn’t matter if it’s two or 200 he lost the house but Shad the most important bit the Senate.

 

And of course his Supreme Court pick! 

It doesn't matter? How much familiarity do you have with the American political system? Or, rather, how little? Clearly it matter a lot to Trump to judge by the particularly irate way he's been behaving since the election. Threatening retalatory investigations against Democrats? And guess with chamber of Congress gets to create budget bills? How do you think the Democrats are going to use that power? To put Trump and the Senate on the spot when the democrats propose popular bills. You know, like a bill to mandate insurers cover pre-existing conditions, if as is not unlikely, the Supreme court reverses Obamacare. Or reversing the tax cut to fund health care and/or infrastructure. The Republicans have a lot to be unhappy about.

[Patriot1066]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It doesn't matter? How much familiarity do you have with the American political system? Or, rather, how little? Clearly it matter a lot to Trump to judge by the particularly irate way he's been behaving since the election. Threatening retalatory investigations against Democrats? And guess with chamber of Congress gets to create budget bills? How do you think the Democrats are going to use that power? To put Trump and the Senate on the spot when the democrats propose popular bills. You know, like a bill to mandate insurers cover pre-existing conditions, if as is not unlikely, the Supreme court reverses Obamacare. Or reversing the tax cut to fund health care and/or infrastructure. The Republicans have a lot to be unhappy about.

They can’t reverse nothing as it will not get through the Senate!

 

The Dems and their far left press threaten Trump daily.

 

He fights back a leader to be proud of! One of the few delivering on his campaign promises !

[Jingthing]

How important was any house win much less a massive one? Just imagine if it hadn't flipped. That would tell the world Americans affirm the rule of the bizarre demagogue and there would be no check on his power whatsoever.

The house was a truly national election.

The senate was quite limited to mostly heavily republican states.



Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

They can’t reverse nothing as it will not get through the Senate!

 

The Dems and their far left press threaten Trump daily.

 

He fights back a leader to be proud of! One of the few delivering on his campaign promises !

He didn't promise huge tax cuts during the election. He did promise better and cheaper health care and a trillion dollar infrastructure program. And the Wall which Mexico was going to pay for. And he denounced Nafta as being a terrible deal and made basically cosmetic changes to it.

Edited November 11, 2018 by bristolboy

[metisdead]

Some more troll posts and the replies have been removed.