Have you check the deficit lately?

Do you like his character viz. women?

Do you think he is a racist?

Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.

How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...

Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?

You ok with that?

Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall?

Why isn't Mexico paying for the wall?

Do you speak in questions? Why don’t you make an argument?

Trump wanted to investigate Google search engine because Google search results turn up nothing but bad news.

You okay with that?

Are you afraid of something?

Are you afraid of something?

Like what?

Answering the questions so that the public here can know the truth.

I'll keep asking them, and more questions, until you answer. Please don't be afraid of yourself.

What is this, a job interview? Is this a trial?

Think of it as common questions that the public wants to know.

Would you rather take one at a time?

Let's start with the deficit. How does he compare with other presidents?

Oh you speak for the public now?

Why don’t you just tell me how he compares?

I don't know that's why I'm asking. Didn't you vote for him?

I did vote for him, yes.

What does Mueller have to do with it? — NOS4A2

I think you know, and your continued attempts at obfuscation only make you look more and more ridiculous.

I already said that if the transcript was true, the allegations are refuted. — NOS4A2

What allegations are refuted if the transcript is true? The transcript, even if unedited, is not the whole of the story. The phone call is only the latest in a long list of questionable behavior. Don't bother asking again what list. Much of it was detailed in the Mueller report, but you seem to be confused as to what the report has to do with any of this. Or perhaps you have just taken another page from the Trump playbook and "deny, deny, deny".

... then please share how he compares? Are you basically saying you didn't do your homework?

What allegations are refuted if the transcript is true? The transcript, even if unedited, is not the whole of the story. The phone call is only the latest in a long list of questionable behavior. Don't bother asking again what list. Much of it was detailed in the Mueller report, but you seem to be confused as to what the report has to do with any of this. Or perhaps you have just taken another page from the Trump playbook and "deny, deny, deny".

“Mueller mueller mueller”, “impeach impeach impeach”.

Dem playbook.

I’m talking about the whistleblower complaint and the allegations made by Pelosi during her impeach speech, which she gave as reasons to start the inquiry.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/24/nancy-pelosi-read-text-impeachment-inquiry-trump/2434986001/

... then please share how he compares? Are you basically saying you didn't do your homework?

Do your homework and you’ll find the answer to your question.

Are you embarrassed that he's run the deficit up?

Are you embarrassed that he's run the deficit up?

Should I be? What’s wrong with a high deficit?

Are you ashamed that Mexico hasn't been paying for the wall and that he sold you a false bill of goods?

... properly represent my arguments — NOS4A2

“Mueller mueller mueller”, “impeach impeach impeach”.

Dem playbook. — NOS4A2

Is this a proper representation of your arguments?

It has been amusing seeing you flounder around but I have wasted enough time responding to your inept attempts to defend Trump.

I know, for some reason he can't answer my questions.

Maybe he's soul-searching LOL.

When he comes back I've got a bunch of other questions.

Questions questions questions....the public needs answers LOL!!!!!

Do you have a favorite work of Kierkegaard's?

Is this a proper representation of your arguments?

It has been amusing seeing you flounder around but I have wasted enough time responding to your inept attempts to defend Trump.

Look what is suspiciously missing from your quote: the clarification of my argument, which you again dismiss. This is pure deceit.

Yes. Either/or.

And ironically enough that's the problem with this political discussion. When persons stubbornly dichotomize, they paint themselves in a box and don't know how to get out.

Another reason why we need moderates in both our political and religious institutions.

Thank you for asking. (And of course obviously I'm a Christian Existentialist. And am not scared to have taken the leap of faith.)

Which of course begs another question why the Fundamentalists support a guy that has character issues viz. Stormy Daniels ( and women in general).

Another reason why we need moderates in both our political and religious institutions.

Moderates only serve to stifle movements of liberty, as in the case of abolition and segregation. MLK’s argument against moderates is forceful enough to remind us that justice, not moderation, is primary if one wants an ethical politics.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Hey you're back, great!

Since you want to talk about racism let's chat a little bit. First of all, why did Trump settle out of court with some tenants who were denied renting his apartments who were black? And why does he make disparaging comments toward minorities?

And regarding moderates, did you support Reagan?

Either/or. — 3017amen

Wow. Unexpected. How did that come to be your favorite?

When persons stubbornly dichotomize, they paint themselves in a box and don't know how to get out. — 3017amen

They could easily escape by realizing that identity is a role, it's only part of you. There's another amorphous aspect that is free to invest itself in any role.

Some people have a super strong sense of identity. I dont think that's necessarily pathological. Elephants lumber along, dolphins swim. They're both perfect for their environments.

Could you explain more what Christian existentialism means to you?

Which of course begs another question why the Fundamentalists support a guy that has character issues viz. Stormy Daniels ( and women in general). — 3017amen

There are talk-radio communities that believe Trump is God's chosen one. They're nuts.

Again thank you for asking questions Frank.

Regarding the feeling of identity and being pigeonholed, I agree that essentially (my interpretation) one should free themselves by allowing them selves to have courage. We all have so-called intrinsic fears so I know it's easier said than done. And so in politics and/ or religion it rears its ugly head and manifests itself through anger and frustration. Since in that case the person feels something is just not right with their argument - it becomes a bit disconcerting. Thus the dangers of dichotomizing.

To that end, Kierkegaard talks about living the aesthetic versus ethical or intellectual life. The main takeaway is that both are good. Both have their virtues. And as far as strong personalities not being pathological I agree. As I suggested however, I do think defaulting to either/or in one's thinking would be considered more pathological than not. Much like Eastern philosophy, it's okay to embrace yin and yang, but the art of living is knowing how to integrate those two forces.

As you probably know, Existentialism for the most part had its origins and popularity from the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes. ( There were some 60's Pop music that made it more mainstream- " there is a season turn, turn, turn... .") Much of the prevailing thought process-es are based on the common sensibility of the Golden rule. But more importantly, Faith over reason and religious dogma. Including embracing the virtues of imagination and our sense of wonderment which includes mystery associated with our existence. (And of course our illogical existence relative to our perceptions viz consciousness.)

I'm surely not giving Existentialism the credit it deserves there...

:cool: :up:

Since you want to talk about racism let's chat a little bit. First of all, why did Trump settle out of court with some tenants who were denied renting his apartments who were black? And why does he make disparaging comments toward minorities?

And regarding moderates, did you support Reagan?

Actually I was pointing out an argument that moderates stifle movements towards freedom.

Trump makes disparaging remarks about everyone. Do you believe minorities are particularity vulnerable to mean words? That seems pretty racist to me.