Donald Trump Can't Read?

Great twist on the Fox/Trump method of inventing “scandals” out of thin air and “people are saying . . .” Though, in this case, Trump does provide a lot of fodder for the charge of illiteracy.

I have no doubt that he can read. But I do think it’s the case that he’s incredibly ignorant, not very bright at all, has tremendous difficult stringing his thoughts together in any coherent manner, and basically talks like he’s in kindergarten. If he becomes president, he will easily be one of the least knowledgeable and least “curious about the world,” evah. And he will have won largely by appealing to the incurious and the easily duped.

Also: I watched a bit of that deposition when it came out, and it struck me how tired, old and defeated he seemed. The Trump we see on TV, at his beer-hall putsch rallies, bombastic, bragging, mocking, etc. etc. was nowhere in sight. Which leads me to another “people are saying” conjecture:

He takes some serious drugs to get “up” for his public speaking tours and survive his apparent lack of any sleep. All of that sniffling at the debates points to that. His erratic, repetitive, disjointed speech points to that. As does his projection that Clinton should be drug-tested before the debates. I had a feeling as soon as I read him say that that it was classic projection and an attempt to prevent the accusation being used against him.

My guess is his “normal” self, without the drugs, without the boosters, is much like he was in that deposition. At 70, rarely sleeping, overweight, admitting to a diet of a lot of junk food, I doubt he can function without a lot of “help.”

Anyway, as always, Samantha Bee is a very funny talk show host.

— X — wrote:

I don’t care if he has a 3rd grade reading level if he hires the right collection of geniuses to attack and solve the Nation’s problems. Another 4 years of watching this Country deteriorate into a politically correct safe haven for litigious self-appointed ‘Champions of the Cause’ who are offended by virtually everything? Yeah, no thank you very much.

I want him to win for no other reason than to keep ‘her’ from appointing those kinds of judges to the Supreme Court.

I think I may not understand the “anti-PC” crowd. I cannot put that sentiment into a favorable light in my head. Seriously, all I hear when people complain about “PC” is something like, “Yeah, it takes too much energy and effort to be considerate of people who don’t think the way I do, so they should just toughen up and get over it. Since their concerns are not my concerns, they aren’t worthy of my respect.” That’s what I hear.

Zooey wrote:

— X — wrote:

I don’t care if he has a 3rd grade reading level if he hires the right collection of geniuses to attack and solve the Nation’s problems. Another 4 years of watching this Country deteriorate into a politically correct safe haven for litigious self-appointed ‘Champions of the Cause’ who are offended by virtually everything? Yeah, no thank you very much.

I want him to win for no other reason than to keep ‘her’ from appointing those kinds of judges to the Supreme Court.

I think I may not understand the “anti-PC” crowd. I cannot put that sentiment into a favorable light in my head. Seriously, all I hear when people complain about “PC” is something like, “Yeah, it takes too much energy and effort to be considerate of people who don’t think the way I do, so they should just toughen up and get over it. Since their concerns are not my concerns, they aren’t worthy of my respect.” That’s what I hear.

When I see your argument I wonder why only the PC crowd is allowed a voice? The same BS that claims racism at the drop of a hat. To simply disagree is to be branded a racist. People of conscience are fed up with that BS and support Trump’s straight talk about issues that matter to the ignored and “deplorable” masses.

Zooey wrote:

I think I may not understand the “anti-PC” crowd. I cannot put that sentiment into a favorable light in my head. Seriously, all I hear when people complain about “PC” is something like, “Yeah, it takes too much energy and effort to be considerate of people who don’t think the way I do, so they should just toughen up and get over it. Since their concerns are not my concerns, they aren’t worthy of my respect.” That’s what I hear.

It’s not about being considerate (to me). It’s about catering to the vocal minority at every turn. I have no problem with the Libertarian model of “live and let live”. What I do have a problem with is the “this offends me, so I’m gonna sue the living shit out of everybody until I feel vindicated” crowd. For instance.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/secular-group-sues-north-carolina-city-over-christian-war-memorial-123015/

I don’t want to live in a society where this is not only permitted, but encouraged. I get the whole separation of Church and State angle, but this is borderline ridiculous, and it’s becoming all to prevalent. So don’t get me wrong, Zooey. I have no desire to tell everyone to “get over” whatever it is they feel is holding them back. I do have a problem with people actively seeking ways to tear at the fabric of what is a pretty important part of our Country’s history. And I don’t subscribe to the inalienable right to sue whole communities for having the unmitigated gall to passively celebrate their right to religious freedom. If we get up to 3 or 4 more Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, I fear there will be very little left of the principles that formed our Constitution. And I’m not even a Christian. I just happen to believe that peaceful religion is a very important catalyst in repairing the social and racial divide in this Country. I’d hate to see that all go away in favor of a society where people are allowed (and encouraged) to be offended by everything and everybody, and then subsequently sue to get their way.

— X — wrote:

Zooey wrote:

I think I may not understand the “anti-PC” crowd. I cannot put that sentiment into a favorable light in my head. Seriously, all I hear when people complain about “PC” is something like, “Yeah, it takes too much energy and effort to be considerate of people who don’t think the way I do, so they should just toughen up and get over it. Since their concerns are not my concerns, they aren’t worthy of my respect.” That’s what I hear.

It’s not about being considerate (to me). It’s about catering to the vocal minority at every turn. I have no problem with the Libertarian model of “live and let live”. What I do have a problem with is the “this offends me, so I’m gonna sue the living shit out of everybody until I feel vindicated” crowd. For instance.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/secular-group-sues-north-carolina-city-over-christian-war-memorial-123015/

I don’t want to live in a society where this is not only permitted, but encouraged. I get the whole separation of Church and State angle, but this is borderline ridiculous, and it’s becoming all to prevalent. So don’t get me wrong, Zooey. I have no desire to tell everyone to “get over” whatever it is they feel is holding them back. I do have a problem with people actively seeking ways to tear at the fabric of what is a pretty important part of our Country’s history. And I don’t subscribe to the inalienable right to sue whole communities for having the unmitigated gall to passively celebrate their right to religious freedom. If we get up to 3 or 4 more Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, I fear there will be very little left of the principles that formed our Constitution. And I’m not even a Christian. I just happen to believe that peaceful religion is a very important catalyst in repairing the social and racial divide in this Country. I’d hate to see that all go away in favor of a society where people are allowed (and encouraged) to be offended by everything and everybody, and then subsequently sue to get their way.

X,

First off, you posted one example. Just one. And it’s about public space, that belongs to all of us. It’s not about suing anyone for expressing their “religious freedom” on their own property, or at their chosen place of worship. Just on “city” property.

The founders and the Constitution were pretty clear about the separation of church and state. In fact, Madison and Jefferson, especially, as men of the Enlightenment, wanted to make sure America never devolved into the sectarian bloodbaths raging throughout Europe while this nation was forming, and going back centuries before that. They knew the only way to do that was to make sure governments never put their thumb on the scale in favor of any one religion, or in religious belief overall. They knew that the merger of Church and State was a death-knell for freedom and liberty. It’s always been exactly that.

So if you’re concerned about the principles set forth by the founders and the Constitution, you would be in favor of that lawsuit, not opposed to it. And, again, it’s just one case. Given the fact that America is easily the most Christianized nation on earth, with the most churches, the most space set aside for Christian worship, the most carveouts when it comes to tax exemptions and other benefits . . . . . well, in short, to think of it as being under some kind of assault is ridiculous. No nation on earth supports its dominant religion like we do, and that, by definition, goes against the Constitution — and, for what it’s worth, the wishes of “the founders.”

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

Billy_T wrote:

X,

First off, you posted one example. Just one. And it’s about public space, that belongs to all of us. It’s not about suing anyone for expressing their “religious freedom” on their own property, or at their chosen place of worship. Just on “city” property.

The founders and the Constitution were pretty clear about the separation of church and state. In fact, Madison and Jefferson, especially, as men of the Enlightenment, wanted to make sure America never devolved into the sectarian bloodbaths raging throughout Europe while this nation was forming, and going back centuries before that. They knew the only way to do that was to make sure governments never put their thumb on the scale in favor of any one religion, or in religious belief overall. They knew that the merger of Church and State was a death-knell for freedom and liberty. It’s always been exactly that.

So if you’re concerned about the principles set forth by the founders and the Constitution, you would be in favor of that lawsuit, not opposed to it. And, again, it’s just one case. Given the fact that America is easily the most Christianized nation on earth, with the most churches, the most space set aside for Christian worship, the most carveouts when it comes to tax exemptions and other benefits . . . . . well, in short, to think of it as being under some kind of assault is ridiculous. No nation on earth supports its dominant religion like we do, and that, by definition, goes against the Constitution — and, for what it’s worth, the wishes of “the founders.”

I appreciate your thoughts on this, but I think missed the point of that article. That monument has been on that property for years, has caused harm to nobody, and has been the focus of honoring sacrifice and celebrating ALL religions – not just Christianity. And yet, a group whose motivation is likely FAR removed from promoting tolerance and unity, decided to use a Supreme Court ruling of 45 years ago to further their own agenda of intolerance. Are you really suggesting that leaving that monument alone, and leaving the citizens of that City alone, is somehow going to prove to be the catalyst for a sectarian bloodbath? Just because there’s a means to cause disruption and promote intolerance doesn’t mean it *has to be* used. And yes, it was one example. Would you like me to waste both of our time and find you hundreds more? You know full well that this is not an isolated incident perpetrated by one intolerant group. It’s a reoccurring theme.

wv wrote:

— X — wrote:

I don’t care if he has a 3rd grade reading level if he hires the right collection of geniuses to attack and solve the Nation’s problems. Another 4 years of watching this Country deteriorate into a politically correct safe haven for litigious self-appointed ‘Champions of the Cause’ who are offended by virtually everything? Yeah, no thank you very much.

I want him to win for no other reason than to keep ‘her’ from appointing those kinds of judges to the Supreme Court.

———————–
Wait a minute. Did you not READ the terms of this board? It clearly states that bnw is the authorized, official Trump supporter.

Thats his role. You think you can just come in here and stomp all over someone’s
authorized official ROLE?

I might have to sue.

w
v

You have no standing to sue. Besides there’s always more room and a warm welcome (from me) for Trump supporters here. Welcome X!

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Boiled down, the idea that the dominant religion or its adherents are under some kind of assault from “the PC crowd” just has no basis in reality. It’s an major overreaction to serial exaggerations, based on ludicrous hyperbole, ginned up by media and organizations that make very nice livings playing the grievance game. White, Christian, male, right-wing grievance is a thriving industry in America, and it shows no signs of abating. And nothing can compete with it for media and financial power, or support from the billionaire boys’ club.

Oh so that is why all those states that voted against “Gay Marriage” had the Justice dept. suing them and winning in the US Supreme Court!

That is why Merry Christmas has been replaced by Happy Holidays.

That is why God has been removed from government buildings. Many more.

I know this is a waste of time, but, here goes:

Banning gay marriage was found to be “un-Constitutional.” How on earth is that supposed to be an assault on Christianity, especially when millions of Christians favor that ruling? How on earth is it supposed to be an assault on Christianity when Jesus never mentions same-sex relations or marriage? Not once. Ever. Nor did he ever speak of abortion or contraception, while we’re at it.

You confuse far-right bigotry with “Christianity.”

And no one has replaced Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays. There has been no ruling or law passed regarding that. Where I live, I hear Merry Christmas constantly, and no one is hauled off to jail. It’s actually “PC” to say that here. It’s un-PC to say “Happy Holidays.”

Beyond that, who cares? How on earth does a greeting at a store or on TV have anything whatsoever to do with one’s ability to practice their chosen faith? It doesn’t. It has less than zero impact on you or any other practicing Christian. You’re still free to say it as often as you like. Or do you just want to force others to say it too? Is that your problem? Is it an “assault” on a right-wing Christian’s ability to force others to use the same terms they do?

American governments can not establish religion. It’s in the Constitution and the BOR. You should read them sometimes. That means you shouldn’t name any deities on public property. That means that governments should never be in the business of promoting, supporting, choosing or expressing religious content of any kind. It’s secular space. You have millions of churches, all over the country, for that purpose.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

So Billy, why do you hate God?

Here are my reasons:

He threw us out of Eden because some bimbo ate an apple.

He trick assed Abraham into thinking he had to kill his own son, and then settled for a lamb.

He killed his own son (using his surrogates, The Jews).

Being the creator of the universe, “he” is more of a female, yet he insists on being called “he”.

“I am who am” he sounds like Trump!

I spent most of my childhood afraid of him, only to realize later in life that I should have been more afraid of his priests.

Belief in God has directly led to more death and destruction than anything else we’ve invented (to date).

TSRF wrote:

So Billy, why do you hate God?

Here are my reasons:

He threw us out of Eden because some bimbo ate an apple.

He trick assed Abraham into thinking he had to kill his own son, and then settled for a lamb.

He killed his own son (using his surrogates, The Jews).

Being the creator of the universe, “he” is more of a female, yet he insists on being called “he”.

“I am who am” he sounds like Trump!

I spent most of my childhood afraid of him, only to realize later in life that I should have been more afraid of his priests.

Belief in God has directly led to more death and destruction than anything else we’ve invented (to date).

————

I heard he cant even read.

w
v

TSRF wrote:

So Billy, why do you hate God?

Beaver
Tango
doesn’t like competition? Hey zn see what I did there!

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by bnw.

— X — wrote:

bnw wrote:

So you have competing visions of America, and that particular group felt strongly enough about theirs to seek redress in court. Be careful what you wish for, because if our government takes that away, it may backfire against your own preferred vision for society as well.

Perhaps, but I’m willing to take that chance.
The alternative, and current course, is pretty distasteful to me.

But yeah, you’re right. We have competing visions of America.
Thanks for the civil discourse Billeh.

X,

Back atcha for the civil discourse. Much appreciated.

The thing is, of course, it’s not up to just you or just me to make that decision — regarding the presence or absence of certain kinds of lawsuits. We have to make it together. The entire nation, supported by the Constitution, etc.

An aside: Our different visions probably also include — to get all meta about it — different vision of what is actually happening in this country. As in, I see the Obama era as an attempt to hold onto the status quo passed on to him by Bush. With a few wrinkles here and there when it comes to “culture war” issues. Very, very minor wrinkles. IMO, the vast majority of his tenure has been in service of keeping things the same as they were before he took office — to the degree that was possible.

I see him as having governed from the center-right, and he would have been at home as a Republican in the not too distant past. I’d say right up to the Gingrich era, he would have been a moderate Republican, and I’m pretty sure most of us leftists would agree with that, give or take.

I think a fundamental point of departure for leftists and right-wingers is in the perception of the Dems, Obama, the Clintons, etc. etc. We see them as center-right on most issues. Actually “conservative,” in the historical sense. From my encounters with righties, they tend to see the current crop of Dems as “far left.” To be honest, those of us who ID as leftists find that perception wildly absurd.

TSRF wrote:

So Billy, why do you hate God?

Here are my reasons:

He threw us out of Eden because some bimbo ate an apple.

He trick assed Abraham into thinking he had to kill his own son, and then settled for a lamb.

He killed his own son (using his surrogates, The Jews).

Being the creator of the universe, “he” is more of a female, yet he insists on being called “he”.

“I am who am” he sounds like Trump!

I spent most of my childhood afraid of him, only to realize later in life that I should have been more afraid of his priests.

Belief in God has directly led to more death and destruction than anything else we’ve invented (to date).

I don’t hate him. I don’t think he exists. But I do despise what organized religion has done in the name of that fiction, especially the three monotheisms of the Levant. I agree with you that it’s the most destructive force in history, with capitalism being a very close second. But give the latter some more time. It’s doing its damndest to close the gap.

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

Wait a minute. Did you not READ the terms of this board? It clearly states that bnw is the authorized, official Trump supporter.

Thats his role. You think you can just come in here and stomp all over someone’s
authorized official ROLE?

I might have to sue.

w
v

I’m a reluctant Trump supporter (and just voted for him 10 minutes ago). I also don’t really identify with any particular party, though I am right-leaning. Kinda just try to find my way through the labyrinth of bullshit both parties lead us down to find the hidden kernels of truth. Something that resonates with me, ya know? I like Trump’s ‘big picture’, and I think he’ll hire the right people. I kind of identify with him, even though we’re nothing alike. I don’t have the best words (lol), nor did I go to Wharton to receive the bestest education, but I applied myself and relied on my ability to hire the right people in order to meet and exceed my own goals; which subsequently led to me being able to sell a successful business and semi-retire to the mountains of Western North Carolina.

Vote for a liar who’s currently under FBI investigation? lol. Yeah, no thanks.

X,

I know it’s too late, cuz you already voted. But if lying is your reason not to vote for someone, Trump should have been the last person you picked. Every independent fact-checking group has demonstrated that no one lies more than Trump, and he often does so for the most repulsive of reasons: To stoke up hate and fear.

As for that investigation. I’m not at all a fan of Clinton, and won’t vote for her. But Trump is being investigated too. It’s just that Comey chose to apply double standards, saying it wouldn’t be right to talk about Trump’s while it’s ongoing, but it was apparently necessary when it came to Clinton.

And, of course, the entire email thing is a nothingburger. The GOP knew it couldn’t go after her for the real stuff, because that would implicate them as well. The wars, the surveillance, the attempted coups, etc. etc. The GOP has been involved with all of that for decades. So it had to gin up a phony “scandal” when it came to Benghazi and the email server, because it was never going to attack Clinton for doing exactly what Republicans do:

Work their tales off for billionaires and corporate America’s interests, including starting wars, bailing out capitalism endlessly, privatizing public assets here and abroad, etc. etc.

They had to put on the circus for America to distract attention from all of that and retain their own power.

Both parties suck, and both candidates are horrible. But Trump is decidedly worse, IMO.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.