Impeach Trump????

[Mike Cl]

  So how many orphans are you adopting?

About the same as you.

[SGOS]

I don't hate liberals, I hate ideology ... so I hate both sides. 

No, you hate liberals.  You hate Democrats.   One can smell the venom in your posts.  Had you ever expressed that venom at conservatives or Republicans, I might believe you hate both sides.

If I were Conservative, I would be a Republican.

Why?  Not all conservatives are Republicans.  Many are Libertarian.

So Liberals are non-emotional, are objective/realist?  I don't think you meant to claim that.

No, I never said that or implied it.  That's just you shouting to an empty room about a straw man you invented on your own.

Just for your information, ideologies are not by definition bad.  They can be either good or bad.  And having no ideology is of no particular importance or even noteworthy.

[Baruch]

No, you hate liberals.  You hate Democrats.   One can smell the venom in your posts.  Had you ever expressed that venom at conservatives or Republicans, I might believe you hate both sides.

Why?  Not all conservatives are Republicans.  Many are Libertarian.

**No, I never said that or implied it.  That's just you shouting to an empty room about a straw man you invented on your own.

Just for your information, ideologies are not by definition bad.  They can be either good or bad.  And having no ideology is of no particular importance or even noteworthy.

Good clarification.  Particularly **.  I thought that is what you meant, but I didn't know for sure.

I have said plenty of times, rhetorically ... put the Ds in the Blue FEMA camp and Rs in the Red FEMA camp.  There is plenty of hatred for Republicans here, you want me to join y'all's 15 minute collective hate (see 1984)? ... but I disagree with the hatred part in general (read into MikeCLs tone sometimes).

So you think, realistically, I would execute Ds and give the Rs a pass?  I would execute their memes, both sides.  Human ideas are mostly horrid.  If I hated people X, I would certainly be in favor of killing them (see Nazis and Commies).  That is because they cause genocide.  It is self defense to kill them (but only if push comes to shove, not because they have thought crimes).  But short of that, just kill their evil ideas.

To be clear ... I hate every R there has ever been, Lincoln included ... no ... just the policies.  Lincoln was faced with an insurmountable difficulty, and did the best he could.  But he greatly strengthened the central government and the eventual reintroduction of the central bank, and British influence.  Those were side effects, I doubt he intended them.  Rs then and now are nothing like him.

To be clear ... I hate every D there has ever been, LBJ included ... no ... just the policies.  LBJ killed a million Vietnamese to help the MIC and his own investments.  He implemented an anti-family welfare system that has destroyed millions of families.  Jefferson Davis did less damage than LBJ.  Just to mention another great Democrat.  Both Jefferson Davis and LBJ wanted the President dead, and both got what they wanted.

Most people here have no notion of good or bad, other than their gut feelings.  That is part of being Liberal these days.  I think most Americans consider Libertarians to be bat-shit crazy Conservatives, worse than Republicans.  Hardly an endorsement.  Gilgamesh is perhaps a Libertarian.  I am not.  I am in favor of authoritarian government, but only the Centrist/Independent kind.

There aren't many politicians I have any respect for ... but Ellison and Gabbard are interesting people.  Aside from being politicians of course.  Both of those claim to be D.  The Clintons claim to be D, but they never were.  Never accept anyone's self-labeling.  Same thing with Sanders, he isn't a D either, and Trump isn't an R.  Y'all being played for chumps.  I suspect both Sanders and Trump are Independents.  Trump being Libertarian, and Sanders being Collectivist.

[Baruch]

About the same as you.

Yes, but are you virtuous?  You can show an angry chip on your shoulder at times.

So far, I don't see you as being a whiney hypocrite unlike some people (not posting here).

[SGOS]

I have said plenty of times, rhetorically ... put the Ds in the Blue FEMA camp and Rs in the Red FEMA camp. 

Yes, you have, but I don't believe it.  You hate liberals but defend conservatives.  If you thought they were both worthy of your disrespect, you wouldn't change the subject, reframe the debate, or deflect criticism of conservatives.  You simply don't allow for any blame of conservatives, even when they truly warrant criticism.  Your, "Yeah, but Hillary," defense exemplifies this.  You buy into all the conservative's liberal stereotyping and parrot their anti-liberal talking points.  Even worse, liberals aren't just social justice warriors, they become communists, or French revolutionaries.  These bizarre over simplifications and hyperbole address your pro conservative bias, and you should accept it if you want to be taken seriously.

[Mike Cl]

Yes, but are you virtuous?  You can show an angry chip on your shoulder at times.

Am I virtuous?  By what standard?  Actually, I don't strive for 'virtue', for that is like beauty--in the eye of the beholder.  I very much have an angry chip on my shoulder at times.  With Trump as president it is impossible not to.  I am like you, I am deeply disillusioned by what my country has become and that makes me angry.  But lately your lashing about is just plain unintelligible.  You seem so infantile in your labeling and pronouncements.  I think you are more disillusioned and angry than I.

[Unbeliever]

Hell, the Republican party's not even free of hyper-partisanship in it's own ranks. The extremists hate the less extreme for not being extreme enough. Much like the Middle East, I guess.

[Baruch]

Yes, you have, but I don't believe it.  You hate liberals but defend conservatives.  If you thought they were both worthy of your disrespect, you wouldn't change the subject, reframe the debate, or deflect criticism of conservatives.  You simply don't allow for any blame of conservatives, even when they truly warrant criticism.  Your, "Yeah, but Hillary," defense exemplifies this.  You buy into all the conservative's liberal stereotyping and parrot their anti-liberal talking points.  Even worse, liberals aren't just social justice warriors, they become communists, or French revolutionaries.  These bizarre over simplifications and hyperbole address your pro conservative bias, and you should accept it if you want to be taken seriously.

I defend traditions, but not because they are traditional.  Conservative isn't traditional ... they are simply reactionary progressives, rather than revolutionary progressives.  Nobody almost, in the US, is actually traditional (count the Amish etc).  The conservatives want to conquer the planet for the wealthy and corporations ... I don't see that as traditional at all.  The liberals want to conquer the planet for the UN and socialism ... I don't see that as liberal at all.

Almost all here are of the revolutionary progressive faction.  Gilgamesh and pr126 are reactionary progressives (they aren't anything like Amish).  This is a great opportunity for clarification.  It is a difference in how consciousness is framed (and I frame differently than when I was younger).

What separates progressive from traditional?  But don't call it regressive, it's pejorative.  Progressives look to the future (reactionaries fear it, revolutionaries embrace it).  Optimists vs pessimists, but future oriented.  Tradition means, look to the past.  And I get more clarity the farther I look back.  How not only is the American Revolution questionable, but so is the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy.  This is why I tolerate Islam ... because it is traditional.  I understand exactly what they are about (though I don't think they actually want to live per 1400 years ago).  Same thing with older forms of Christianity (see Catholicism) ... and Hinduism and Buddhism in their historical forms, not as New Age.  Classic paganism is interesting but neo-paganism is questionable, because it is projecting the present into the past.  I have spent the last two months learning what made an ancient Egyptian what he was.  Way before Western civilization was even an idea.  It gives me perspective, just as trying to get into the minds of Eastern culture does.

Y'all don't like the rhetoric?  Well it isn't my isolated view, it is contextual against all the rhetoric spewed by folks here (and anywhere).  Really, now many here will hate a politician's wife because of her clothing?  That isn't rhetorical?

[Baruch]

Am I virtuous?  By what standard?  Actually, I don't strive for 'virtue', for that is like beauty--in the eye of the beholder.  I very much have an angry chip on my shoulder at times.  With Trump as president it is impossible not to.  I am like you, I am deeply disillusioned by what my country has become and that makes me angry.  But lately your lashing about is just plain unintelligible.  You seem so infantile in your labeling and pronouncements.  I think you are more disillusioned and angry than I.

Yes, there is no truth.  Just feelings.  Reminds me of a song ...

I understand your anger, but of course am upset by it, but not at what you are angry about.  Anger is bad for the holder of it.

Yes, we are both of similar age, similar nationality ... and so are disillusioned.  Isn't it liberating to be free of idealism? (rhetorical question).

I see interesting connections, as memes come up.  Just a humble meme farmer from Kekistan.

[Mike Cl]

Yes, there is no truth.  Just feelings.  Reminds me of a song ...

I understand your anger, but of course am upset by it, but not at what you are angry about.  Anger is bad for the holder of it.

Yes, we are both of similar age, similar nationality ... and so are disillusioned.  Isn't it liberating to be free of idealism? (rhetorical question).

I see interesting connections, as memes come up.  Just a humble meme farmer from Kekistan.

Anger is like seeking revenge.  It will consume you if you let it or take it too far.  And all that does is hurt you and nobody else.  So, I do come to anger from time to time (and much more now than in the past)--but I do try to let that go after a bit.  I don't think I've ever been 'idealistic' so I can't really be free of something I've not been bound up with.  Actually, that was considered a problem by myself early in life.  I wanted to fit 'in' and idealism would have made that easier.  But as much as I wanted to embrace one idealism or another, I simply could not buy all that waneeded to buy into any particular idealism.  I just picked this idea and that idea and ran with that.  That did not lead to any particular group, in fact it seemed to keep me out of most.  As it turns out idealism is an individual thing, so I guess I am idealistic in my own way.  Sort of like the meaning of my life is unique to me.   I too, see interesting (and odd to most other people) connections, but I try not to be consumed by them or over blow them or beat them to death.

[Baruch]

All good points.  Heartfelt.  Real.

Well pessimists are never disappointed ;-)  Outside of rhetoric, I am optimistic, because young people make me be optimistic.  Then again, I wouldn't be young again, for any reason.  No reason to give up hard earned experience.

Probably what draws us together, is we both follow our own drummer.

Being too self involved, is solipsist.  I am glad there are other people, would have no balance without them.

[Cavebear]

Could she possibly have not known what she was wearing? Like putting a sign on someone's back that says "kick me"? Maybe a staffer thought they were being funny?

The message on the jacket was a very poor choice.  But she is a model and married to The Donald and used to stupid messages, so it probably didn't register with her.  But mostly, she doesn't matter.

[Unbeliever]

It's just that she (as far as I know) has never worn anything else like that, or even anything with words on it. So why would she have chosen that particular trip to have worn the silly thing? I already thought we were in the Bizarro universe, but now I'm sure.

[Cavebear]

It's just that she (as far as I know) has never worn anything else like that, or even anything with words on it. So why would she have chosen that particular trip to have worn the silly thing? I already thought we were in the Bizarro universe, but now I'm sure.

Well, I've worn some pretty stupid messages on shirts than seemed clever at the time, but my shirts held not international impact.  But for someone on the international stage, at an event designed to have meaning, who let her out dressed in that PARTICULAR jacket?  Wasn't there anyone who had a jacket for her saying "I Love You All"?

[Baruch]

I have wondered about women's clothing with trendy French on it ... does the woman know what it says?