Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/donal...-bannon-steven-mnuchin-gary-cohn-jay-clayton/
Trump filling the fecking swamp @Alex Styles
Trump filling the fecking swamp @Alex Styles
I don't think it is as obvious as you are making out since you believe Trump falls out of that group.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too.
Hey, thats not fair. You have to wait til Kelly Anne comes along with an "interpretation" of it.
Jeez, it's just a slip like.
the scientific community is also part of the establishment. On the face of it Bannon's inclusion is concerning for the said minorities
@Alex Styles answer your posts ffs
Wow. Sounds bad when said like that. Do you guys think he was being literal?
I agree he has facilitated white supremacists and racists through Breitbart. Still though guilt by association doesn't sit well with me. Despite all the hours this guy has spent expressing his views on radio, in article and in documentaries, there still doesn't appear to be a smoking-gun here.
You tell us..
Trump has been in office for a month!!! How is he establishment???
No I won't offer an interpretation. I want YOUR interpretation
One of the annoying things about modern politics is the number of people that use "the establishment" as a catch-all term to mean "stuff I don't like that exists".
Fake news! Sad!“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too.
This is patently not the case.
Nobody is expressing a dislike of his supporters. Some are even giving him credence for some of his policies: I myself think that a promise and delivery on investment in US infrastructure is a sound policy.
You're confusing two things. I can dislike how you behave. ie how you support the ramblings of a guy that's clearly out of his depth on the worlds stage. How you deliberately jump over one small thing to obfuscate the issue at hand. Yet I'm not saying you as a person are dislikeable.
To use myself as an example;
If I say "I like Trumps stance on national infrastructure. Lets see if he can deliver".
If I then see Trump come on TV and say "Obama deliberately held America back. We have sewers and bridges in disrepair. He has left us on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Believe me. I know. I've seen the data folks. Hillary wanted to bring in companies from China. China. She wanted China to fix this mess. And it's a horrible mess. A horrible horrible mess that I've been handed. believe me. And that's the way it is"
I can agree with his goal, but think his message is full of hyperbole and bullsh1t. THAT is the issue.
Trump supporters are free to support him. But it's lunacy to defend all of what's coming from his side. It's an unprecedented disaster. You don't have to defend the message delivery and modus operandi to support him.
You're speaking of it as if the 'scientific community' is one, singular entity, when it is instead a collection of different groups across varying countries and areas, often promoting ideas and science which are contradictory to the views of popular politicians. Look at history; scientists have often pioneered widely accepted ideas which were extremely controversial at the time.
You mean you haven't a clue, is what you mean.
Yes, he was being literal. He has professed to being a Leninist.
As a Trump supporter reading this thread, do you see back and forths like these and think poor Alex getting ganked by libcafe? Or do you hear both sides of the argument and wonder why someone from your camp is struggling to make a coherent argument? In the latter case would this lead you to question that position and seek more information to confirm or debunk it? I hope it's the latter but suspect it's mainly the former...
You tell me. The guy you support put him in the White House.
Thanks
Still waiting on my millions for trying to do good in the world.Yeah it's a bit bizarre. It again ignores the fact that scientists and other university academics have often pioneered controversial, unpopular ideas which have in the long-term advanced society but were unpopular at the time. It also ignores that, inevitably, whoever is in power has some level of establishment to their name; it's pretty much unavoidable. It's become such a cop-out term, though.
Again, what is establishment in your view? Do you mean career politician?
That is the smoking gun is it not?
It also totally ignores the fact that the scientific community doesn't believe the "establishment" was doing anything like nearly enough about climate change. They were literally at odds with them on how much action is needed.
Not if I understand the term correctly.
I actually find it extremely insulting when people write off scientists as part of the establishment, and ignore their views on a topic like climate change because it contradicts what they want to believe.
Those establishment scientists are largely responsible for why we live like we do today. They're involved in the designing of the modern technology we use which makes travel and contacting others far easier than it ever was. They're the reason we're able to operate and treat those with illnesses in a more effective manner than we've ever been able to do before. You wouldn't refer to a doctor treating you for disease effectively as part of the 'establishment' and so it's insulting to refer to a scientists as much when they contradict your opinion on one issue.
I'm not a scientist. Was a bit shite at it as a general subject in school, and so I'm not about to dispute their expertise, in the same way I'd be pissed off if someone disputed something I knew more about because they don't like what they're being told.
Those establishment scientists are largely responsible for why we live like we do today. They're involved in the designing of the modern technology we use which makes travel and contacting others far easier than it ever was. They're the reason we're able to operate and treat those with illnesses in a more effective manner than we've ever been able to do before. You wouldn't refer to a doctor treating you for disease effectively as part of the 'establishment' and so it's insulting to refer to a scientists as much when they contradict your opinion on one issue.
I'm not a scientist. Was a bit shite at it as a general subject in school, and so I'm not about to dispute their expertise, in the same way I'd be pissed off if someone disputed something I knew more about because they don't like what they're being told.
That's a good point. So establishment is the current regime (in genreal).
Trump is likened and feared to be a Tyrrant i guess. This video best describes what change I'm talking about.
This is why people are now talking about the failings of democracy.
From July 2014.
I swear he's trolling the world.
I swear he's trolling the world.
Yeah, they should've stopped that politician Obama doing all those luxury 'politics' things.
This is a good read about the electoral college vote and ties to slavery. Posted several times, I believe. Worth a read.
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
I don't get what you are saying, do you believe that the things I highlighted from your post do not reflect what he is about?
If you mean that he hasn't said he is a card carrying racist white nationalist, I'd first ask why that surprises you and second what more would you like for him to do to convince you? I guess you want the shell casings too? Ballistics report all corroborated?
So the Republicans who preceded trump and Obama are both part of the establishment and the change from the establishment? Not to mention the republican control of many state level governments, the house and senate for most of Obama's tenure.
Plus the history of the Republican Party for at least the last 30 to 40 years, pretty much means they are actually a huge part of this establishment you claim they are the change from.
You really have little to no idea about the US government or the establishment. Use that Google tool more and in a better way.
Why do you have to be insulted? There are conflicting views everywhere. Most views are based on funding
Anyway why would there be an agenda to cure cancer when it's a money making machine?
Why would they use renewable energy when they can sell oil?
Why stop wars when they can sell guns and ammo?
Maybe Google his history a bit.
Rich white guy, friendly with the elite, out to use the system only to make himself rich, abusing small business people, huge friends of the clintons until it did not suit his quest for power, hated the idea you could be president without winning the popular vote until it suited him, etc etc etc etc etc
He is part of the establishment
And yet most of the anti-science views are based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, instead resorting to bizarre conspiracy theories. Like the idea that we're deliberately not curing cancer.
These supposedly 'establishment' scientists would argue for the use of renewable energy over oil, and would likely recognise - in many cases - the absurdity of war.
- Status