ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
You can take some people to the Louvre, show them the Mona Lisa, and they'll say "So what?" It is what it is.
Yep, and I am definitely one of those people. Philistine through and through. I'd be trying to think up ways to steal it.
In fact, I have been to Paris a few times and I'm pretty sure I have actually been to the Louvre and seen the Mona Lisa. Not 100% sure, if I have, it wasn't particularly a memorable event, thus proving the point.
This whole who is smarter religious people or non-religious people is a huge derail. I don't know about everywhere in America, but I know where I am from the avg. religious person is significantly more intelligent than the non-religious person if you count most of the people who went to catholic schools as religious and most of the people who went to public schools as non-religious.
I think it is likely safe to assume that because of so many private schools having religious ties and they teach about religion that religious people are smarter on avg. than non-religious.
They have to speed this up. We can’t let the American people decide who they want to lead this country.
The two best things dems have going for them are their claims that trump is a bad boy rule breaker and he’s racist and unfortunately the racist claim is falling apart (see below). Taking him off the ballot may be the only way to stop him. Last election dems were successful in defeating him by illegally using the intelligence community - n
Time to get back on topic. The intelligence community came up huge the last two elections with Russia, Russia, Russia and then burying hunter's laptop that incriminated the big guy and now it is up to the judicial branch to do their job and make sure trump does not get elected. I think the recent polls that came out saying trump was ahead in almost all purple states may have given the judges a boost in the urgency of how serious of a problem it would be for the left to allow the citizens of the US decide who are next president should be.
Nothing wrong with acknowledging the likely existence of the clockmaker while also wanting to know how the clock works.
Serious scientists stay in their lane and don't pontificate on religion, because God doesn't cooperate with experiments. Asking, "Who made the clockmaker?" is also less of a dunk than people think it is, since having faith is sort of the point.
I'd also find a visit to the Louvre pretty boring, but will watch the **** out of a quality episode of Modern Marvels or Our Universe. I do notice that "God" is exchanged for a sprinkling of magic time-dust on anything that involves cosmic wonder. It's always a little light on the details of what actually happens during the offscreen portion while we wait a few million/billion years for something interesting to happen, but such are the limitations of current science.
This whole who is smarter religious people or non-religious people is a huge derail. I don't know about everywhere in America, but I know where I am from the avg. religious person is significantly more intelligent than the non-religious person if you count most of the people who went to catholic schools as religious and most of the people who went to public schools as non-religious.
Blahblah, you'll forgive me if I take your judgement on who is and isn't smart with a pinch of salt.
Nothing wrong with acknowledging the likely existence of the clockmaker while also wanting to know how the clock works.
Serious scientists stay in their lane and don't pontificate on religion, because God doesn't cooperate with experiments. Asking, "Who made the clockmaker?" is also less of a dunk than people think it is, since having faith is sort of the point.
I'd also find a visit to the Louvre pretty boring, but will watch the **** out o
I think all ignores the most important unanswered question of our time - why did the clockmaker give the elephants wings, then take them away again?
Same reason he had dinosaurs **** up that one dude's ranch. He can be kind of a dick sometimes.
I do notice that "God" is exchanged for a sprinkling of magic time-dust on anything that involves cosmic wonder
They are not the same things, though. One is saying "we don't know, we'll learn more when we're able to achieve higher energies in our particle accelerators", while the other is saying "we don't know, therefore magic sky pixie who also watches your every move and will cure your auntie's cancer if you ask him nicely every night". Do you see the difference?
how serious of a problem it would be for the left to allow the citizens of the US decide who are next president should be.
Yes, it'd beginning to look like we shouldn't be entrusting the lunatics to elect the warden at the asylum after all. Maybe we should make you a colony again until we can get to the bottom of all this and figure out what's going on.
I think that the discovery that subatomic particles are 1) both particle and waves 2) stochastic in their essense (they aren't THERE, they are in a cloud around a point , their location is a probability distribution, not a place) was very spiritual.
Moreover the irony of "atom" meaning "indivisible", and then we go at it's component is... a spiritual lesson in a way
It depends what you mean by 'spiritual. Realisiing it reduces to algorthimic logic was quite a spiritual moment for me.
Seeing the latest hi faultin talk about simulations brings me much joy
Surprised constable Spew of the derail police hasn't shown up on scene yet. Response times have really gone downhill since sergeant Bowser retired.
TBH, I don't like derails. This one surely can be moved over to Other Topics but I'm a bit busy with my cuticles needing trimming.
Plus I've only seen one or two "on topic" posts in the last coupla days ITT.
That said..... can we rap this up soon.... or move the discussion somewhere else. RGT anyone?
TBH, I don't like derails. This one surely can be moved over to Other Topics but I'm a bit busy with my cuticles needing trimming.
Plus I've only seen one or two "on topic" posts in the last coupla days ITT.
That said..... can we rap this up soon.... or move the discussion somewhere else. RGT anyone?
You can move it to eda's pet thread:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/285/p...
Or reopen its predecessor, my pet vanity thread, aptly called "Religion and Science":
I try to concentrate on meaning. That seems the lessor mistake to me ymmv
NEW YORK (AP) — Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has called him a “threat to democracy.” Former national security adviser John Bolton has declared him “unfit to be president.” And former Vice President Mike Pence has declined to endorse him, citing “profound differences.”
As Donald Trump seeks the presidency for a third time, he is being vigorously opposed by a vocal contingent of former officials who are stridently warning against his return to power and offering dire predictions for the country and the rule of law if his campaign succeeds.
It’s a striking chorus of detractors, one without precedent in the modern era, coming from those who witnessed first-hand his conduct in office and the turmoil that followed.
Sarah Matthews, a former Trump aide who testified before the House Jan. 6 committee and is among those warning about the threat he poses, said it’s “mind-boggling” how many members of his senior staff have denounced him.
“These are folks who saw him up close and personal and saw his leadership style,” Matthews said.
“The American people should listen to what these folks are saying because it should be alarming that the people that Trump hired to work for him a first term are saying that he’s unfit to serve for a second term.”
Yet the critics remain a distinct minority. Republican lawmakers and officials across the party have endorsed Trump’s bid — some begrudgingly, others with fervor and enthusiasm. Many aides and Cabinet officials who served under Trump are onboard for another term, something Trump's campaign is quick to highlight.
“The majority of the people who served in President Trump’s cabinet and in his administration, like the majority of Americans, have overwhelmingly endorsed his candidacy to beat Crooked Joe Biden and take back the White House,” said Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung.
Still, the Biden campaign has trumpeted the criticism of former Trump officials in statements and social media posts, hoping to convince at least some Republican voters — including those who backed other candidates during the GOP primary — that they cannot support his candidacy.
“Those who worked with Donald Trump at the most senior levels of his administration believe he is too dangerous, too selfish and too extreme to ever lead our country again — we agree,” said Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa.
In many ways, the schism among former Trump officials is an extension of his time in the White House. Friction was constant as Trump’s demands ran into resistance from some officials and aides who refused requests that they found misguided, unrealistic and, at times, flatly illegal. Firings were frequent. Many quit.
Staff upheaval was particularly intense in the chaotic weeks after the 2020 election as Trump worked to overturn his election loss to Biden. Trump summoned supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, as his falsehoods about a stolen election became the rallying cry for supporters who violently breached the U.S. Capitol. Many people serving in the administration quit in protest, including Matthews.
Trump’s attempt to remain in office included a bitter pressure campaign against Pence, who as vice president was tasked with presiding over the count of the Electoral College ballots on Jan. 6. Trump was adamant that Pence should prevent Biden from becoming president, something he had no power to do. Pence had to flee the Senate chamber on Jan. 6 as rioters stormed the building to chants of “Hang Mike Pence!”
Pence recently said he “cannot in good conscience” endorse Trump because of Jan. 6 and other issues, despite being proud of what they achieved together.
And Pence is not alone.
Esper, who was fired by Trump days after the 2020 election, clashed with the then-president over several issues, including Trump’s push to deploy military troops to respond to civil unrest after the killing of George Floyd by police in 2020.
In a recent interview with HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Esper repeated a warning that Trump is “a threat to democracy” and added, “I think there’s a lot to be concerned about.”
“There’s no way I’ll vote for Trump, but every day that Trump does something crazy, the door to voting for Biden opens a little bit more, and that’s where I’m at,” Esper said.
Among Trump's most vocal critics are former aides who worked closely with him in the White House, particularly a trio who gained prominence testifying about the Jan. 6 attack and Trump’s push to overturn the election.
The group includes Matthews, former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin and Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. They have given a series of interviews in recent months opposing their former boss.
"Fundamentally, a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly,” Griffin told ABC in December.
John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, had his own long falling-out with Trump. Kelly, in a lengthy October statement to CNN, described Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators” and “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”
Olivia Troye, a former Pence adviser who left the White House in 2020, and former press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who resigned Jan. 6, are both outspoken critics who said they didn’t vote for Trump in 2020.
Even Bill Barr, Trump’s former attorney general who has not ruled out voting for him again, has referred to Trump as “a consummate narcissist” who “constantly engages in reckless conduct that puts his political followers at risk and the conservative and Republican agenda at risk.”
Still, the ranks of former Trump officials opposing his bid are greatly outnumbered by those who are supportive.
Linda McMahon, who headed the Small Business Administration under Trump, is co-chairing a major fundraiser for the former president on Saturday in Florida, along with former Trump Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
McMahon is also chair of the board of The America First Policy Institute, which is packed with supportive former Trump officials and has been described as an “administration in waiting” for a second Trump term.
The institute is headed by Brooke Rollins, Trump’s former domestic policy chief, and counts Pence’s national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg among its chairs, along with former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Trump’s U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer, and former National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow.
Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has campaigned for Trump, as has former Housing Secretary Ben Carson, who called him “a friend of America.”
Trump’s also got the backing of former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, former Interior Secretary and Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, and Russell Vought, who ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.
Vought said in a post on X that Trump is “the only person I trust to take a wrecking ball to the Deep State.”
Trump supporters are also quick to dismiss critics in the party.
Carmen McVane, who attended Trump's rally Tuesday in Green Bay, Wisconsin, said those who speak negatively against Trump or refuse to endorse are RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only, and will only help Biden and Democrats.
“There’s a lot of RINOs who don’t do what they’re supposed to do,” McVane said. “It’s time for everyone to back who we have and go full force ahead.”
___
Associated Press writer Adriana Gomez Licon in Green Bay, Wisconsin, contributed to this report.
NEW YORK (AP) — Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has called him a “threat to democracy.” Former national security adviser John Bolton has declared him “unfit to be president.” And former Vice President Mike Pence has declined to endorse him, citing “profound differences.”
As Donald Trump seeks the presidency for a third time, he is being vigorously opposed by a vocal contingent of former officials who are stridently warning against his re
Didn't he fire all these people? All disgruntled employees looking to sell books
Says it all really.
Still, the ranks of former Trump officials opposing his bid are greatly outnumbered by those who are supportive.
There's a spiritual element to life, and the discovery of atoms doesn't mean much to me. Should it?
Like seek and you shall find! If the universe was of an elemental composition we couldn't identify... or had yet to identify.. which was the case for millennia
I've never noticed anything resembling this. Where have you seen it?
Lol dumbdumb Michael, "appeal to authority" is only a fallacy when the authority in question doesn't provide justification for their position, instead relying on their "authority" alone (or alternatively, is an authority on an unrelated subject). This is clearly not what is happening here, these people have first hand experience of what they are talking about.
Are you honestly so stupid as to think every position that relies on the support of someone with authority on the topic in question is ipso facto a fallacy? I mean, I wouldn't put it past you, but surely even you can't be this dense. dumbdumbMichael: "My physics teacher knows a lot about physics, therefore I shouldn't cite him when discussing physics, that would be an appeal to authority."
Yes, the padded cell comment was tongue in cheek. We certainly wouldn't consider them sane, though, would we?
I would say that they had a below average quotient of rationality, but not that they were insane.
I agree with you that when I know someone is religious I take them less seriously and my Bayesian inference is that they are less intelligent than my previous judgment. Still, like some others have said, I can't deny that there have been some extremely intelligent people who seemed to have sincere religious beliefs, including some within the last century.
A poker buddy of mine would occasionally leave the table on Saturday night with the excuse that he had to get up early the next morning for his leprechaun meeting.
