Donald Trump demonstrated that he is objectively a better president than any other since Reagan.
He beat Clinton. He beat Bush. He beat Biden, but was (objectively) defrauded in the general election.
Why objectively? Because a data analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm. Math doesn’t lie.
Next!
Is this is actually how he goes about, uh, thinking this through?
He merely asserts that Trump has demonstrated that he is a best president since Reagan.
That’s what makes it true: he believes it.
But, okay, let’s say that his math doesn’t lie and Trump should still be president.
Let him choose a particular issue that divides liberals and conservatives. Let him explain to us why Trump’s policies are objectively better than Biden’s.
Appealing to the Audience is a fallacy and makes you look foolish.
Anything else or is that it?
Nope. Still this:
Ah yes, politics, that’s all you can think about hm?
Trump’s Presidency is objectively superior to Biden because Biden has been bought-off by the China Communist Party for $1 billion.
scmp.com/economy/china-econ … quity-firm
Anything else?
Yeah.
I need you to realize that just because you hold a particular political prejudice in regard to Biden and the Chinese, that does not make it true. You know, necessarily.
That’s like arguing that capitalism is superior to socialism simply because that’s what you believe. As though there are not many, many others who simply believe the opposite.
Now, my point here revolves basically around three things:
1] that both capitalists and socialists can make reasonable arguments based on particular sets of assumptions. Arguments that the other side can’t just make go away:
economicshelp.org/blog/5002 … apitalism/
economicshelp.org/blog/1472 … socialism/
2] that any particular individual’s thinking about either capitalism and socialism is rooted largely in the trajectory of expereinces, relationships and ideas they came upon over the course of actually living their lives.
3] that those who embrace one or the other as objectivists are likely to be afflicted with what I call the “psychology of objectivism” ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
Now, none of this is meant for you, of course. In my own opinion, your “thinking” is so shallow, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that any of this could possibly sink in.
You are frighteningly ignorant of what some call “critical thinking”. And, in Trumpworld, there are millions of you.
If I do say so myself.
Yes, I was wrong about Obama, when he ordered the murder of Osama Bin Laden when the raid was perfectly capable of bringing him back to justice. And when he also ordered the suppary execution of American citizens without trial by drone strike.
He preached the Ameica would be different, in the end he made the US no better than the terrorists that he murdered.
I’m not sure this is about “an objective mind” though. Urwrongx1000 is simply mentally deficient in basic cognitive skills and lives in a world of his own make believe. I assume he simply selects the whacky theories he wants like picking out cherries from the trifle, ignoring the custard and jelly of inconvenient truth.
What’s that phrase???
Pot calling kettle black.
No one can claim true objectivity, least of all urwrongx1000, whose very choice of handle betrays his idiocy.
Tell me what is false about the $1.5 billion Equity deal between CCP and Hunter Biden?
It’s quite common knowledge. Be objective.
BE OBJECTIVE.
CHECK YOUR FACTS
Do your self a favour. Actually READ the following and check out the details.
There is no voter fraud.
There is ZERO evidence of voter Fraud.
Guillianni offered NO EVIDENCE to any of the courts. It was all just performance to get idiots like you to BELEIVE.
Trump was talking about voter fraud 4 years ago because he thought he would lose. It’s just a performance.
Four years ago he got 3 million fewer votes that Hilary Clinton, but won because of the pro-republican antiquated voting system of the Electoral College.
This time Trump got SIX MILLION fewer votes and that was enough to tip the balance, despite the electoral collage, for a DEMOCRATIC WIN.
There is no evidence and the Trump team had noting to offer the courts,. They did not even persueclaims of fraud because they had nothing to offer.
Out side the courts they banged on about fraud, but inside the courts they said nothing. Then they came out of the courts complaining they had not been heard.
FOR YOU TO BE HEARD you need to have something to say.
So do yourself a favour.
Stop being a complete arse and look into the details of what has happened over the last 8 or so weeks.
A Data Analyst reverse-engineered the voting machine algorithm.
The MSM refused to call victory for Trump when he clearly won on Election Night.
4am Ballot Dump in the middle of the night.
Post Masters back-dating ballots.
We have mountains of evidence, but you are a Communist Shill, promoting an Illegal election and its Illegal outcome.
Once again, he completely ignores the points that I am making about political prejudices of individuals being rooted in dasein, in conflicting goods and in political economy.
In fact, my point is that everything he says about the Bidens and China can in fact be true objectively.
For all I know, the Bidens are themselves moral nihilists – even sociopaths – who are concerned only with sustaining political policies that enrich themselves.
Instead, my argument is that, in a No God world, philosophers, political scientists, ethicists etc., seem unable to come up with an argument able to establish and to confirm that one particular policy in regard to China is that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.
And that if you want to grasp the existential motivation behind his own frame of mind “here and now”, you need to grapple with it given the points I make on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
Now, let him – or any of the fulminating fanatic objectivists here – do that and get back to us.
But I suspect that is not likely to happen. And, given his/their posts here to date, how hard is it to guess why I have come to conclude that?
That’s not very ‘Objective’ of you to continually Appeal to Audience while “debating” somebody you claimed to want to debate.
I think that’s it then. There’s no more use for me or anybody continuing this charade. You obviously want to have an “objective” political debate to prove some kind of point, to somebody, although I can’t imagine any serious thinker / philosopher enthusiast would read you for more than a couple pages before getting bored witless.
Return to your Dasein, stick head in sand.
Allow me to translate the latter:
“If you don’t think exactly as I do about moral and political value judgments then you are blind.”
Only this particular fulminating fanatic chickenshit refuses to defend his own in an exchange with me. His very handle here – “you are wrong times a thousand” – speaks volumes regarding his peabrain mentality.
Look, I’ll even be willing to have an actual serious and civil exchange. One in which I agree not to make a fool out of him as I do here.
Anyway, do yourself a favor…
HBO has an ongoing documentary on the QAnon movement. It’s on tonight.
If these morons aren’t the very embodiment of how far the objectivist minds on the right can go!!
Lambo, don’t drag your personal politics garbage into other people’s threads.
I know you can’t help it, but it embarrasses you.
Right.
Maia starts a thread about dreams and you attempt to shift the discussion to unforgivable minds. I’m merely reminding you what this actually involves when you are a fulminating fanatic objectivist.
This thread was created in order for you to defend your own mind in regard to moral and political value judgments.
That, however, you are chickenshit and won’t go there other than in Stooge mode, is something for you to deal with.
Grow a pair. Choose a value judgment and a set of circumstances and convince me that your own mind is not unforgivable.
You and others brought up her blindness and condition unnecessarily.
Point the finger inward.
Of course those who are not blind are going to be curious about the dreams that blind people have. In fact, many assume that blind people don’t dream at all. I noted an article to that effect and she commented on it favorably. Then I noted some of the peculiarities of my own dreams. And now we’ve begun an exchange about dreams from her end and from my end.
So, in regard to moral and political value judgments, let’s you and I do the same here.
No huffing and puffing, no name-calling. Just the two of us exploring the components of our own moral and political philosophies.
On the philosophy board. Pertaining to a “conflicting good” that liberals and conservatives are often at odds regarding. And one that is likely to be familiar to most of us here.
Note to others:
This is Lambo being both a hypocrite, and an asshole,
Note to others:
Yep, no doubt about it now: another “condition”. 