But again your post proves me right — Baden

I agree with your point regarding Trump using the media. Obviously. You fail to see a pscyhological point about Trump as well, which I will address soon - why Trump must operate this way. It's not because he's Crooked like Hillary and will do anything to get elected - his motivation is different. I disagree that one should expect the media to be biased just because someone criticises them - that's not what one should expect because the media shouldn't be biased in the first place.

and am thoroughly enjoying the beating his psyche must be taking through these non-stop attempts to assassinate his character. — Erik

I think you misunderstand the psychology of great men - not saying Trump is a great man in the sense of being a moral man, please note that. But he is a great man in a different sense. He's great in the same way Alexander was great. He displays one quality that probably all other current politicians in the West lack - magnanimity of spirit. He doesn't care what lowly good-for-nothings think about him - he can care less. A man like him is a lone wolf. He doesn't need anyone's approval - nor does he want it. What he wants is that his greatness compels the approval of others. Not that they freely give it - but rather the same way when one stares at a beautiful painting and is forced to say "this is beautiful" so too when one looks at him, one is forced to say "Trump is great". That's what he wants - that's what he's always wanted. Such men treat their lives as pieces of art. Even if he loses the election - it doesn't matter to him - that's not proof that he's not great, like other common men would think. A great man will try again and again and will never stop trying to show his greatness - his capacity to undertake difficult actions and pull through with them. Because the source of his greatness isn't how the external world looks - it's not that he's in the ditch - the source of his greatness is that unshakable belief that he has inside of him that he is great and he can do great things, and the more failures and obstacles there are in his path the better it is because the greater he will be once he overcomes them. The more people oppose him, the more they hate him, the greater he will be once he overcomes them.

Right now he's very smart. The election is rigged he says. He has probably about 40% of the American electorate, with about 20-25% being TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP fans who would always vote for him. His people are very loyal - because they admire his greatness, which compels them to do so. He's distancing from the Republican Party because he knows the DNC will try to not let him run again in the future. He wants his electorate to remain with him - so that he will continue with the rigging of the election afterwards the same way he continued with the birther issue. He will keep his voters happy by throwing stones and bombarding Crooked after she wins. Then next election comes and the Republicans say "Not again Mr. Trump - u ain't running for us!" and he says "Fair game, then I will run as an independent and take 30% of your electorate so that you lose the election - you want that to happen? No. Then you let me run in your ballot, and if I lose I certify that I won't run as an independent". Boom. He's up there once again - he's preparing the way.

Trump will throw an election - as he has in fact done many times - in order to keep his greatness. He will not be a lowly good for nothing just to get elected. He will fuck over Paul Ryan even if this means he'll lose the election. Why? Because the more obstacles there are against him, the better. He doesn't want to win more than he wants to be great. Crooked wants to win - she doesn't care about being great, she has no character. She identifies being great with winning.

That's why I could never vote for Hillary, but I could vote for Trump. He at least has something I admire - despite the many things I hate. Hillary is just a good for nothing - a spineless liar who has no principles and no beliefs, and will do anything to get what she wants. A chameleon. That's not only evil - it is also shameful. At least Trump is great in his actions - regardless of whether they're moral or not. That is a great quality. He pushes through with them even if he knows they'll hurt him.

Same with someone like Casanova. They may be evil. But they show a virtue that has nothing to do with either good or evil: magnanimity. We can admire them even while criticising them, and disagreeing with them. They overcome insurmountable obstacles. As can someone who is good but is great - say Marcus Aurelius, or Socrates. Many men we can admire for their virtue, but not for their greatness. We can't admire anyone for their sin though unless they also have greatness. Obviously the most complete men are people like Marcus Aurelius and Socrates (who have both magnanimity and virtue) - but men like Alexander the Great, Trump, Casanova, rise up above the crowds through their one virtue: magnanimity.

The progressives destroy magnanimity - for both good and evil. The sins that they promote with regards to sexual immorality are petty and disgusting. Such sins only small men and women commit or are interested by - men and women with small souls. The sort of benevolence they promote is also petty and disgusting. Say this. Vote that. Protest. Go naked on the street. Nothing more. They don't promote the real fight against injustice, the way people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi did. Can you imagine, Martin Luther saying "I have a dream" - what awesomeness, what power, goodness and conviction emanated from the man to move his brothers and sisters to rise up against vice - to awaken the fires of their passions. These latter people are great souls. But the progressive spirit is destructive of greatness, whether this is in people like Alexander or in people like Ghandi. What we see instead is the emphasis on "facts", on "experts", on all sorts of nonsense. Not the emphasis on greatness of soul.

By the way, exactly what I've been saying:

Many women come to him and do inappropriate stuff - this is expected because they are scum, who like Crooked, would do anything in order to get what they want. There's a lot of scum in this world - and some of that scum is women too, not only men. Now before some silly progressive misinterprets this for the 9th time - this doesn't mean that Trump has never abused women himself. He probably has. But this isn't to turn a blind eye to what women also do.

Hah! Wonderful woman Melania to discipline those little twats who try to seduce her husband. That's what a strong woman does.

>:O >:O >:O >:O >:O

Trump compared to Alexander the Great.................

Hmmm... favorite philosopher Nietzsche first choice. Not an entirely bad one, Nietzsche has a lot to offer, especially about magnanimity of spirit (although I find Kierkegaard better ;) ). Second choice ... Foucault - now that one, I can't understand :P

Anyway, I'm finding the presidential election fascinating. On the one side, you have the apparatus of, if not the state, then certainly the establishment, while on the other side, you have a maverick individual.

I can't quite believe what Trump has achieved. Even the Republican party is against him, and the media is biased beyond belief.

At risk of the charge of being melodramatic, my view is that if Trump loses, democracy is over in US, at least until some sort of catastrophe happens. The pay-for-play culture is so entrenched and established, that vested interests will remain in control for a generation. The plan for the future that Soros has may be a good one, but I don't know what it is and there is no way of voting him out.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15201

And, despite the claims of CNN, it is not illegal to look at Wikileaks.

Nor can I understand comparing a toad like Trump to Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr. nor Gandhi... I guess that makes us even?

Nor can I understand comparing a toad like Trump to Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr. nor Gandhi... I guess that makes us even? — Phil

I want to see you achieve half of what Trump has achieved, and then come speak to me about that comparison ;) .

:-d :-d :-d

The natural reaction...

>:O

Just like I'm trying to be Christian :P — Agustino

Yes. What is an aspiring Stoic or Christian to do, though, in such a situation? Which megalomaniac is a more intelligent choice than the other? For my part, I can't choose Trump, who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly--thereby undermining the process itself for purely selfish reasons. That seems to me to be the most irresponsible claim made by this serially irresponsible and seriously ignorant man, and for my part it in itself renders him the more objectionable, the greater evil.

Yes. What is an aspiring Stoic or Christian to do, though, in such a situation? Which megalomaniac is a more intelligent choice than the other? For my part, I can't choose Trump, who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly--thereby undermining the process itself for purely selfish reasons. That seems to me to be the most irresponsible claim made by this serially irresponsible and seriously ignorant man, and for my part it in itself renders him the more objectionable, the greater evil. — Ciceronianus the White

I respect and honour that choice - not voting for Trump. Trump certainly has a lot of negative aspects.

However, voting for Clinton is a no-no from the start. She's a lying snake, who would do anything to get what she wants. Anything. She will be anyone, she will say anything, she will do anything. Trump at least has an ounce of self-respect - he will only accept becoming president as Trump - not as anyone else - hence why he's very willing to do quite a few actions which harm his chance of being elected. I'd rather vote for such a person even if they are evil, then vote for a snivelling and spineless hysteric who is a lesser evil. That's if one is to vote at all. One must have some decency and self-respect - Trump is evil, but Hillary is scum. I don't want to give a license to scum in order to avoid some evil.

But I do highly respect folks who would choose to abstain from the voting.

who is now claiming that if he doesn't win it will be because of fraud and encouraging others to react accordingly — Ciceronianus the White

But he is showing greatness of spirit in so doing. He's acting like Caesar in crossing the Rubicon (of course he lacks Caesar's intelligence, physical and political capabilities) - he's ignoring the consequences and going with his vision all the way. That's something of value - even if his vision is crooked, selfish, and so forth. And I might add that we're missing that in the last 60-70 years - greatness of spirit.

However, voting for Clinton is a no-no from the start. — Agustino

If you aren't a US citizen, why do you give a flip?

If you aren't a US citizen, why do you give a flip? — Mongrel

Because Trump is the first politician in the Western world in the past 50 years who displays one of the fundamental virtues that we're missing - greatness of spirit, courage to go at it all alone and fight for one's vision regardless of whether the vision is good or bad. Daring. Fighting and winning against all odds. All our other leaders are cowards - they really don't do shit (or better said they do only what is popular - only what they know will certainly get them elected - they have no real passions or beliefs - their beliefs are whatever is popular and will get them in office). We've become shielded by political correctness, by bureaucrats, by experts - someone else is thinking for us. People have no more passions - they have small passions, to go on Tinder, to shag their neighbour to do some pesky little and insignificant thing. Trump is the first one in recent history with a real passion and energy to move the world, to actually do something big and move everything he has to move to achieve it. That's refreshing to see - I thought the Western world was all but dead, with no passion or courage for anything, until I saw him dare. I thought everyone left was like Crooked - doing anything to earn another dollar, with no grander ambitions than merely hold office, be among "high society", remain (or become) amongst the powerful and so forth. It's refreshing to see someone dare to be different.

Yea.. I get that. A political theory:

There are two kinds of situation:

1. We're facing a crisis of a sort we've never known before. Nobody knows what to do because we're in uncharted waters. Our best bet is to unify behind a leader even if that leader is as clueless as we are. The saying for it "Do something even if it's wrong." It means there are times when paralysis will definitely kill you, so loosen up and allow yourself to try something. You at least give yourself a chance that way.

2. We're facing problems that have unfolded over an extended period. It's stuff we've been fighting for years. It's already come up that we failed to listen to people who demonstrated that they did know what to do (as with the derivative market crash and maybe the invasion of Iraq.) It's time for a leader who has mastery over information management and decision making.

Which sort of situation are we in? Mostly 2. We might be presently sliding toward 1, but we aren't there now.

Which one is Donald Trump best suited for? Neither one, unfortunately. He is refreshing, as you say. But he's also incredibly divisive. So he's no good for situation 1. He's no good for situation 2 because he's just uninformed. Face it: he's fun to watch. That's about it.

What about Hillary Clinton? In her long years of political service, I don't think she's proved herself for either role. But the alternative to her on the Democratic ticket was Sanders. Pfft. Hillary would break Bernie Sanders in half. Ready or not, it has to be her.

But he is showing greatness of spirit in so doing. He's acting like Caesar in crossing the Rubicon (of course he lacks Caesar's intelligence, physical and political capabilities) - he's ignoring the consequences and going with his vision all the way. That's something of value - even if his vision is crooked, selfish, and so forth. And I might add that we're missing that in the last 60-70 years - greatness of spirit. — Agustino

I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful.

I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful. — Ciceronianus the White

I'll paraphrase into street lingo: Trump is a whiny bitch.

I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful. — Ciceronianus the White

As I said before yes. But he's setting himself up for the future - in that he shows greatness of spirit. First he alienates the Republican Party because he wants his voters to remain Trump supporters, not Republicans. He wants to steal that electorate from the Republican Party. Why? Because he knows that the RNC will not allow him to run as a Republican the next time. So what has he got to do? He has to say that the elections were rigged. Then, the same way he carried the birther movement, he will carry the rigged movement. This will be formed of the supporters he has - roughly 20-25% of the American electorate will remain loyal to him (he has a group of supporters which already have a lot of loyalty to him). These people will be kept as his supporters as he continues throwing stones after Hillary and talking about the corruption of the system. Then next elections come, the Republicans don't want to let him run, and he threatens he'll run as an independent. The Republican politicians are greedy - anything to ensure they don't lose - and Trump running as an independent will ensure that they will in fact lose in the general election. By now they think Trump is discredited and hasn't got much chance in their primaries anyway. They let him run for the sake of not starting a war with him, so long as they make him agree not to run as an independent if he fails in the Republican race. Then Trump wins the Republican primary. Clinton is even more discredited and tarnished than she is now - the American people will never want another Clinton. Trump becomes President. This I think is his plan.

2. We're facing problems that have unfolded over an extended period. It's stuff we've been fighting for years. It's already come up that we failed to listen to people who demonstrated that they did know what to do (as with the derivative market crash and maybe the invasion of Iraq.) It's time for a leader who has mastery over information management and decision making.

Which sort of situation are we in? Mostly 2. We might be presently sliding toward 1, but we aren't there now. — Mongrel

Great leaders are always great leaders regardless of the situation. Mastery over information and decision making isn't what a great leader is. That's what people under him have to do. This is precisely the problem - we have forgotten what leadership means. A leader shouldn't have to care how to get from A to B. A leader isn't a technician giving you the how. The President isn't there to be an engineer to say this is HOW we'll get to B. Only that we must get to B (and what that B is - that's what a leader needs to decide on. What is the B we need to get to? And all the information in the world can't decide that. All the big heads can't decide that. The big heads are always confused. They don't know what to do). That's what he has to do. He must direct everyone towards getting to B. Motivate and convince them to get to B. What makes someone a great leader is that they carve their own path - they are not servants to an electorate that's already existing. They have a vision, and they create the electorate to implement it. A great leader can be either moral or immoral - good or evil. Gandhi is a great leader - he effectively created the electorate - he got the people to follow his vision of a free India. Hitler on the other side (on the evil side) is also a great leader. He also carved his own path and got the German people to follow.

This is precisely why I am interested in Trump. He's reminding us of what great leaders actually have to do. Put others to work to implement a certain vision. Not be some guys with big heads which they can barely hold up. That's for Professors and experts. Not for leaders. A leader's job is vision - that's why morality - if we actually get back to having real leaders as opposed to fakes - will be the determining factor - because the people will have to choose between different visions and goals. Until now all the goals were similar. Which vision is good and which is evil? All the visions for the US were similar until now. No big differences. This time it's different.

I might add that ALL great leaders are divisive. It's impossible to lead without dividing. If you lead without dividing, then you have no principles. You're a crook - like Hillary. She wants to please everyone just so she can get into that Oval Office. You have no integrity then. So a leader is always someone who brings a sword - who brings discord and who upsets the status quo. We have a very absurd idea about what a leader is. A leader isn't an asinus which says "Uhhhhh what do the people want? They want X. Okay time to figure out how to give them X!" - that's not a leader. That's an idiot (it sounds more like his people are leading him than him leading the people). A real leader says "What should the people want? X. Time to get them to want X then".

Gandhi is a great leader - he effectively created the electorate - he got the people to follow his vision of a free India. Hitler on the other side (on the evil side) is also a great leader. He also carved his own path and got the German people to follow. — Agustino

Both these people were products of their times. In another century, Ghandi would have ended up dead in a ditch somewhere. Born a little earlier or later, maybe Hitler would have made it into art school and poured his bile out onto canvases.

The President isn't there to be an engineer to say this is HOW we'll get to B. Only that we must get to B. — Agustino

You missed the 1980's when the "networking leader" was all the rage.

All the visions for the US were similar until now. No big differences. This time it's different. — Agustino

You're setting yourself up for a massive disappointment. There is something cool about the USA. It doesn't usually show up in politics, in my experience.

Both these people were products of their times. In another century, Ghandi would have ended up dead in a ditch somewhere. Born a little earlier or later, maybe Hitler would have made it into art school and poured his bile out onto canvases. — Mongrel

You fail to recognise that in another century Ghandi wouldn't have attempted to achieve the same goal he had now. The capacity of the leader is precisely in choosing a goal and then getting people to follow. This greatly depends on their character - good character = good goal. Evil character = evil goal.

And yeah of course Ghandi could have ended up dead - his cause not succesful. But that's not necessarily failure as a leader - so long as he rallied up the people and got them to pursue a vision, that's success in the art of leading.

You missed the 1980's when the "networking leader" was all the rage. — Mongrel

I don't care about these a prioris that big heads think about leadership. I look in history and I see what leaders have actually done. The fact of the matter is that people who actually follow the big heads - they don't look anything like the real leaders we know from history. So there must be a problem with the big heads guiding them.

There is something cool about the USA. It doesn't usually show up in politics, in my experience. — Mongrel

What do you mean?

But it's unimportant and has nothing to do with the issue in any case; but it does seem to demonstrate either your tendency to jump to conclusions about things you know nothing of; in this case about my psychology. Or else it shows your tendency to make disparaging remarks when you can't find any cogent arguments. This is shown yet again with your ridiculously childish and patronizing "baby".

Ho hum will the laughs ever cease. — John

Where's the recognition of your mistake? Seems like you're wiggling out of it again by not responding to what is actually being asked of you.

So, to return to the issue at hand and just for the record if you genuinely don't think morality is founded on religion or authority, then what is it founded upon? — John

Morality is like the roof of a house, where the walls are duty and their foundation is love. The walls without the foundation cannot stand, and the roof without either the foundation or the walls cannot stand ;)

Morality is like the roof of a house, where the walls are duty and their foundation is love. The walls without the foundation cannot stand, and the roof without either the foundation or the walls cannot stand ;) — Agustino

OK, so the love is in the person. If the person really loves then their acts will be moral, no? So where does duty come into it? If you do something you want to do (out of love) it is not a matter of duty and it will be moral, or else the love was not genuine.

Trump compared to Alexander the Great................. — Heister Eggcart

The same way when one stares at a beautiful painting and is forced to say "this is beautiful", so too when one looks at him, one is forced to say "Trump is great". — Agustino

:-O >:O

I don't care about these a prioris that big heads think about leadership — Agustino

I think your arrogance might just be matched by your naivete... which means it's a sure bet that Uncle Sam wants you. Have you checked into whether you can fast-track to citizenship with military service?

What do you mean? — Agustino

Rights of women, are you freakin kidding me? — tom

No, I am not freakin kidding you (lemme guess: here comes the part where you rant about how Hillary supposedly laughed at a rape victim and sought to discredit the women who accused her husband of unwanted sexual advances).

Both Clinton and Trump are against Obama Care as it currently stands. Both want to reform it. Trump was to only Republican candidate for universal healthcare provision.

Yes, many people want to improve the ACA (some, like the House Republicans, in the classic definition of insanity, vote dozens to times to repeal it without hope of doing so). One cannot expect a program that massive to work perfectly from its initial roll-out.

As for Trump's position on healthcare, the last I heard, he was to replace the ACA with "something terrific." As for a "universal healthcare provision," you'll have to elaborate on exactly what that means, because I have no idea.

As for the Clinton foundation, have you been living under a rock?

http://www.latintimes.com/clinton-foundation-what-happened-39-billion-were-supposed-go-haiti-401841

More bullshit from the right-wing blogosphere. The Clinton Foundation has an "A" rating from Charity Watch, and a 95% rating from Charity Navigator. And, contrary to the baloney you linked to here, a bit more than 10% of its funds go to charity...the real figure is closer to 88%. Please leave the Fox News echo chamber and join reality.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right? — Agustino

Pretty much. Women don't have to do anything in particular for men to feel that way. In a society where women are not locked away, where they are free to participate in society and draw attention, care, time and resources from others, men will notice beautiful women all the time.

If we are expecting women not to be noticed by men, we are asking them to withdraw from public life, to have no interest in gaining from the wider community, to care not for their public status (e.g. job, friends, whether they are likeable to a stranger) and to cover themselves head to toe, so they aren't recognisable as an individual who draws attention. To be someone, and wanting to be someone, who is sexually desirable to others is part of existing in public life, by the mere fact of people paying attention to you, sharing their time and resources, as is part of loving in the public sphere.

Many men feel "under the spell and control of beauty" by nothing more than a woman walking down the street in jeans and t-shirt. Or the smiling waitress with a presentable casual uniform. Or the woman in a blouse and slacks working in the office. Merely by living and interacting with others, women are people who are desired. Unless women get locked away, this is something men are going to have to deal with.

Ok so after you it's moral for her to do that right? It's moral for her to use her body to feel domination and power over another no? And the other should have no means of defence against this - no law on his side to for example call the police and to get that woman out of his face. Obviously she doesn't want to have sex - she wants to dominate me. That's a problem. — Agustino

No... those specific actions would constitute sexual harassment and sexual assault. My point was not that they were moral, but that you were equivocating a woman's appearance and behaviour with her desire to have sex. You say she wants to dominate you here, but previously your arguments were saying she wanted to have sex because of how she appeared or behaved. So afraid of women having power, of being something other than the sexual possession of men, you turn their acts (whether abuse or not) into justification of male dominance.

If you made a pass at that woman or even raped her, it would be justified because she really "wanted it." You wouldn't really be engaged in rape or sexual harassment because her appearance or behaviour indicated she really wanted your sexual attention.

This is how you read the Trump scenario. You didn't accept those women had been abused. You said the must want Trump sexual attention because they were around him, seeking the power, resources or social prestige he might provide. You say Trump's actions are shameful, but that's not what you argue. You insisted the women really wanted his sexual attention (meaning, you know, he hasn't violated consent and the women haven't been abused by being acted on sexual against their will). Deep down you agree with him about women being the sexual objects of men.

Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate? — Agustino

Because many states which register to men as "sexually desirable" are a mere fact of their existence or are somehow related to other social relations, personal expression, maintaining employment, being interesting to others, etc.,etc. It's not fucking hard, Agustino. You just have to take a moment and think about what matters to women, what she needs to do to maintain social relations, be someone who lives with others etc., etc.

At risk of the charge of being melodramatic, my view is that if Trump loses, democracy is over in US, at least until some sort of catastrophe happens. — tom

You know, I'm starting to think that democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be. After all, democracy has got those of us here in the U.K. lumped with an awful right-wing government since 2010 and for years to come, and it has brought about impending Brexit.

On the contrary, if Trump were to win, then that would be the catastrophe, and in so many ways, including internationally.

On the contrary, if Trump were to win, then that would be the catastrophe, and in so many ways, including internationally. — Sapientia

I don't know about that. I don't think the executive branch can actually start a trade war. Otherwise, Trump is isolationist. Most of the attempts of the US to be involved in the world lately have resulted in all-out grade-A catastrophe.. so maybe a little isolationism would give the world a break.