Is Donald Trump Dangerous?

I’m not left or right, I am an apolitical egoist that serves themself or those in my inner circle.

(As a tribalist those that are in my tribe and are considered to be a part of it.)

I don’t classify myself in any traditional terminologies politically as I don’t fit any criteria. I am a skeptic of all authority and systems of government but not necessarily opposed to the idea of government or leadership. It’s just that if I’m not leading, directing, or influencing a government organization I have no interest in it as it has no benefit in pertaining to me. I have no interest in government or authority of any kind as a subordinate. My political social philosophy if I had to define it would be the philosophy of me, myself, and my own.

“I’m tribal, apolitical, an egoist, and I don’t believe in traditional concepts in politics”.

Yeah, I guess it took you 11 days to come up with that as a response. “I don’t know, man”. Ok then.

Excuse me? I won’t respond right away because I am either working, sleeping, or doing things. That’s just the way it is. I can’t be online all the time.

Lol. Ok Peter.

WTF?

In reality “left” and “right” work together almost always, because they have to work for the real rulers. :wink:

Both are puppets. Aren’t they?

It’s always good to be both intelligent and diplomatic. Isn’t it?

It’s difficult to find the exact percentages.

Which one of the two vassals is it that you would or wouldn’t fight for? :stuck_out_tongue:

It is, but not always. Present case of the state of the world at hand.

There is no choice, both demand a production of simulation but of a different kind, it’sike apples and oranges, is it possible to produce a hybred between them?

Fight for one, and the other becomes as intractable. It’s like, policemen hate going to a domestic altercation , because they become the object of fury, by both parties.

The only possibility out of the impasse is a change.

Good.one. The best way to come.to grips with this is through social psychological approbation. Very simple transference of relatively unknown ideas, inter-project, introject, to form apparent stability. Between the psychology and the sociology creeps expediency of a nasty political kind, like a mirror, deflecting and revising facts, disfiguring into a successive calculus of grotesque images.

That is why, the masses go on board with anything that is made appealing by flowery rhetoric.

For that reason,.Arminius, Your question remains unanswered, since the fulcrum shifts away toward effects of social reality, fixed into and through its own language.

And what change, please?

Change, intentional or, naturally causative. What it turns out to be, because intentions or causation are kind of indeterminate, is hard to predict, but it will possibly allow for more accommodation.

I feel that You may wish to narrow down the range of possible targets : a simple aspect of change comes through j negotiation, due to exchange and assurances. That this has to be a precondition with tightening tools for enforcement is I think what is going on. Danger can be avoided but the trappings are circumstantial and abrasive.

Meno, you don’t want to commit yourself.

Of course I would, but that is a luxury I cannot afford, in any sense. Let’s say I hold to a parallel between my own opinion/state of mind, and the question of Trump.

What is Trump’s state of mind, has accelerated into a hotly debated issue, wether the 25th amendment could be used to remove him from office. Is he sane enough to manage the presidency, or, is he imploding, with a bifulcurated Congress taking in the
Slack, along with his keepers. That is the first question.

It probably makes little difference who manages him, the executive, which by definition has a pivotal role.

On the other hand , centrist positions can be transmuted to the Congress, making him marginal. So the question is, wether whoever has the power, developing a centrist, authoritarian state. I would think, yes, for indeed it looks like my wag the dog scenario is coming true, the more the Mueller Comisdion is getting near the facts, the more bellicose Trump is becoming. This is not purely an intentionally planned stratagem, nor an absolutely causative outcome. It’s a mixture, but the proof is in the pudding, and the so called Military-Infustrial Complex had this going on since way back from the 50-'s on. However, some of it has causative natural beginnings, wherein empires evolve through necessary steps of filling in power vacuums, which inimically have to He same taste, as do guessing inductively what some of the geopolitical happenings were incrementally which brought the U.S. and the world into the position it is in.

One can not commit into either an examination using both kinds of thinking, and yet one needs both. The world can not commit to a plan of using mad-mutual assured destruction, with a loose cannon such as Horth Korea. Even if Kim is not crazy, the assumption that he might be needs to be considered. It’s not either he is or is not crazy, that think tanks and military strategists have to deal with logistics of different scenarios.

This is literally becoming the modus operans today, where the whims of childish leaders can not be trusted to play with WMD.

Why make it appear as though they could be trusted, and that they have the power to ignite the whole world? The fact is, MAD requires a certain Mount of casual madness within totally unawares populations, so that when the time is right, war can be justified by whipping up public sentiment. For instance, the caricature Kim, is becoming the object of public hate, by design, to give credence to rationale.

What is dangerous is the fear of the fear becoming objectified, and mitigated by propaganda presented as fact, conveyed by some blown up all power symbolic characterization. It is playtime with the masses, and Trump is dangerous, by design, and not through any special inherent evil on his part. The sMe goes for Kim, he is only playing a part that he was thought to rehearse through the various dynasties that formed him.

For that reason? And: Only one or both of my questions?

As part of the reason, the other part would,conceivably cover Your other question.

Meno, what are you talking about here?

Alf, I’m talking about whether Trump is dangerous, or not. I think it’s a toss up, where one part of the
equation has to do with rhetoric, as a search for
truth, and the other, the underlying dynamics of what power truly is. The search for stability needs some kind of meeting of the minds, between those in the so called ‘know’ , and the ones merely guessing.