Speaking of conspiracy theories...

[Chuck Naill]

Where did the reasonable Chuck go? This one is fun to talk shit to, but the other one had more interesting conversation.

-edit-

So, the strategy is to treat your voters like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed this shit.

You posted this, Chuck. Who is interested in drama? Who is rational?

I could have said it differently, but Trump has fooled his followers and has not delivered. Some are doing prison time for storming the capital thinking they were doing his will. It is rational and objective to recognize Trump incited a mob.

However, as to how I post, that depends on what I have to respond toward. Suggesting we cannot be objective about Trump or other accusations won't result in the type of conversations for which you say you prefer.

[dneal]

Oh, I'm not suggesting you (and others) can't be objective, I'm pointing it out. I'm making the assertion. You and they have demonstrated it repeatedly.

Did you read the transcript of the portion of Bannon's Oxford address? Do you have a comment on the substance of it? On how that line of thinking would resonate with a Trump voter?

Because that was the gist of your question - why someone would vote for Trump. I explained, but you started arguing why Bannon was a bad dude, Trump voters were mushrooms, etc...

It's really no different than explaining why Trump supporters thought the election was suspect. I tried to explain that too, but for some reason you Trump-haters can't listen to that without becoming triggered.

Just because I explain the other perspective does not mean I am arguing the validity of that perspective. You (and others) can't seem to make that distinction. That's a pretty big warning sign of lack of objectivity.

--edit--

You know what's really strange? Bannon's argument is essentially Bernie's argument. "There are a bunch of uber-wealthy that are screwing everybody". Weinstein points that out too, and he's a Hillary-voting liberal. But the media has cast Weinstein (who coined "intellectual dark web") as "alt-right". A jewish liberal is alt-right. Alan Dershowitz, another jewish liberal, is also painted unfairly because his adherence to principle led him to defend Trump. That's objectivity. Slandering them is not. Weinstein went on Beck's show to converse with what he would usually consider "the enemy". To build bridges and find consensus, because the liberal media won't give him (or anyone with rational views) a voice.

Also from the Weinstein interview on Beck:

…none of us can get access to institutional media which is what the only thing that our institutions have to listen to. They don't listen, they won't listen to The Blaze unless we screw up; and then they'll take whatever we said wrong and they'll put in an indefinite cycle. But right now the problem is that MAGAstan is creating Wokestan, Wokestan is creating MAGAstan. It's Escher's hands, the two of them drawing each other into existence, the kleptocrats are busy stealing everything that isn't nailed down, and the tiny number of people who are outside of this system don't really have any effect inside what i call the Gated Institutional Narrative.

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, I'm not suggesting you (and others) can't be objective, I'm pointing it out. I'm making the assertion. You and they have demonstrated it repeatedly.

Did you read the transcript of the portion of Bannon's Oxford address? Do you have a comment on the substance of it? On how that line of thinking would resonate with a Trump voter?

Because that was the gist of your question - why someone would vote for Trump. I explained, but you started arguing why Bannon was a bad dude, Trump voters were mushrooms, etc...

It's really no different than explaining why Trump supporters thought the election was suspect. I tried to explain that too, but for some reason you Trump-haters can't listen to that without becoming triggered.

Just because I explain the other perspective does not mean I am arguing the validity of that perspective. You (and others) can't seem to make that distinction. That's a pretty big warning sign of lack of objectivity.

I provided a quote by Bannon as to why he thought they won the election. He was also found to have comment mail fraud soliciting money for building a wall. Why would you listen to him?

You admit Trump is what I think he is. Does ethical leadership matter to you? In other words, as a former military person, would you want to go into harms way under a person like Trump or would you want a Bannon type whispering in his ear? However, perhaps we are so different that these things don't matter to you. We know Dick Cheney was whispering in Bush's ear along with other neoconservatives. You've said you were against those wars. Colin Powell got sucked in. I would think every citizen would want to have a person who is a good person or as good as available.

[dneal]

Ethical leadership does matter, but I have worked for many leaders who were unethical. Some things trump (no pun intended) that. You wouldn't know most of the names I would mention, so I'll pick a more famous one from history. Patton. A straight up prick, but a master at his craft. There are greater goods (like defeating Hitler's Germany). Did you vote for Hillary? Do you want an example of her "unethical leadership"? Does it matter to you? I can say the same about the current President or his VP. I can give you examples of "unethical leadership". Did you vote for him (and her)? Does it matter to you?

Your cite of Bannon was not a direct quote. It was a quote of hearsay, but let's assume it is accurate. Bannon was merely describing a strategy to defeat the media that was aligned against Trump. Overwhelm them with shit, or something. It worked. Trump won an election.

Now my turn. What specifically do you disagree with in the Bannon cite I offered?

[Chuck Naill]

Ethical leadership does matter, but I have worked for many leaders who were unethical. Some things trump (no pun intended) that. You wouldn't know most of the names I would mention, so I'll pick a more famous one from history. Patton. A straight up prick, but a master at his craft. There are greater goods (like defeating Hitler's Germany). Did you vote for Hillary? Do you want an example of her "unethical leadership"? Does it matter to you? I can say the same about the current President or his VP. I can give you examples of "unethical leadership". Did you vote for him (and her)? Does it matter to you?

Your cite of Bannon was not a direct quote. It was a quote of hearsay, but let's assume it is accurate. Bannon was merely describing a strategy to defeat the media that was aligned against Trump. Overwhelm them with shit, or something. It worked. Trump won an election.

Now my turn. What specifically do you disagree with in the Bannon cite I offered?

Yes, I did vote for Hillary and Biden and I am ticked to death I did. In life we are often faced with doing the greater good when no really good is avaiable.

Prove he didn't say it. If he did, you will perhaps appreciate the mushroom analogy. I do think if you look at his profile you will see a flawed type who will do anything to get his way and that's dangerous when coupled with power.

[dneal]

Again, what specifically do you disagree with in the Bannon cite I offered?

[Chuck Naill]

Again, what specifically do you disagree with in the Bannon cite I offered?

If you want a discussion, you have to respond to my questions. Again, if you wan the "chuck" you prefer, you'll need to participate. Otherwise, I'll be obliged to ignore.

[dneal]

Chuck, I answered your questions and posed one for you. I even noted "Now my turn..." You responded with more questions. Hardly a fair exchange.

Ignore away if you must, or be the "other" Chuck. That's up to you.

-edit-

p.s.: I pointed out that your "quote" of Bannon wasn't a direct quote, but I conceded for the sake of argument that he said it and what it meant.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, I answered your questions and posed one for you. I even noted "Now my turn..." You responded with more questions. Hardly a fair exchange.

Ignore away if you must, or be the "other" Chuck. That's up to you.

-edit-

p.s.: I pointed out that your "quote" of Bannon wasn't a direct quote, but I conceded for the sake of argument that he said it and what it meant.

Just saying it was not a direct quote doesn't prove anything @dneal. It was attributed to him. I didn't just make it up.

[dneal]

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just noting the fact that it wasn't a direct quote.

Do you have a specific disagreement with the Bannon cite I offered?

[Chuck Naill]

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just noting the fact that it wasn't a direct quote.

Do you have a specific disagreement with the Bannon cite I offered?

I can’t take your word for it. I’ll see if people just made it up and get back with you. It was written as if he said it.

[dneal]

You can watch the video and listen to it straight from the horse's mouth, but you don't like watching videos.

Otherwise, you would have to look at the transcript; but YouTube is converting from speech. It's not perfect, to say the least; so I had to copy the text, insert punctuation and whatnot.

LINK

[Chuck Naill]

The direct quote, which I posted, was a Bloomberg piece by Michael Lewis in 2018.

[dneal]

Oh, I thought you were talking about my "quote". I accept your quote of Bannon. No dispute on my end.

Now, do you have a specific disagreement with the Bannon cite I offered?

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, I thought you were talking about my "quote". I accept your quote of Bannon. No dispute on my end.

Now, do you have a specific disagreement with the Bannon cite I offered?

I listened to a few minutes. It is a common Bannon strategy to pit one group against another. He’s doing it there with elites and millennials. Bannon is an elite.

If you look at why he said Trump won, you’ll learn something about the strategy of Bannon. It doesn’t mean that what he says he believes. Anyone who committed mail fraud as he did, does not respect those, like you, who listens.

[dneal]

It's a common strategy of every politician to pit one group against another. Democrats want to corrupt your children. Republicans want your grandma to die.

I'm talking about the content I cited. In the quoted text. Is he wrong? Do the elite rig the system knowing that the taxpayer will be left on the hook to bail them out? Sure that will pit the taxpayer against the elite, but there's more to it than that. Is he right that everyone's savings account nets them little to nothing in interest? Is that a reason to be upset with the system?

I think he makes some very salient points. Their veracity is not contingent on his behavior.

[Chuck Naill]

It's a common strategy of every politician to pit one group against another. Democrats want to corrupt your children. Republicans want your grandma to die.

I'm talking about the content I cited. In the quoted text. Is he wrong? Do the elite rig the system knowing that the taxpayer will be left on the hook to bail them out? Sure that will pit the taxpayer against the elite, but there's more to it than that. Is he right that everyone's savings account nets them little to nothing in interest? Is that a reason to be upset with the system?

I think he makes some very salient points. Their veracity is not contingent on his behavior.

No they don't or if they do, not because of some weird evil intent. He makes points if that's what you want to hear. Reagan did the same to me. He made me proud to be an American while taking away government help from others. Interest rates came down then and I benefitted. However, I didn't benefit because of anything Reagan did. I got a hired by a large company and was very succesful for 22 years.

I remember 12 % mortage interest rates on my first house in 1979. People were making 10% putting their money in CD's. These were usually older folks retired or near retired. There were older couples with 5 percent mortages who had paid half what I did.

David Brooks does a good job being critical about academic and the Eastern Elites (like Obama et al) for which the rural and less educated feel less and for which Bannon recognized and exploited. While it got Trump is office, it was not good for the nation. Obama said "
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," . Obama gave Bannon a gift.
My opinion is, I don't succeed by making someone else fail.

[TSherbs]

Oh, I'm not suggesting you (and others) can't be objective, I'm pointing it out. I'm making the assertion. You and they have demonstrated it repeatedly.

So have you. And you have your triggers and forum behavioral patterns and prejudices as much as anyone else.

Will you never stop with this mantra that does nothing to help a conversation? No one can escape the subjectivity of their own thinking, not even the guy who is biased toward Kantian imperatives. We're just here sharing gobs of opinionated claims with occasional references to facts and/or other experts (actually what you said elsewhere you did not wish to continue doing, ironically. Cuz that's all any of us do here, including you).

[dneal]

Brother, when my mantra starts it's because you and those like you have destroyed a thread, or are on your way to it. Pedantry, semantics, deflection, snide remarks to name calling, etc...

I simply respond in kind.

Want proof?

Post #4 in This Thread

Post #85? You're back. Post #103? after having the flaws in your argument(s) shot down, you run away. And keep in mind it wasn't just me. Mhosea called it out first. The other usual suspects are in there as well.

Otherwise, a thread full of reasonable conversation. How is that, when I'm such a disruptive person? Hmm, maybe it's not me. I'm happy to oblige with more evidence. Other threads. Just say the word. I have challenged you on several occasions to point out where I start the shenanigans. You ignore that, curiously. It's not even hard. I've started a few threads just to poke you guys, just to see how ridiculous you want to get.

Pretend otherwise, but your schtick is obvious and tired.

QED

[TSherbs]

you're so great

I'm flattered to have such a fan going back over my posts. I particularly like how relevant to the thread topic that you are being.