[I]n rambling on so much, Trump reveals just about everything one could ever want to know about him—his lack of discipline, his ignorance, his vanity, insecurity, and crudeness, and a mean streak that knows no limits. “It is remarkable how a man cannot summarize his thoughts in even the most general sort of way without betraying himself completely,” Thomas Mann wrote a century ago, in his novel “The Magic Mountain,” set in a sanitarium perched above the Swiss mountain town of Davos, where Trump spent the better part of this week proving to the stunned attendees of the annual World Economic Forum the continuing relevance of Mann’s observation....
[W]hen Trump reached the fulsome self-praise section of his speech, he explained that he was such an incredible peacemaker that he had even managed to end wars in places where he had not known they were happening. Imagine admitting this about yourself. Another quote from “The Magic Mountain” sprang to mind: “I know I am talking nonsense, but I’d rather go rambling on. . . .”
1. It's not rambling. It's the weave. There's no acknowledgement that Trump himself has explained what he is doing. He calls it the weave. He's in control of it. You just don't like the elaborate tangles of verbiage.
2. And yet you push "The Magic Mountain" at me! Why isn't Trump terse and to the point? Why isn't Thomas Mann!!!?
3. You don't want to follow the complex feats of language that require you to keep track of numerous threads to visualize the luminous tapestry.
4. Many a reader has gotten fed up with "The Magic Mountain," and she knows it, but I doubt that Susan B. Glasser would regard Thomas Mann as some kind of nut. I picture her denouncing the reader for not digging in, paying attention, trusting the author, and taking the time to understand.
7. ##1-4: "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil"/"It is love, not reason, that is stronger than death"/"Laughter is a sunbeam of the soul"/"There are so many different kinds of stupidity, and cleverness is one of the worst." I'm tempted to ask Grok to write a pro-Trump essay using those 4 quotes.
పోస్ట్లు
227 కామెంట్లు:
«అన్నిటి కంటే పాతది ‹పాతవి 227లో 201 – 227This is fucking scary.
Somebody dropped his binky on the floor and is now pounding his highchair.
" In his entire life, he had never truly served anyone but himself."
This is grade school level debate. Maybe the snow has knocked out a couple servers in the network.
According to Lara Trump a few months ago, when Trump was debanked a few years ago, one of the few places they could move their cash was crypto, which also has the huge benefit of being immune from debanking. So it seems BigBank, and political correctness, can be blamed for the Trump crypto gains, whatever it is.
Beasts of England, Much has changed since 2017. You may recall that the Mueller investigation was conducted by TRUMP's Justice Department and that the Senate Intelligence Committee, majority Republican, conducted a parallel investigation. Trump has neutered both of those institutions now.
They want to destroy every alternative option look what they
Did to farage and a host of others in the populist camp
In the med they went after netanyahu to silence the right against berlusconi for 20 years
Instapundit has linked to this analysis and thread.
One of the themes of the Magic Mountain was whether Germany should follow the "Western" way of reason, science, and the Enlightenment or some "Eastern" or Germanic way of intuition, romanticism, obscurantism, and violence. We aren't so dismissive of the "East" and confident about the "West" now, and Mann shared some of our doubts, realizing that the romantic, intuitive way was attractive because the West seemed sterile and worn out. Anyway, Europe is still trying to figure out what it is and what it should do.
So far as I can find out the federal prosecutors in Minnesota did not resign because Renee Good's death would not be investigated, but because the DOJ did not want the city and state authorities in on the investigation and also authorized an examination of Good's own radical ties and the funding of the protestors.
The squalls are surreptitious in New York City, where a progressive collective snow job is expected.
’Trump has neutered both of those institutions now.’
Thank you for another argument by assertion. Do you have any evidence to support the above claim?
Beasts of England, I feel I am on a one way street. I have to provide evidence--you do not. I provide evidence, and you just say it counts for nothing, but you provide no counterevidence? You don't even do me the grace of noting points I make that you do not contest, such as the fact that Republicans felt free to investigate and did investigate Trump in his first term. My own view is that Trump's neutering of the Justice Department's capacity to take him and his family on is transparently obvious. It follows from the same power that allows him to set the criminal dogs loose on anyone who displeases him, whether or not there is any reason to think they've committed a crime. Similarly with the House and Senate, who have basically abandoned their constitutional prerogatives out of fear of retaliation from Trump. So let me turn the tables: what evidence can you point to that shows I am wrong?
’ You don't even do me the grace of noting points I make that you do not contest, such as the fact that Republicans felt free to investigate and did investigate Trump in his first term.
I mentioned that first on this thread, so I’m not following your complaint.
’My own view is that Trump's neutering of the Justice Department's capacity to take him and his family on is transparently obvious. It follows from the same power that allows him to set the criminal dogs loose on anyone who displeases him, whether or not there is any reason to think they've committed a crime. Similarly with the House and Senate, who have basically abandoned their constitutional prerogatives out of fear of retaliation from Trump.’
Again, those are all theories and opinions. I believe you believe them, but that’s not evidence.
’So let me turn the tables: what evidence can you point to that shows I am wrong?’
When someone makes a claim they have to support it with proof. That’s how classical rhetoric works. Asking me to prove a negative in support of your opinions is absurd, i.e., until otherwise proven, a claim that he has neutered the Justice Department or Congress is false.
Beasts of England, I'm not making a criminal case, I'm just asking why you don't see any reason to worry about whether Trump is selling and using the powers of his office to make billions of illicit dollars. I offer the best available evidence of what he's made, from three reputable sources, and you dismiss it as speculation without offering any competing account. I offer repeated evidence of how Trump has come to use the Justice Department in uniquely creepy ways--you dismiss it as business as usual, without offering any examples of cases remotely similar to those I describe. I make the transparently obvious point that Congress has surrendered its prerogatives to Trump, and that he is deeply feared there. What better evidence than that Congress has surrendered the spending power to him.
If you are really interested in sustaining the Republican or the MAGA project, this is something you should be interested in, just the way that Democrats interested in long term success should have paid closer attention to the situation at the border and Biden's mental condition. (I blame myself for failing to do so, but also for too willingly believing party leaders.)
If you are wrong in dismissing these allegations, and the Democrats regain control of the house (Prediction markets show the odds at 3-1 that they will), your team could end up with an awful lot of egg on its face, just in time for 2028.
So it behooves you not just to be an advocate, but to think independently. I don't see any sign of that in your responses to me.
’I'm not making a criminal case, I'm just asking why you don't see any reason to worry about whether Trump is selling and using the powers of his office to make billions of illicit dollars. I offer the best available evidence of what he's made, from three reputable sources, and you dismiss it as speculation without offering any competing account.’
You haven’t offered any evidence, you’ve offered speculation. Did you read the Reuters article you linked? Do you understand their methodology? I do, and they admit that it’s assumptions, derivations, and conjecture. Feel free to believe it, but I don’t.
You’ve used their output to claim that he’s made billions of illicit dollars. Even if it turns out that he’s made billions of dollars during the timeframe in question, there’s still no proof that it was done illegally. That’s conjecture squared.
And I’m not worried about it because, as I’ve noted, I don’t see a substantive case or evidence to support your claims. On the bright side, it can’t be turn out any worse than the Steele dossier.
’So it behooves you not just to be an advocate, but to think independently. I don't see any sign of that in your responses to me.’
I enjoy condescension from someone with an incomplete education, driven by emotion, and lacking analytical and rhetorical adeptness. It’s an honor.
I don't give two shits about ANYTHING a lefty posts here, including the vomit from Inga and the Hag, or the pathetic impersonations by Chuck the LLR. Offering up the NYTimes as a credible source on some sort of financial wrongdoing by 47? I almost pissed my pants laughing until I realized I wasn't a woman.
I don't give two shits about ANYTHING a lefty posts here, including the vomit from Inga and the Hag, or the pathetic impersonations by Chuck the LLR. Offering up the NYTimes as a credible source on some sort of financial wrongdoing by 47? I almost pissed my pants laughing until I realized I wasn't a woman.
Beasts of England, Only time will tell who has got the better of this argument. Let's check in in a year or so. I won't engage with your other comments. Have a good weekend.
With this post Althouse is more in-line with More than Mann, re Thomas mans. She's grasping at straws.
Why does Meadehouse constantly need to publicly apologize for DJT? Gross! IMHO.
Hopefully they, at least, get a lot of bags for this limitless sycophancy.
"If there is grift here, it is happening at a scale that rivals Putin."
This is the real source of the vendetta against Trump, he is not pushing WWIII the way they would like. They don't care about anything else, and the ones who do are just tools of those pushing WWIII.
’Only time will tell who has got the better of this argument. Let's check in in a year or so.’
I have no interest in who got the better of the argument. If Trump broke the law then he needs to be prosecuted, and if it remains speculation then it’s just another squirrel.
imTay said...
"You can feel like a smart feller by repeating the opinions you hear from the people in your in-group to the point where you can refuse to consider the other side’s arguments, but really you just love the smell of your own farts."
One of the most difficult things to do , intellectually, is to stand back from your prejudices and preconceived notions and look at events dispassionately.
Take illegal immigration. Would I think the same way if anyone besides Trump was directing this policy? No. It is the correct response. "Illegal" means the law has been broken and it is the responsibility of all citizens to uphold the law. It is intellectually dishonest to ascribe an action as evil simply because of the personality of the person implementing it.
It makes the comments here by the professional Trump haters unreadable.
So the psychopath is now Stephen.
".....Trump 17 fold family income increase?’"
Because the rest of the family isn't the president of the United States? You know. Like the Biden family. Like the Clinton family. Like the Bush family.
’I won't engage with your other comments.’
When you suggest what could behoove me, claim that I’m an advocate with the implication that you’re not, and state that I’m lacking in independent thought, then you can expect me to respond in kind. It’s that simple.
Beasts of England, I apologize for giving offense. Certainly there is some emotion on my side. Perhaps also on yours. I'm not holding on to it; hope you can move past it too. This is hard stuff to discuss with strangers in this setting. Steve B.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.