Trump says you won't have to vote anymore after this election: it'll be fixed!

[questionreality]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Trump is not dumb when it comes to doing conartisry. He is crafty like the devil he is.

There is no leftist contradiction here. We have called Trump a racist conartist since 2015 and he has not disappointed us in that regard.

People doubt me when I call Trump the Devil. But devilry is not dumb, it is intelligent. So devilry perfectly describes Trump's actions. That's why I call him that, not because I hate him.

We are talking here about the possible use of dog whistle rhetoric, not just any con artistry - which requires playing chess, not checkers.

And you pretty recently mentioned that Trump is not playing chess like Putin  (that he is dumb), thus if he gets elected you won't be totally fucked.

So this kind of contradicts your previous statement, understand?

The problem here is when it's convenient for you, you say that trump is dumb and when it's not, you don't think that he is dumb.

Same goes with your predictions - You said Trump has 0 chance of ever being president again few years ago and now you claim that you were not wrong, it's just circumstances have changed, because it's convenient for you to do so.

[questionreality]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

If you want to go with that interpretation, then he’s still conning his followers by overpromising.

Fixed so good you won’t have to vote again? Trump has no ability to deliver on this promise.

In fact, it would be a disingenuous thing for any president to promise, even if they were extremely competent. Presidents are not god.

Pretty much every politician overpromises and Trump actually fulfilled a lot of his promises during his last 4 years of presidency 

[questionreality]

49 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Intelligence is laborious. If you're lazy, you can't have it. You have to ask and answer questions and make sure you're building on top of truth, not what you want to be true. 

Consider "What is Trump". If mother Theresa said these things, the analysis would be different. We take into account the nature of the thing. 

What do we know about Trump?

• Trump is not Christian.
• He's telling Christians he is a Christian.
• He has no qualms about promising the world and delivering nothing.
• He doesn't care two shits about Christianity and is going out of his way to stand in churches and call himself one of them.
• He claims he's the best at everything, including solving impossible problems.
• Built his identity around being a world-class dealmaker.
• He's incredibly stupid but his bravado charms people.

Question: What does it seem like someone with the above character traits means when they say "We're gonna fix it so good, you'll never have to vote again my beautiful Christians"? 

Answer:  He's pulling his snake oil sales routine on the Christians.

Question: What exactly did he say?

Answer: He promised Christians he's not only going to deliver the world they want but promised it would be permanent. 

Question: Why communicate "permanent"? 

Answer: Not sure. It makes no sense. 

Question: What do those Christians even want? 

Answer: For their religion to permeate culture and all they deem evil to be stamped out. They want all American children to learn their holy books and they largely want abortion, LGBTQ, and every other thing they deem evil abolished.

Question: How could Trump solve those things permanently?

Answer: I can only think of one way. To never allow democrats enough control to rollback whatever he's promising. 

Question: What do the Christians think he meant by "never have to vote again"?

Answer: I'm not sure but I speculate it sounded to them what it sounded like to most everyone else. I think many of them, if not all were confused by the statement. 

Question: Would the Christians be willing to barter their democracy to get what they want? 

Answer: Absolutely 

Question: Does Trump know that?

Answer: Absolutely

Question: Do these truths increase the likelihood that he meant what it seems like he meant?

Answer: Yes. If he knew they secretly want a dictator and if he secretly wants to be a dictator, he might drop a hint to it in his speech. 

Careful though. This is just speculation. I'd put it around 75% he meant what he said but most of this comes from previous knowledge about his character, not this line of questioning. 

This is just ONE line of questioning and dozens or hundreds of important factors were left out. Project 2025, history of doublespeak and dog whistles, his will to power, etc. 

The problem with most people is they can't even accurately assess his character. Centrists think he's no more evil than Hillary Clinton. If you think that, the answers to your questions will be wrong and thus you will be wrong, over and over, and over.

Interesting take, but he actually delivered a lot of the things that he promised during his presidency to his followers- so to say that he delivers nothing to his followers is not correct.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, questionreality said:

We are talking here about the possible use of dog whistle rhetoric, not just any con artistry - which requires playing chess, not checkers.

And you pretty recently mentioned that Trump is not playing chess like Putin  (that he is dumb), thus if he gets elected you won't be totally fucked.

So this kind of contradicts your previous statement, understand?

The problem here is when it's convenient for you, you say that trump is dumb and when it's not, you don't think that he is dumb.

There is no contradiction.

Intelligence is a huge spectrum. Trump is dumb relative to Putin or an academic person. But Trump is a master at bullshitting.

It doesn't take much intelligence to do racist dogwhistles. Dumb right-wingers have done that forever. They do it instinctively, not through any great genius. They can't be racist directly because it would end their careers.

Even Trump cannot be racist directly. He can't walk out and say the N word. But he can dance around it.

Quote

Same g oes with your predictions - You said Trump has 0 chance of ever being president again few years ago and now you claim that you were not wrong, it's just circumstances have changed, because it's convenient for you to do so.

I was wrong and I got no problem admitting it. I was wrong in assuming that Americans were smarter than they are.

Edited July 30 by Leo Gura

[questionreality]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no contradiction.

Intelligence is a huge spectrum. Trump is dumb relative to Putin or an academic person. But Trump is a master at bullshitting.

It doesn't take much intelligence to do racist dogwhistles. Dumb right-wingers have done that forever. They do it instinctively, not through any great genius. They can't be racist directly because it would end their careers.

Even Trump cannot be racist directly. He can't walk out and say the N word. But he can dance around it.

I was wrong and I got not problem admitting it. I was wrong in assuming that Americans were smarter than they are.

Understood.

On a side not, I have not actually seen any evidence that Trump is actually racist - for some reason leftists always try to bring up the race card, and always make it about the race.

If they do it this time - they will lose the election and vice versa (if Trump's campaign somehow will bring up Kamala's background). People are tired of that shit.

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I was wrong and I got not problem admitting it. I was wrong in assuming that Americans were smarter than they are.

I was going to say fair enough until I read the last sentence. You were actually wrong about human psychology and other things - and here you are trying to say that Americans were stupider that you thought, which is not a genuine, nor honest admission of being wrong. 

Edited July 30 by questionreality

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, questionreality said:

On a side not, I have not actually seen any evidence that Trump is actually racist

That's because you are willfully uneducated about the news facts:

Trump certainly is a racist. This is not my opinion but a matter of public record. As if it wasn't totally obvious.

Edited July 30 by Leo Gura

[aurum]

23 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Pretty much every politician overpromises

Oh please.

There are degrees of overpromising. And Trump is one of the worst offenders of this, much worse than your average politician.

This is obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said.

23 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Trump actually fulfilled a lot of his promises during his last 4 years of presidency 

You mean like the tax breaks for his rich oligarch buddies?

The promises he does actually fulfill are dysfunctional.

[questionreality]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's because you are willfully uneducated about the news facts:

Trump certainly is a racist. This is not my opinion but a matter of public record. As if it wasn't totally obvious.

So to you he is a racist, just because 20 years ago he said a n word on set? This is all the evidence that you have?

I didn't think that you were one of the woke leftists, but now I am starting to think otherwise. They tend to do exactly this - go back 20 years, find 1 thing and then put a label + cancel people.

I have not heard him say anything, nor any behavior in the last 10 years that would indicate he is anywhere close to a racist. 

Is this really all you got? 

Edited July 30 by questionreality

[questionreality]

6 minutes ago, aurum said:

Oh please.

There are degrees of overpromising. And Trump is one of the worst offenders of this, much worse than your average politician.

This is obvious enough that it shouldn't need to be said.

You mean like the tax breaks for his rich oligarch buddies?

The promises he does actually fulfill are dysfunctional.

The people that voted for him in 2016 would say otherwise. If you didn't vote for him, then it doesn't really matter what you think, what matters is what the people who voted for him think.

Edited July 30 by questionreality

[Leo Gura]

@questionreality If you gaslight me any more I will ban you.

[questionreality]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@questionreality If you gaslight me any more I will ban you.

Gaslighting is defined as manipulating someone into questioning their own perception of reality. I did not do that, nor ever want to do that.

I apologize for my offensive rhetoric of "woke leftist", just tired of everyone bringing up the race/racist card.

With that said, I would genuinely like for you to show me more instances of what makes him racist - because like I said, not even a bit I ever considered him to be racist - he quite frequently talks to black people on podcasts, public places, etc and I never got the sense that he somehow has prejudice against them. 

Joe Rogan not long ago also was almost cancelled for saying a n word long time ago on some podcast, but he was too big/popular to be cancelled. And there were many people who called out the absurdity of it. How is this any different?

Edited July 30 by questionreality

[aurum]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

The people that voted for him in 2016 would say otherwise. If you didn't vote for him, then it doesn't really matter what you think, what matters is what the people who voted for him think.

Yes we obviously do not agree, hence the need for this conversation.

If you think Trump has delivered what you wanted from him in 2016, feel free to share what it was. 

[Yimpa]

Trump is precisely necessary for understanding our collective shadow.

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

If you didn't vote for him, then it doesn't really matter what you think

I never voted for him.

[gambler]

Trump isn’t racist but he “insulted” Biden by calling him a Palestinian, and afterwards as a weak Palestinian. Yet when blacks hurl an insult at another black by calling them white, the same people okay with the former would see this as racist and anti-white. Very suspicious. 

Edited July 31 by gambler

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, gambler said:

Very suspicious. 

How suspicious that 300 years of slavery as histroical context might play a role here.

[integral]

Machiavellian - Claude 3.5

• Cynical worldview: Machiavellian individuals tend to have a pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inherently self-interested and untrustworthy.
• Emotional detachment: They often lack empathy and have little concern for conventional morality, focusing instead on pragmatic outcomes.
• Strategic thinking: Machiavellians are adept at long-term planning and strategic manipulation to achieve their goals.
• Charm and charisma: Many are skilled at presenting a likable facade to mask their true intentions.
• Amoral pragmatism: They prioritize results over ethical considerations, willing to lie, cheat, or manipulate if it serves their purposes.
• Power-oriented: Machiavellians are often preoccupied with gaining and maintaining power or influence over others.
• Adaptability: They're flexible in their tactics, adjusting their approach based on what works best in a given situation.

 

How do they view other people?

1. Instrumental value: Machiavellians tend to see others primarily in terms of their usefulness. They evaluate people based on how they can help achieve personal goals rather than as individuals with intrinsic worth.

2. Cynicism and distrust: They often have a pessimistic view of human nature, assuming others are self-interested, untrustworthy, and potentially manipulative. This leads to a general skepticism in interpersonal relationships.

3. Emotional detachment: Machiavellians typically maintain emotional distance from others, viewing feelings as potential weaknesses that can be exploited.

4. Hierarchical thinking: They often categorize people in terms of their power, influence, or status, focusing more on those they perceive as useful or threatening to their objectives.

5. Strategic approach to relationships: Interactions are seen as transactions or strategic moves rather than genuine connections. Relationships are cultivated based on potential benefits rather than emotional or social fulfillment.

6. Exploitation mindset: Others are often viewed as resources to be leveraged or obstacles to be overcome, rather than as collaborators or equals.

7. Lack of empathy: Machiavellians typically struggle to genuinely understand or share others' feelings, which can lead to a somewhat dehumanized view of people.

8. Adaptability in social interactions: They may view social situations as games to be won, adapting their behavior and presentation to manipulate others' perceptions and actions.

9. Awareness of vulnerabilities: Machiavellians are often adept at identifying others' weaknesses or insecurities, viewing these as potential leverage points.

10. Competitive outlook: They may see social and professional environments as inherently competitive, viewing others as rivals or potential threats to their own success.

11. Skepticism of altruism: Genuine altruism is often viewed with suspicion, as Machiavellians tend to assume hidden motives behind seemingly selfless acts.

12. Focus on power dynamics: They're typically very attuned to power structures and hierarchies, constantly assessing where they and others stand in relation to power and influence.

 

Edited July 31 by integral

[UnbornTao]

4 minutes ago, integral said:

Machiavellian - Claude 3.5

• Cynical worldview: Machiavellian individuals tend to have a pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inherently self-interested and untrustworthy.
• Emotional detachment: They often lack empathy and have little concern for conventional morality, focusing instead on pragmatic outcomes.
• Strategic thinking: Machiavellians are adept at long-term planning and strategic manipulation to achieve their goals.
• Charm and charisma: Many are skilled at presenting a likable facade to mask their true intentions.
• Amoral pragmatism: They prioritize results over ethical considerations, willing to lie, cheat, or manipulate if it serves their purposes.
• Power-oriented: Machiavellians are often preoccupied with gaining and maintaining power or influence over others.
• Adaptability: They're flexible in their tactics, adjusting their approach based on what works best in a given situation.

This falls short.

[Yimpa]

I wrote a racist tweet when I was 15. Totally regret it. It came from a place of hurt and unconsciousness. 

Once you understand a thing deeply, your hatred for it naturally falls away.

[allseeker205]

3 hours ago, questionreality said:

So to you he is a racist, just because 20 years ago he said a n word on set? This is all the evidence that you have?

I didn't think that you were one of the woke leftists, but now I am starting to think otherwise. They tend to do exactly this - go back 20 years, find 1 thing and then put a label + cancel people.

I have not heard him say anything, nor any behavior in the last 10 years that would indicate he is anywhere close to a racist. 

Is this really all you got? 

He recently said in the last debate that immigrants are stealing black jobs. Can you explain to me what a black job is? And why would immigrants be "stealing" them?

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, questionreality said:

I have not actually seen any evidence that Trump is actually racist

What is the point of questioning reality if you don't revise your understanding in light of better reasoning? You say you want evidence of Trump's racism, but do you? 

Question: What are the common traits that make up the typical racist?

Answer:

• hateful
• spiteful
• vindictive
• likes controlling others
• enjoys kicking down
• motivated by superiority and domination
• shows little empathy 

Question: Does Trump possess all of these qualities? 

Answer: Yes.

Combine the above reasoning with the fact he has a history of racial animus, although no recent slip-ups caught on camera. 

Do these truths account for nothing in your assessment of the question, "Is Trump racist?" You might not be able to answer the question definitively but given his history and the cluster of character traits that have been on display for 8 years, your default position should be, "I wouldn't doubt that Trump is racist and it's probably even likely". Not, "I've never seen anything to suggest he's racist."

Your biases are failing you yet again.

Will you revise your understanding or cling to your bias? 

Edited July 31 by Joshe