What about Trump's ear?
MidnightSonneteer said:
Your inquiry assumes that I am anti-Trump, when it would be more accurate to recognize that I am a pro-virtue poet in an insidiously cynical anti-virtue culture, and I can't imagine that anybody would have a problem with that, unless they were themselves a complainer of virtue signaling, which of course is tacit admission of being anti-virtue.
It is most telling of our American virtue declination that there are ONLY two such threads here at DUP.
Perhaps, then, everyone should be nominated for Academy Awards, like you feel Trump should be.
Your inquiry assumes that I am anti-Trump, when it would be more accurate to recognize that I am a pro-virtue poet in an insidiously cynical anti-virtue culture, and I can't imagine that anybody would have a problem with that, unless they were themselves a complainer of virtue signaling, which of course is tacit admission of being anti-virtue.
It is most telling of our American virtue declination that there are ONLY two such threads here at DUP.
Perhaps, then, everyone should be nominated for Academy Awards, like you feel Trump should be.
MidnightSonneteer said:
Perhaps we ought to decide together just what exactly is an award worthy merit.
Criteria is definitely needed, for determining who is award worthy.
Having won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Long Term Marriage, myself, when I was still married, I'm positive that the ability to convincingly be someone you're not , either by choice or necessity, is a must.
Perhaps we ought to decide together just what exactly is an award worthy merit.
Criteria is definitely needed, for determining who is award worthy.
Having won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Long Term Marriage, myself, when I was still married, I'm positive that the ability to convincingly be someone you're not , either by choice or necessity, is a must.
MadameLavender said:
Criteria is definitely needed, for determining who is award worthy.
Having won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Long Term Marriage, myself, when I was still married, I'm positive that the ability to convincingly be someone you're not , either by choice or necessity, is a must.
Then let us begin with accuracy of comment interpretation.
How would you like your comment to be interpreted?
Criteria is definitely needed, for determining who is award worthy.
Having won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Long Term Marriage, myself, when I was still married, I'm positive that the ability to convincingly be someone you're not , either by choice or necessity, is a must.
Then let us begin with accuracy of comment interpretation.
How would you like your comment to be interpreted?
MidnightSonneteer said:
Then let us begin with accuracy of comment interpretation.
How would you like your comment to be interpreted?
It should be interpreted based on the situation the award nominee, is in.
For example, going back to Trump, we would have to deduce if he was in character, playing a role or not, and if so, for what purpose?
Entertainment and self promotion, or being part of a narrative meant for some purpose, such as finding out who in your circle , is truly on your side, while showing the audience everyone's true colors?
Then let us begin with accuracy of comment interpretation.
How would you like your comment to be interpreted?
It should be interpreted based on the situation the award nominee, is in.
For example, going back to Trump, we would have to deduce if he was in character, playing a role or not, and if so, for what purpose?
Entertainment and self promotion, or being part of a narrative meant for some purpose, such as finding out who in your circle , is truly on your side, while showing the audience everyone's true colors?
MadameLavender said:
It should be interpreted based on the situation the award nominee, is in.
For example, going back to Trump, we would have to deduce if he was in character, playing a role or not, and if so, for what purpose?
Entertainment and self promotion, or being part of a narrative meant for some purpose, such as finding out who in your circle , is truly on your side, while showing the audience everyone's true colors?
Default psyche red flags are already going off, since implicit in the inquiry is the vague nature of the candidate's relationship with the public, with the job criteria being one that is supposedly supportive of the public, which isn't a job requirement that will be facilitated by the implicit duplicity of the candidate being in some sort of "character" other than being devoted to the representation of the majority, otherwise why does that potential job exist? If his intent is to fleece the public, he is a criminal, since larceny is illegal. Additionally, what is meant by "true colors"?
Additional data required.
It should be interpreted based on the situation the award nominee, is in.
For example, going back to Trump, we would have to deduce if he was in character, playing a role or not, and if so, for what purpose?
Entertainment and self promotion, or being part of a narrative meant for some purpose, such as finding out who in your circle , is truly on your side, while showing the audience everyone's true colors?
Default psyche red flags are already going off, since implicit in the inquiry is the vague nature of the candidate's relationship with the public, with the job criteria being one that is supposedly supportive of the public, which isn't a job requirement that will be facilitated by the implicit duplicity of the candidate being in some sort of "character" other than being devoted to the representation of the majority, otherwise why does that potential job exist? If his intent is to fleece the public, he is a criminal, since larceny is illegal. Additionally, what is meant by "true colors"?
Additional data required.
MidnightSonneteer said:
Default psyche red flags are already going off, since implicit in the inquiry is the vague nature of the candidate's relationship with the public, with the job criteria being one that is supposedly supportive of the public, which isn't a job requirement that will be facilitated by the implicit duplicity of the candidate being in some sort of "character" other than being devoted to the representation of the majority, otherwise why does that potential job exist? If his intent is to fleece the public, he is a criminal, since larceny is illegal. Additionally, what is meant by "true colors"?
Additional data required.
For "true colors" it could be that it was to show who around Trump had his back and who didn't, regardless of his own intents.
Good or bad, I would think that anyone would want to know who's on their team and who's not.
For the job he is applying for, how can we say that anyone who's ever campaigned for that job or actually held it, has been duplicitous or not? Are the elections truly elections by the people, or selections between installed candidates so no matter which one "wins", agendas will still be accomplished ?
Now that Trump has been "convicted" ,all that does is open it up to all former presidents no longer having immunity from prosecution and all their crimes can now be looked at. <-- 5D chess move, perhaps?
Default psyche red flags are already going off, since implicit in the inquiry is the vague nature of the candidate's relationship with the public, with the job criteria being one that is supposedly supportive of the public, which isn't a job requirement that will be facilitated by the implicit duplicity of the candidate being in some sort of "character" other than being devoted to the representation of the majority, otherwise why does that potential job exist? If his intent is to fleece the public, he is a criminal, since larceny is illegal. Additionally, what is meant by "true colors"?
Additional data required.
For "true colors" it could be that it was to show who around Trump had his back and who didn't, regardless of his own intents.
Good or bad, I would think that anyone would want to know who's on their team and who's not.
For the job he is applying for, how can we say that anyone who's ever campaigned for that job or actually held it, has been duplicitous or not? Are the elections truly elections by the people, or selections between installed candidates so no matter which one "wins", agendas will still be accomplished ?
Now that Trump has been "convicted" ,all that does is open it up to all former presidents no longer having immunity from prosecution and all their crimes can now be looked at. <-- 5D chess move, perhaps?
MadameLavender said:
For "true colors" it could be that it was to show who around Trump had his back and who didn't, regardless of his own intents.
Good or bad, I would think that anyone would want to know who's on their team and who's not.
Resorting to duplicity to accurately detect character flaws suggests a deficit in the candidate's psychological and ethical sophistication, or concern for peer integrity.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
For "true colors" it could be that it was to show who around Trump had his back and who didn't, regardless of his own intents.
Good or bad, I would think that anyone would want to know who's on their team and who's not.
Resorting to duplicity to accurately detect character flaws suggests a deficit in the candidate's psychological and ethical sophistication, or concern for peer integrity.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
MadameLavender said:
For the job he is applying for, how can we say that anyone who's ever campaigned for that job or actually held it, has been duplicitous or not? Are the elections truly elections by the people, or selections between installed candidates so no matter which one "wins", agendas will still be accomplished ?
A concern I have read from Marxist quarters, but integrity standards are more important the more they are disregarded, not less, no matter the results. Expectations of morality must be maintained, or we descend into barbarity.
For the job he is applying for, how can we say that anyone who's ever campaigned for that job or actually held it, has been duplicitous or not? Are the elections truly elections by the people, or selections between installed candidates so no matter which one "wins", agendas will still be accomplished ?
A concern I have read from Marxist quarters, but integrity standards are more important the more they are disregarded, not less, no matter the results. Expectations of morality must be maintained, or we descend into barbarity.
MadameLavender said:
Now that Trump has been "convicted" ,all that does is open it up to all former presidents no longer having immunity from prosecution and all their crimes can now be looked at. <-- 5D chess move, perhaps?
Implicit in your statement is that leadership is somehow supposed to be immune from the punitive consequences of lawbreaking, and other bad decisions, which is expected in our society...for everyone.
Are you suggesting that Democrat Senator Menendez be pardoned after being convicted?
Maybe Hunter?
Where are you on consequences?
Now that Trump has been "convicted" ,all that does is open it up to all former presidents no longer having immunity from prosecution and all their crimes can now be looked at. <-- 5D chess move, perhaps?
Implicit in your statement is that leadership is somehow supposed to be immune from the punitive consequences of lawbreaking, and other bad decisions, which is expected in our society...for everyone.
Are you suggesting that Democrat Senator Menendez be pardoned after being convicted?
Maybe Hunter?
Where are you on consequences?
MidnightSonneteer said:
Resorting to duplicity to accurately detect character flaws suggests a deficit in the candidate's psychological and ethical sophistication, or concern for peer integrity.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
What if Trump was acting on the orders of others, to flush out the bad eggs? Perhaps he is a pawn in the chess game to some extent?
Marxism=the devil in one of his many disguises. A core belief of Marxism is a disdain of capitalism and a hyper-equality of the populace under the guise of evening out the differences in social classes. What it does is erases everything to the point of everyone being the same, especially in finances
Therefore, going to college, getting a degree for a job that pays well, becomes a job that gets paid equal to all jobs under this system. Why get a medical degree when a doctor will get paid the same as a convenience store clerk? It then spirals into a financial enslavement society.
Resorting to duplicity to accurately detect character flaws suggests a deficit in the candidate's psychological and ethical sophistication, or concern for peer integrity.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
What if Trump was acting on the orders of others, to flush out the bad eggs? Perhaps he is a pawn in the chess game to some extent?
Marxism=the devil in one of his many disguises. A core belief of Marxism is a disdain of capitalism and a hyper-equality of the populace under the guise of evening out the differences in social classes. What it does is erases everything to the point of everyone being the same, especially in finances
Therefore, going to college, getting a degree for a job that pays well, becomes a job that gets paid equal to all jobs under this system. Why get a medical degree when a doctor will get paid the same as a convenience store clerk? It then spirals into a financial enslavement society.
MadameLavender said:
What if Trump was acting on the orders of others, to flush out the bad eggs? Perhaps he is a pawn in the chess game to some extent?
Marxism=the devil in one of his many disguises. A core belief of Marxism is a disdain of capitalism and a hyper-equality of the populace under the guise of evening out the differences in social classes. What it does is erases everything to the point of everyone being the same, especially in finances
Therefore, going to college, getting a degree for a job that pays well, becomes a job that gets paid equal to all jobs under this system. Why get a medical degree when a doctor will get paid the same as a convenience store clerk? It then spirals into a financial enslavement society.
Marxism, understood, cannot claim emancipatory argument perfection, but that doesn't mean its criticisms of capitalism are invalid, and that they are not in biblical congruity.
So then nothing done to even out the playing fields of America?
Should we rejoin what's left of the British empire so that we will have Kings again?
What would George Washington have to say about that, and many will say that we are already in a financial enslavement society, due to unrestricted financial scheming.
What if Trump was acting on the orders of others, to flush out the bad eggs? Perhaps he is a pawn in the chess game to some extent?
Marxism=the devil in one of his many disguises. A core belief of Marxism is a disdain of capitalism and a hyper-equality of the populace under the guise of evening out the differences in social classes. What it does is erases everything to the point of everyone being the same, especially in finances
Therefore, going to college, getting a degree for a job that pays well, becomes a job that gets paid equal to all jobs under this system. Why get a medical degree when a doctor will get paid the same as a convenience store clerk? It then spirals into a financial enslavement society.
Marxism, understood, cannot claim emancipatory argument perfection, but that doesn't mean its criticisms of capitalism are invalid, and that they are not in biblical congruity.
So then nothing done to even out the playing fields of America?
Should we rejoin what's left of the British empire so that we will have Kings again?
What would George Washington have to say about that, and many will say that we are already in a financial enslavement society, due to unrestricted financial scheming.
MidnightSonneteer said:
Marxism, understood, cannot claim emancipatory argument perfection, but that doesn't mean its criticisms of capitalism are invalid, and that they are not in biblical congruity.
So then nothing done to even out the playing fields of America?
Should we rejoin What's left of the British empire so that we will have Kings again?
What would George Washington have to say about that?
That's where NESARA (executive order 13849) comes in play, to even out the playing field, but not screw over the people in the process.
And we actually never left the British Empire -- they never conceded defeat in the 1776 war for Independence. America also became a corporation in 1871 and most of our tax dollars have been sent to the Crown ever since:
https://www.youhavetheright.com/tour1/
That is what got Kennedy assassinated -- trying to dismantle all that, and it's what got Trump in the crosshairs too. He's finishing what Kennedy started but with a better backing .
Marxism, understood, cannot claim emancipatory argument perfection, but that doesn't mean its criticisms of capitalism are invalid, and that they are not in biblical congruity.
So then nothing done to even out the playing fields of America?
Should we rejoin What's left of the British empire so that we will have Kings again?
What would George Washington have to say about that?
That's where NESARA (executive order 13849) comes in play, to even out the playing field, but not screw over the people in the process.
And we actually never left the British Empire -- they never conceded defeat in the 1776 war for Independence. America also became a corporation in 1871 and most of our tax dollars have been sent to the Crown ever since:
https://www.youhavetheright.com/tour1/
That is what got Kennedy assassinated -- trying to dismantle all that, and it's what got Trump in the crosshairs too. He's finishing what Kennedy started but with a better backing .
"And we actually never left the British Empire -- they never conceded defeat in the 1776 war for Independence. America also became a corporation in 1871 and most of our tax dollars have been sent to the Crown ever since:"
[/quote]
Well, then someone best clue in Copilot GPT-4...
You
Sent by you:
are the united states a corporation with its own sovereignty
Copilot
Sent by Copilot:
The United States is not a corporation in the traditional sense. Instead, it is a sovereign nation governed by the American people. The U.S. Constitution serves as a popularly issued corporate charter, outlining the powers and limitations of the government. While the earliest American colonies were literal corporations under the Crown, the Constitution shifted authority from the King to the People as the chartering sovereign1. In summary, the U.S. government is not a corporation but a constitutional entity created by and accountable to its citizens.
Probably oughta let the limeys know as well:)
[/quote]
Well, then someone best clue in Copilot GPT-4...
You
Sent by you:
are the united states a corporation with its own sovereignty
Copilot
Sent by Copilot:
The United States is not a corporation in the traditional sense. Instead, it is a sovereign nation governed by the American people. The U.S. Constitution serves as a popularly issued corporate charter, outlining the powers and limitations of the government. While the earliest American colonies were literal corporations under the Crown, the Constitution shifted authority from the King to the People as the chartering sovereign1. In summary, the U.S. government is not a corporation but a constitutional entity created by and accountable to its citizens.
Probably oughta let the limeys know as well:)
