Amazing 1983 Prophecy: Donald Trump will lead America back to God

[marooned]

I’m just saying that I have a hunch that he has the particular line of thinking that I described and that he’s x kind of person lol. I think it’s reasonable to assume that a lot of his act is ingenuine, and I can relate to it as another Fe HA person. It’d be pretty easy for me to manipulate others by seamlessly constructing a personality with behaviors that are slightly different from my usual ones in order to achieve a particular goal.

I think for Trump, part of the problem may be that it’s seeped into his actual person. I used to have issues distinguishing between how I act towards others (especially between different groups of people) and who my “real self” is. I think a lot of people do, but probably especially beta extroverts. If there is still a decent person inside of him though then it’d be able to use the current position he’s gotten himself in to prevail. If it’s still in there lol.

I think if there is anything decent left in Trump (and I think he's highly damaged from childhood) the presidency isn't where I would like to see some real life "test" of this. And honestly, his actions speak much louder than his words. I see his actions as harmful and an incapacity on his part to understand that. I think he's leading the country to ruin, and in that sense it doesn't matter how he feels inside.

If what you say happened to him I suspect it happened in childhood. Adult Trump despite changes in cognitive ability with age has seemed relatively consistent in interviews. Things leaked of him speaking when it wasn't public show the same personality. The same personality in other words seems to appear in public and "private."

If you're arguing Trump is lost to himself btw, that to me is an argument for him not being in office. Someone lost to themselves can't lead wisely or well. A shell of a man that once was leading a nation? Not good.

Also I don't want to get into a vote for him/don't vote for him argument and hopefully I'm not doing that but maybe I am.

Anyway I'm fond of redemption and I hope Trump is able to get better if it's possible, just well, on his own time, without as they say having access to the nuclear codes (tired old trope).

[sbbds]

I think if there is anything decent left in Trump (and I think he's highly damaged from childhood) the presidency isn't where I would like to see some real life "test" of this. And honestly, his actions speak much louder than his words. I see his actions as harmful and an incapacity on his part to understand that. I think he's leading the country to ruin, and in that sense it doesn't matter how he feels inside.

If what you say happened to him I suspect it happened in childhood. Adult Trump despite changes in cognitive ability with age has seemed relatively consistent in interviews. Things leaked of him speaking when it wasn't public show the same personality. The same personality in other words seems to appear in public and "private."

If you're arguing Trump is lost to himself btw, that to me is an argument for him not being in office. Someone lost to themselves can't lead wisely or well. A shell of a man that once was leading a nation? Not good.

If you have to put private in quotation marks it’s not the same thing as full privacy.

It goes without saying that it’s not an ideal situation with an ideal candidate right now lol. I get what you are saying which is why I’d turned anti-Trump for the majority of the time too since he came into office and why I’ve said “if” there is still a decent human inside. However, it seems like almost nobody thinks there’s really a better alternative. Complaining about Trump and the situation is like beating a dead horse.

[marooned]

It's true. I do have to put it in quotation marks...

[sbbds]

It's true. I do have to put it in quotation marks...

“”

[marooned]

barely any time has passed but i'm back to beat this horse, mainly because this better says what i meant in some ways.

this is an interview from Younger Trump in which between 5:00 and 6:10 he talks about his views on getting even (an eye for an eye not turn the other cheek):



Then recently there is this example with Today's Trump, in which he says there has to be retribution for crime (around 1:29): (I think the whole report is good in the discussion of justice vs. retribution in a political system and is necessary to understand the situation.)



So my point is. Does it matter how he became this way or why? Does it matter if there is still somewhere in there a warm fuzzy teddy bear with a heart of gold buried under all the corrosive tissue? Not really. His view as stated on "getting even" or "an eye for an eye" or "retribution" hasn't changed at least since the 90s. The action he calls for isn't justice.

One could say, well, it's just about words. I would assume the US Marshalls were supposed to arrest Michael Reinoehl (the alleged murderer) but Reinoehl fought them which resulted in the shooting. So granted the practice of "justice" as we understand in the US was still being implemented (maybe... see *). But given the outcome was the death of the perpetrator and Trump approves, that is significant, and I think the more power he has and fewer checks the more he really would go in the direction of the state executing people just because he wants those people dead. The slippery slope into killing his political opponents, I see as real, and that eventually just means kill people for their political views. (And for anyone who doesn't care because of the political lines drawn - if an extreme left-leaning president called for retribution against his/her political adversaries you sure would care - this is one of many reasons why it's so important to maintain a system of justice not vengeance.)

I can't believe that behind the scenes Trump is writing in his secret diary, "I wish that man hadn't been killed but captured so he can stand trial. But I needed to talk about it in terms of vengeance because I think my base will approve especially since Reinoehl's victim was religious, and I say what I must to win!"

Okay even if that was the real position he would still be scum. But I really doubt his secret perspective is "Every death is a tragedy, it's unfortunate Reinoehl had to be killed instead of arrested so he could stand trial, but it is what it is."

I tend to think his perspective is basically what he said it is (which is the same as it was in the late 90s) and I find it disturbing that he doesn't see how it's problematic for the one at the helm of the nation to basically argue for retribution as a virtue (even if it was only a poor choice of wording, which I highly doubt).

*And now I've said all that, apparently a witness says Reinoehl wasn't brandishing a weapon... https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...noehl-1058049/ So when Trump said to "go get him" now I wonder what did he mean.

PS. Here was Trump in 1992:



(same views, same intense sensitivity to betrayal, same need to get even - this seems to be him looking forward to his later actions as in the late 90s video he is saying he's carrying it out)

poor charlie rose is laughing, but i don't think this is fun. i think this is serious. i mean it's not like having a conversation with someone BSing about revenge and then you don't do it.

--

ETA: That said Trump said over and over when he was running in 2016 that he would take action against H. Clinton for her email server fiasco but he never did that I'm aware (my perception is he's never going to because it's not necessary). He walked back on that: https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ock-up-2016-11 even after all the "lock her up" talk.

It's also interesting how his reasons for revenge may be because it makes everyone else see the ahem consequences of wronging him: https://www.motherjones.com/politics...-with-revenge/

(this actually randomly goes against SEE typing imo... this is not emo/personal)

My argument would be stronger if I had examples of him actually taking revenge in big ways beyond name-calling, humiliating people or firing people, etc. because I mainly just have what he has said. I don't know what revenge (if any) he took on anyone in business in the 90s IOW.

[SGF]

You guys are blessed. Trump is a treasure, a shiny beacon of hope from upon high .. truly one of the chosen. Burgerland is saved! lmao

[aixelsyd]

This reminds me when I was a part of an online doomsday cult in my youth. I eventually said to myself "fuck this shit" and grew a brain via my Leftist Liberal Arts education. Sometime after Trump won in 2016, I went back to that doomer site and they were hailing Trump as some servant of God. It was a relief to me because it was the confirmation I needed that those people were completely full of shit with zero moral authority.

[End]

This reminds me when I was a part of an online doomsday cult in my youth. I eventually said to myself "fuck this shit" and grew a brain via my Leftist Liberal Arts education. Sometime after Trump won in 2016, I went back to that doomer site and they were hailing Trump as some servant of God. It was a relief to me because it was the confirmation I needed that those people were completely full of shit with zero moral authority.

While I do rightfully disdain the types you seem to, you seem to forget a key point I frequently make. See, these "cults" ultimately rely upon Christian morality. Atheists, agnostics, the SJW's, even the outright Satanists, ultimately acknowledge the truth of Christian Morality. If not in affirmation, than in denial. When non-Christians try to make a "moral" argument, they ultimately affirm Christian morality.

The Truth is the Truth no matter how much people may wish to deny it. 2+2=4, A is A, I can go on forever illustrating this most fundamental of points...

[aixelsyd]

While I do rightfully disdain the types you seem to, you seem to forget a key point I frequently make. See, these "cults" ultimately rely upon Christian morality. Atheists, agnostics, the SJW's, even the outright Satanists, ultimately acknowledge the truth of Christian Morality. If not in affirmation, than in denial. When non-Christians try to make a "moral" argument, they ultimately affirm Christian morality.

The Truth is the Truth no matter how much people may wish to deny it. 2+2=4, A is A, I can go on forever illustrating this most fundamental of points...

I admit I didn't read through the read and was mostly thinking towards the OPs post.

Nonetheless, what defines "Christian morality?" How is this morality different from Buddhist morality, Jewish morality, Native American morality? Christianity does not have the monopoly on the Golden Rule which can be seen in religions across cultures. God is not confined to a religious label.

If anything, right and wrong do exist because of the inherent duality of the universe. In Taoism, dark cannot exist without light and vice-versa. In the same sense, good cannot exist without evil.

I see "The Truth" touted by more fundamentalist factions, but I have yet to see consistency in how this truth is defined.

Morality is morality. However, I do not have a completely rigid view as I once did. Morality should be supported by reason and common sense. Otherwise, it becomes legalism. But believe it or not, morality existed before Christianity and before Judaism and nations that are not primarily Christian still have their own morality that is supported by their own religious beliefs: many which predate Abrahamic faith. More likely, our sense of morality developed via evolution so that societies could be formed and function, but that is another discussion.

[End]

@snek Very nice passive-aggressive insults fired my way. I don't mind though, confirmation of my theories always brings a smile to my face . You Asian? Shame-based moral systems (i.e. Eastern Cultures) are the undisputed masters of those. I'm of western/European descent so I'm a bit more direct.

First, you view Wikipedia as a legit source!? First thing all my college professors told me was if I source a Wikipedia article on my papers I'm gonna get an F. Now, since they tended to have other sources at the bottom that might be legit I could (and one time did) cite that and get away with it. Plus, you quoted a literal blogspot post as if it was a credentialed authority. You in college right now? I, sadly, bet you are. As my own contemporaries/classmates agree, we got out just in time. When we were in college, no matter the other variables, our professors and the overall administration saw it more important to "teach" rather than "Indoctrinate". They agree with me now that that order has been reversed.

Case in point. I was a classmate with many non-whites in my Foreign Relations classes (hell, most all my classes were quite "diverse" in all the ways that actually mattered back in my day). One had eyes for a white girl in it. He succeeded in gaining her affections, married her, and had kids with her. He's now rightfully personally insulted that, as she tries to earn a Ph. D in her major field she's being forced to take "diversity and inclusivity" courses. We both agree that this shit has exactly zero things to do with her earning her Ph.D. and yet her class won't stop hounding on her even though she's married to and had kids with a literal foreigner. One of the three things you never do to another man, never mess with his woman. If you're of the SJW persuasion, remember that. And also remember that Gammas have extremely long memories and are quite willing to play the long game. Life, after all, is a game. A game we're very, very intent on winning whilst also being paragons of morality if we can help it .

I admit I didn't read through the read and was mostly thinking towards the OPs post.

Nonetheless, what defines "Christian morality?" How is this morality different from Buddhist morality, Jewish morality, Native American morality? Christianity does not have the monopoly on the Golden Rule which can be seen in religions across cultures. God is not confined to a religious label.

They're based on Shame, not Guilt. Christian morality is based upon the guilt you ought to feel for offending God's infinite majesty by doing evil (i.e. attempting to subtract from the good he embodies). Even if nobody else ever sees or suspects you, God knows. He always knows. Thus, even if you are celebrated as a hero and held up as a saint by literally everyone you know within your own society, if you know you sinned against the one true God somehow, it will all be as ashes in your mouth. You don't really get that effect in as profound a way without Christianity. It was, if nothing else, a unique innovation in regards to morality I'd say. An innovation all other cultures ought to try and incorporate into their own if they seek to equal or surpass what Western Culture has managed to achieve .

[Tzuyu]

@End, no disrespect but your logic seem more Ti PoLR then Ti Demonstrative. You’ve seem to come to a conclusion first and purposely seek out disparate “facts” to justify them.

Even the r/K Wikipedia article states that it’s held no real validity in biological discourse since the 80’s. It lacks nuance and seems to be used to justify the belief in a “higher quality” and “lower quality but more quantitative” classes of humans that’s been genetically coded into human society.

http://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.co...bogus.html?m=1

Some people think that r/K selection theory explains the differences between human races, or even between the left and right in politics. This is bogus because r/K selection theory is bogus. There is a difference between civilization-adapted people, such as East Asians and Europeans, and non-civilization-adapted people, such as sub-Saharan Africans and the Inuit. Civilization adapted people have lower rates of violent crime, higher IQs and higher incomes. That is because they were selected for certain psychological traits by the environment that they created. Biology and culture coevolve and eventually fit together, in what I call "adaptive coherence". People of different races are not only adapted to different physical environments (such as more or less sunshine) but also to different cultural and social environments. We shape the environment, and it shapes us. Europeans and East Asians are not K-selected, they are "C-selected" (civilization selected).

I highly recommend this course on critical thinking skills, which can be difficult in the information age
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/min...oduction-hu7Ch

[marooned]

@End, no disrespect but your logic seem more Ti PoLR then Ti Demonstrative. You’ve seem to come to a conclusion first and purposely seek out disparate “facts” to justify them.

why not HA? (i'm being nosey)

[Nobody]

If the Chinese system of government has taught me anything it's that paying people very little to mass produce your goods meaning crushing the world economy at the expense of your people. But as long as you crush your people's ability to revolt, Chinese communism wins! Go Team Red! Crushing everything!

[Nobody]

Oh and I think there was a Black Mirror episode about the social credit system - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R32qWdOWrTo

If society ever comes to this I'm either turning into a serial killer or I'm killing myself or both. And if any law enforcement or government agency or algorithm is reading this and taking note, consider this a joke.

[Adam Strange]

If the Chinese system of government has taught me anything it's that paying people very little to mass produce your goods meaning crushing the world economy at the expense of your people. But as long as you crush your people's ability to revolt, Chinese communism wins! Go Team Red! Crushing everything!

The Chinese system of government has taught you entirely the wrong thing, then.

The Chinese government doesn't give a rat's ass about the world economy or crushing it. It has over a billion people living on the edge of starvation and has been repeatedly humiliated by more modern, Western powers. It has tried several times in the past 200 years to modernize its economy and failed in all preceding attempts.

It is currently succeeding to some degree with modernizing its economy by using demand from foreign countries to drive the construction of its industries. It can't seem to generate any internal demand from its own citizens.

This means that it is responding to foreign demand for goods by producing those goods using labor that otherwise would be starving. It gets paid for those goods in little green pieces of paper that it can use to buy only a limited number of things that the West allows it to buy. Some food, some machinery, US Treasury bonds, and gold, mostly. The latter two items have almost no intrinsic value, so you could say that the Chinese are getting nothing for their labor but whatever information about mass production techniques they can pry from the West. But knowing how to produce something en mass is only useful if there is a market willing to buy what you are producing.

At the end of the day, they still are not generating an internal demand for goods or services. When the West stopped buying from them, their economy declined in lock step. This is not a successful form of capitalism.

China's government is mostly concerned with keeping everyone fed and suppressing internal revolts. Wrecking your uncle's engine rebuild business is not even on their radar. That is just collateral damage from US capitalists.

[Nobody]

@Adam Strange
Well, from what I've heard/understand, which may or may not be all that accurate and up to date, the Chinese have a global strategy to dominate manufacturing by killing off the manufacturing in other countries. First they undercut the competition to get the trade going by underpaying compared to foreign nations. This makes their goods very attractive and almost necessary because any business can't compete without being reasonably priced. Then we end up with a massive trade imbalance that should bring up the global value of the Chinese currency and bring down the value of the global economy over time and make their goods less attractive. So what they do to prevent this is print money to cause inflation and then buy foreign debt to funnel the extra cash and keep the imbalance going undisturbed. This over time kills manufacturing in foreign nations.

You did mention that when the West stopped buying, their economy declined as well. But that's also a pretty drastic change for any kind of manufacturing/economics. There's a time investment in redirecting economics and it's part of how their global strategy makes so much sense because any foreign power will be years, if not decades behind in manufacturing after being out of the game for so long, and China will have a kind of business leverage over everyone, as if they hold some kind of metaphorical oil. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but when you say their economy declined from lack of trade, why was that? Did they properly redirect that trade internally? Were there other problems that prevented that? If those questions can be answered, maybe I could understand what you're getting at.

[marooned]

the basis of "morality" evolved i think way before humans ever did:



It only takes a bit more awareness to go from "that's not fair! (to me)" to "others would feel the same way as me." A little more empathy, logic, memory and awareness, and then you have, "It's not right to pay people unequally for the same work."

Basically as I see it the monkeys are actually almost all the way there.

Different social species also have behavioral etiquette, which is probably quite instinctive (but I would argue it's instinctive in humans as well). It's basically that social animals have to have some sort of behavioral norms that keep them working together for survival rather than a detriment to survival of the group. These building blocks of morality... are necessary.

[Tzuyu]

p-p-please spare me @End -kun, not everyone can take your massive K selected divine thundercock O//w//O im so sorry for bothering you with my genetic inferiority, probably wasn’t reading correctly with my chinky r selected eyes! you can indoctrinate me anytime daddy, in the meantime, gonna kill some leftoids and SJWs tehee

[End]

p-p-please spare me @End -kun, not everyone can take your massive K selected divine thundercock O//w//O im so sorry for bothering you with my genetic inferiority, probably wasn’t reading correctly with my chinky r selected eyes! you can indoctrinate me anytime daddy, in the meantime, gonna kill some leftoids and SJWs tehee

You're misunderstanding me, but you made me chuckle a bit so hey bonus.

In and of themselves, r and K selection are just adaptations to the environment that make the most sense from a biological/genetic standpoint. They aren't "right" or "wrong", they are simply "the winning play" in a given environment. Of course, you win right up until you don't after all. Hence why it's a cycle. Each strategy invariably creates the conditions that allow the other to attain ascendancy right before it'd become a set path for the species if we assume we're dealing with sentience. Humans are, essentially, the only animal currently in existence on this planet for whom the path hasn't already been set and decided upon long ago.

I mentioned Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Funny thing is, that's a perfect example of the "same" species having settled for different/opposite selection strategies. Both are "set" in their selection strategy, but a twist of fate allowed both to continue on and survive whereas for pretty much every other species the "loser" was completely culled and is now thus long forgotten. Though you may see a rare mutant appear to serve as an "If" scenario. Like, for example, what if squirrels went down the K-selected path? They'd be quite beefy, eat nuts by the ton, and kick the weak among them "THIS! IS! SPARTA!" style out of the tree for daring to try to raid their stash.

I actually saw one like that. Killed some other squirrel by doing just that in squirrel terms. Actually managed to scare off the dogs and cats in the area into giving it a fair berth. Sadly, he never seemed to attain a mate. Guess he was just too "Chad" for those weaklings to handle.