Joshe

Thanks! Lastly, consider this: Imagine if we're right about Trump and you vote for him. How much would it bother you if we turned out to be right and he actually does the damage some people are worried about? At least try to steelman the position so you don't potentially find yourself in that situation. IDK the best documentary or anything but it's all out there, from the horse's mouth. This one is on Prime but not sure how good it is. Do the right thing. Vote against hate.

Yeah, see, if you think Trump is a typical human who makes mistakes just like anyone else, I can understand why you'd consider him a viable candidate. Thing is, if he was a typical human, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Wise people wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops about him. Dude, Trump literally operates 24/7 on con artistry, lies, and cheating. It's who he is. That's the truth and it's odd how anyone could miss it. Question: Do you believe that everyone who claims what I'm claiming here has arrived at their judgement based on faulty or biased reasoning? Have you figured out what we're saying and concluded it's inaccurate?

Ok, so, he either is or isn't. One of us is dead wrong. I know who and what he is, and it's not out of bias. It's simply reading reality for what it is. It doesn't take a genius to see it either. But again, I ask you, if the devil came up from hell and had good policy proposals and was running against Kamala, would you dismiss them outright and not consider them? Of course you would because you know the Devil's character. Now, it's easily verifiable fact that Trump is a lying, cheating, snake oil con artist. And you're considering his policies. I want to know why. You must not be able to discern the truth of what he is, or either you're operating on bias or just don't care or have fallen victim to propaganda, or a mixture of all these.

If the devil came up from hell and promised you all the things Trump was, would you consider his policies or would you instinctively know that it would be absurd to consider his policies? Also, I don't take my marching orders from Leo. lol. I just happen to agree with him here. Leo is wise. If he couldn't see the truth of Trump, he wouldn't be.

@What Am I I'm curious. You being someone who values peace and harmony, what do you make of Trump's character and someone like him being in position of the presidency? I suspect you're reasoning is it's worth the gamble that our institutions are strong enough to withstand him for another term, and since you have that to lean on, you think it's worth the risk to buck the establishment. Is that pretty much your thinking? Because if peace and harmony are some of your top values, you'd find yourself in deep shit trying to convince yourself or anyone else that your Trump vote is a vote for unity, peace, harmony, etc. Can someone please just lay out the logic. Anti-establishment is not enough. You have to demonstrate how you deal with the toxic wrecking ball that is Trump. Do you think he's just not that toxic? I remember when he first got in in 2016. It was clear to me that if you have someone like that at the head of the nation, they can do irreparable damage to the country. I imagined children at home watching him demonstrate hate, spite, selfishness, vindictiveness, attacking people and calling them names, and just the impact of that alone should be enough to let you know something isn't right. I knew that it was a huge mistake to have that in the highest office in the land and that it could produce dire, unforeseeable consequences. The risk is too great. How do you, a spiritual person, justify a vote for someone who embodies all values COMPLETELY antithetical to your stated values? He is full of hate, and you think it's a good idea to vote for him. I won't try to convince you of anything, I'd just like to understand.

Damn guys. This is just sad. In one of Leo's videos, he told you you're a fool if you try to evaluate Trump on policy... and I concur. It's the most absurd shit. The only reason you need to vote Kamala is to vote against Trump. That's it. No policy assessments needed. You simply look at reality and what has unfolded and continues to unfold, and you should instinctually know what to do. The fact that this instinct doesn't kick in for you says something... but I haven't quite figured it all out yet. It's either you can't read reality accurately, you're propagandized on some anti-establishment anti-woke bullshit, or you're just really a conservative, NONE of which, even if given their due legitimacy, would come close to tipping the scale towards Trump. But you know what my #1 theory is? It's that you have near zero ability to game out the implications of a variable. If x gets put into the highest office on the planet and if x has these attributes and this history, what scenarios are likely to play out. If you could read reality accurately, this whole assessment would answer you the question of who to fucking vote for. If you sweep under the rug all that is Trump and start talking about things he can do for you, you've LOST THE GODDAMN PLOT!

I know next to nothing about economics but I don't think Kamala has a lever she can pull to change the price of eggs and gas. Did you hear that the oil companies are raking in record-breaking profits? They are charging consumers more and they are making more profit than ever before. Why do you blame politicians for that and not the oil companies? Also, from what they say, inflation is global phenomenon and they say the US is faring far better than most other countries. Again, IDK shit about this stuff... it just seems like Fox News propaganda. Prices change over time. It's not absurd that a loaf of bread would increase by a dollar over 4 years IMO. It's been happening my entire life. Why is a large #1 at McDonald's $14 bucks when it used to be $6? Must be the Dems!

Probably not, but hopefully we'll get to find out for sure. Put yourself in the shoes of the first woman president of the US. Even if you were status-quo corrupt before, there's a chance you might care more about your legacy as the first woman president so much that you actually turn over a new leaf and transcend status-quo corruption. You get to be the first woman president, don't fuck it up. I think this is a possibility, but I guess we'll see.

Yes, but you can be wise enough to avoid those traps. You could even set up an entire team specifically to audit every decision to check against such things.

Hmm, I haven't paid much attention to her but from what I've seen, her personality seems pretty damn assertive. I get the sense that she'll do what she wants to do. She strikes me as that type of woman. You can see it in her mannerisms and her restraint. I can anyway. I get the sense that you don't actually care about this though. Why does it matter who arrives at the best decision so long as they go with it. If I were president, the vast majority of my decisions would be made from those wiser than me on the particular topic. In fact, the best president would probably be the one who stayed the most out of the way of the experts.

Funny, that's exactly what I want. I want someone intelligent enough to know they are not an expert on all subject matter and to then seek the council of those who are. Some consider that a sign of intelligence and humility, aka, maturity.

Her not going on Rogan doesn't even hint towards that, much less prove it. You could speculate that's the reason, but there are dozens of other potential reasons we could also speculate, and you can't say which reason is correct without more information. Making that big of a leap here is indicative that you're likely making similar leaps all over the place. This type of thinking is a surefire way to arrive at falsehood. Also, because a con artist can sit down and behave well enough and go off the cuff for 3 hours should not be used as a measurement of his character. Con artists know how to appear normal, ya know?

I've never seen Trump discuss anything complex. If you have, please point me to it so I can adjust my reading. As far as I can tell, his IQ must be low or average. High IQ people tend to engage with complexity and it's hard for them to hide their propensity to do so. Trump is so dumb he came up with the idea to inject something approximating bleach into the bloodstream to irradicate Covid-19. I think this idea would only spring from a low IQ. I won't hold my breath for any evidence indicative of high IQ.

Regarding Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand, etc. The pattern often follows a similar trajectory: Build credibility through thoughtful analysis Gain a following that provides financial/social rewards Begin tailoring positions to maintain/expand that following Eventually end up defending positions they might have previously criticized The tragic part is how this transformation often happens gradually enough that the person might not fully realize how far they've drifted from their original intellectual integrity. The financial and social rewards create powerful incentives to maintain course even when part of them might recognize the compromise. There's also often a point of no return where their new identity and financial security become so tied to their new positions that walking back becomes nearly impossible without destroying everything they've built. Common patterns: Build Credibility Through Thoughtful Analysis Start with genuine academic/intellectual work Establish core reputation Produce nuanced analysis Stay within expertise Challenge ideas thoughtfully Gain peer respect Position as independent thinker Question conventional wisdom Support arguments with evidence Engage with critics professionally Gain Following & Rewards Social media breakthrough Discover viral potential Build platform across channels Get algorithmic amplification Financial opportunities emerge Speaking engagements Book deals Podcast appearances Brand partnerships Build dependent infrastructure Hire staff Get agents/managers Create business enterprises Form media partnerships Begin Tailoring Positions Shift content strategy Focus on controversial topics Reduce nuance for engagement Optimize for algorithms Create more frequent content Experience audience capture Echo audience preferences Attack common "enemies" Adopt audience language Reinforce existing beliefs Expand beyond expertise Comment on all issues Make bolder claims Simplify complex topics Monetization focus Launch courses Sell merchandise Create subscription content Host paid events Eventually End Up Defending Positions They Previously Criticized Embrace controversial narratives Promote conspiracy theories Question established facts Use "just asking questions" rhetoric Change relationship with truth Dismiss contrary evidence Avoid peer review React defensively to criticism Alienate former allies Attack former colleagues Dismiss experts as "elite" Frame critics as enemies Justify the transformation Claim personal awakening Frame as brave truth-telling Position as fighting system Cite persecution as validation

I think this is wishful thinking. What do you think they could do that others haven't been able to? They might be able to get something done about immigration, but what else? RFK seems to be the only one of them who cares about people, but the wish to improve and the ability to improve are two different things. Do you actually think RFK is a lone genius who will improve the physical health of the citizenry? Same with Elon. Anyone can hire a team or teams of efficiency experts and data scientists to figure out the best ways to run things. Will he improve education? Or will he just remove the agencies that hinder him from burning up as much rocket fuel as he wants and littering earth's orbit with his trinkets and dumping rocket fuel where he pleases? What value does Tulsi Gabbard bring to the table? What about Tucker Carlson? What about Vivek? What skills do they possess? They advocate for policies most people reject. Most people don't want bibles in schools. Most people like separation of church and state, but your team of super-heroes call for it. They also call for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc, to have their licenses revoked. Do you think this would solve problems? What problems would they solve? What problems would they create? What actual logic do you have?

@Consept I agree. With the 2 examples I gave, I think both already had really big egos before they went off the deep end. It makes sense that the more you value praise and acknowledgement from others, the easier it is to part ways with your integrity, especially when doing so means more money and more praise. That addictive element could be a big factor. Nice insight. Jimmy Dore comes to mind. He was never intellectual but he once catered to the left and now his entire comment section is MAGA cheerleaders. @Phil King Good point. I also think there's something seductive about having an enemy you can take down before everyone's eyes. JP loves that shit. "Up yours woke moralist".

I agree. I never considered him an intellectual but others do and he does present himself as one. lol.

100% agree that messaging from the top is of very high importance and her chosen message is healthy. I’m not criticizing her for anything but I’m not so fast to call her a good leader based solely on what she says. I think character is #1, not messaging, and I simply don’t know enough about her at this time to make a judgement. That said, she’s a saint compared to Trump and I do find it odd that so many people here can’t see the obvious choice. Although, I think I understand why that is the case. It goes to show that many who claim to care about what is true actually care more about how they feel.

@thedoorsareopen I 100% agree with you about Trump but I don’t have a good enough read on Kamala to go ahead and call her integrous, but I’m also not saying she’s not. I do think it’s more likely her rhetoric is more designed than it is genuine, although I’m sure she does value the things she says she does, I’m just not sure to what degree. In comparison to Trump, it’s an obvious no-brainer. My point was that even if you don’t think Kamala has integrity or is virtuous as her speech indicates, she at least talks of virtuous and integrous things, which is miles apart from Trump’s speech where there is no semblance of them in sight. This is yet another clue for the people on this forum who like Trump over Kamala. But I’m sure they just chalk it up to her being a bullshitter.

My bad. I thought you were highlighting intelligence in Trump. Yeah, I think it's mostly just bluster and telling people what they want to hear. He was doing that for a long time but it never really worked for him until he got into politics. As far as I know, most people who knew him didn't like him. It could just be my bias against him but I don't actually think he's charismatic. If you went back to before he was president and if you were to poll people who watched the apprentice, they might say he's entertaining, but I don't think they would call him charismatic. Here's how I think the idea that he's charismatic was born: People started listening to him because he gave a couple of good one-liners in 2016, people hated Hillary, and they were tired of the establishment. So he made people laugh a couple of times and he seemed like a viable solution to the corrupt government. Then, when he was attacked all the time, it made a lot of people double down on their choice and they found themselves defending him hundreds of times until eventually, liking Trump became an aspect of their identity. Bounty, the paper towel brand, held a $10,000 cash contest for whoever could write the best essay on why they love Bounty so much. The idea here is the more you get someone to say they like or dislike a thing, the more they actually do. So paying 10k to have 100,000 people write a love letter for your brand is money well spent. Same phenomenon occurred with Trump when he was attacked so much. THAT is why people listen to him. It's because they affirmed over and over that he is good. Not because he's just so charming and knows how to pull them in. Just an idea. I could be wrong, but in a world where Trump never came into politics, I'm pretty sure the people I know who love him now, would never call him charming.

Vivek and them can actually think and use logic and good reason. Regarding Trump, what other skill does he have aside from making people like him and making them believe the things he says? If someone can't go 5 minutes without telling a lie and if they are skilled at making people like and listen to them and believe them, what do you call that? Would you say that fits the definition of a con artist? If you watch a good documentary on Trump that goes over his life history, you'll see that his dad wanted to groom him for greatness at an early age, which eventually manifested into malignant narcissism. Trump himself published books that outline his history and mindset. It's all there in his own books. He was born an extravert and I think because of his dad's influence, he became super competitive and had a strong desire to be better than everyone else. To boot, he had a lot of drive and was very devoted to the task. He started projecting sort of an alpha personality, I believe sometime in his teens. If you know any real life narcissists, you know they can put in crazy work building their image. I think malignant narcissists are even more driven than normal narcs. So, his next-level drive was directed at bullshitting people, and he had all the time in the world to practice it because you can do that when you have a rich daddy. And that's what he did. And he got good at it. I don't call that intelligence. So, I think what you think is a form of intelligence is actually just a really strong drive to be better than others mixed with a silver spoon that allowed abundant opportunity to figure out how to trick people. I think you and I both could do what he did if we were extroverts with a silver spoon and our daddies warped us into malignant narcissists, and if we had the same degree of luck.

Yeah, he went to Yale law school. I think you usually have to be smart to make it to such high positions. Vivek seems brighter than Vance though IMO. There are many good influential spinsters now surrounding Trump. Tucker, Vivek, Vance. Unrelated, but have you ever see that movie on Netflix called "Don't Look Up"? It captures the essence our current situation really well. Pretty damn funny. Especially the scene where the centrist says he looks up and down. You gotta see it if you haven't.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think the closest I saw was Andrew Wilson debating him on if Jan 6 was an insurrection, but it wasn't very satisfying. IIRC, it was just a semantic circus, but I do think Andrew is the best intellectual on the right I've seen debate him, although I don't follow all of his content, so I could have missed some.

On X, if you look at all the right wing attacks on Destiny, they're all the same. It's always about his appearance or his perceived social standing. They can't stand the fact they can't outwit him, so instead they make fun of his appearance and call him cuck and a feminine bitch, but if a Chad had his personality and he was on the right, they'd call him masculine because they tend to judge the world based on appearances. The other day, some popular chick was talking shit about his debate with some right wing chad and the entire critique was what he was wearing, his hair, etc, and talking about how the other guy was handsome, in shape, and dressed well. People who don't have an intellectual leg to stand on LOVE to attack the physical appearance of those who do.