Astrological Prediction the end of Trump's Presidency

[Delano]

Gore is not the only environmentalist associated with "An Inconvenient Truth" who has come under fire for personal habits --

 

producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. 

BTW the quote isn't 97% of scientist is 97% of climate change scientist. So if you wrote a paper about climate change and yiu said it was a fact that was considered an endorsement. If yiu wrote a paper and said you didn't know that was also considered an endorsement. I read the source material from IOCC. 

[Delano]

Can we move this to its own thread @Troy

[Troy]

.. and Feynmann regretted use of the bomb.

 

Sure scientist say things that are wrong and do so knowingly -- typically for personal gain.

 

Infotainment is a major problem in our society, and it started long before the '80s. Today it is 24/7. Unless you go completely off the grid you can't escape it today.

[Delano]

For people who think for themselves and @Troy

 

https://climatechange.procon.org/#con-01

[Kalexander2]

@Troy  Black folks (we) do a disservice to ourselves by relying too much on news reporting, even more so to social media.  All the news networks effect and influence us in both positive and negative ways.  Whether it is forming opinions about social control mechanisms, reeling in our support, or advocating against each other under the guise of law and order; even though we lack primer information related to important social matters beforehand.

 

In fewer words, we fail to think for ourselves first, before consuming news reports; and when we attempt to so, it's usually from some pre-established misguided premise. 

 

Data (or quantitative) information is traditionally available as privileged access to a linguistically made up social world.  Contents of such data, scientific or not, is often, more than not, taken out of context or misconstrued especially if there's no solid foundation for absorbing it.  Journalists and the scientific community master linguistic techniques to report whatever they desire in whatever way that serves their purpose.  A marginalized Black person may be subject to misguidance when consuming information about racism without first understanding basic aspects of sociology and her/his own psychological pact.

 

"An impossible task" as you assert is just another issue, of many, why relying on news reporting is an abhorrence to news, information unknown.  

 

 

11 hours ago, Cynique said:

They simply make sources available for people to read  and make up their own minds about. If you're more comfortable imagining what the truth is, then nobody is stopping you from doing this. 

 

Precisely my point, sister.  Imagining a truth without, or worse, with a made-up mind.  No one can ever truly be free of culture-bound influences whether reporting information or consuming it.  What to do?  Think for yourself based on empirical experiences; after all, what else can go wrong?.

[Delano]

 @Troy

What will you say when Trump doesn't make it to the New Year. 

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/donald-trump-investigations_us_5b85861de4b0511db3d229d7

Nixon was only fighting one case. Trump may have 4-6 cases. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-impeachment-latest-poll-republicans-democrats-midterm-elections-house-senate-a8517961.html

[Troy]

@Delano what do you know about the website procon.org?  Who is behind it, where does it get it's funding? Can you say with certainty that it is a legitimate site? In deed legitimate enough for you to dismiss the findings of Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If so why?

 

5 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

we fail to think for ourselves first, before consuming news reports; and when we attempt to so, it's usually from some pre-established misguided premise. 

 

This is way I generally don't consumer news, that I really care about, on sites that rebroadcast news from other sites, like social media, blog, etc.  I go to the original source if s study is reference I look at the study.

 

@Delano, if Trump does not make it to the end of the year I'll give you and K2 $50.  What would there be for me to say other than, "I was wrong, and you and K2 were right?"

 

[Kalexander2]

4 minutes ago, Troy said:

This is way I generally don't consumer news, that I really care about, on sites that rebroadcast news from other sites, like social media, blog, etc.  I go to the original source if s study is reference I look at the study.

 

Consumers of news reporting (believers in climate change, etc.) are considered advocates of democracy, people who find no value in consuming news are considered fascist sympathizers (deniers of facts ); at least that seems to be the case.  Do you think there's a middle ground?

[Delano]

On 4/30/2018 at 12:26 AM, Troy said:

Alright! That's what's up! 

,

This is win-win for me cause i'd pay to see that guy with the weird hairdo get the boot. 

 

Plus in the extremely unlikely event that you win @Delano, not only will you get $50 I'll never question your astrological prowess gansta 

@Troy

Except now it doesn't seem so unlikely. 

We are at the half way mark. 

[Troy]

27 minutes ago, Troy said:

what do you know about the website procon.org?  Who is behind it, where does it get it's funding? Can you say with certainty that it is a legitimate site? In deed legitimate enough for you to dismiss the findings of Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If so why?

 

In all seriousness @Delano, I'm really interested in reading your reply to this question.  

[Delano]

It's a pro and con. You can check the source or you can see if it sounds plausible. I am not interested in rehashing the debate. 

Troy read the NASA first them if you want to discuss individual points fine. Don't just skim it read all the footnotes. 

I have read the entire IPCC report so come prepared. 

[Cynique]

It's hard not be partisan when vetting news sources.  There's no way i can give a lot of credence to anything Fox News reports because i am so anti-Trump.  I want to believe what CNN and MSNBC report because  they are more aligned with my politics.  So it is important to not only hold news organizations to a high standard but, as a consumer, to divest yourself of bias.  Seeking the truth can be a frustrating quest because the truth plays no favorites and, as such,  can also be the  cause of disillusionment.  

[Delano]

Why does it lead to disillusionment? 

[Kalexander2]

11 hours ago, Cynique said:

divest yourself of bias

 

@Cynique  Easier said than done, do you agree?  There's no undoing the truth; it is, however, subject to various POV's.  I never accepted clever arguments of 'alternative facts or truths' meant to distract from the reality.  Deliberate falsehoods are lies and lies can never lose the negative connotations attached to them; Kellyanne Conway's delusional interpretations of the truth isn't a mistake; she's taken her to freedom to think for herself and offered it up to persuade as a logical way to see things.

 

e.g., 'Donald Trump is a racist whose policies and pronouncements empower White nationalists.'  And, 'Black folks without exposure to higher education have no valid complaint about marginalization in America.'  No alternative POV can remove the negative connotation behind these truths; arguments questioning the existence of White Nationalists and/or whether racism and lack of education marginalize Blacks - does not alter the truth.

 

True, knowing weather patterns for the day, dangerous cities, and candidate platforms are crucial to decision making,  Journalist easily convey news reports that could render them incomplete, thus an 'alternative fact' because people fill in the blanks at their leisure.  Imagine a Black parent with small children consumes a news report about children dying from vaccination shots; leave out a few important facts and you have mass panic that subjects those children to life-threatening viruses.

[Cynique]

17 hours ago, Delano said:

Why does it lead to disillusionmen

the truth can lead to disillusionment because it can disprove what you passionately believe and this can destroy your illusions.

 

7 hours ago, Kalexander2 said:

Easier said than done, do you agree? 

of course it's not easy to divest yourself of being partisan.  But you have to apply the same standards to yourself as you do to news organizations if you're truly seeking the truth.  if you're not objective, then how can you demand it of other sources.  

[Troy]

Damn, @Delano, you wont (perhaps can't) answer a simple question. 

[Delano]

@Troy is Climate change simple to you ?

[Kalexander2]

49 minutes ago, Cynique said:

But you have to apply the same standards to yourself as you do to news organizations if you're truly seeking the truth.

 

I see, so you submit that one's standards and views aligned with the information consumed are (can be) acceptable, objective truths, for that person?  Perhaps.  But I ask, does a White nationalist who watches Fox News or Breitbart really get the objective truths any more than a liberal democrat who consumes MSNC or the Washington Post? 

[Cynique]

 

 

5 minutes ago, Kalexander2 said:

I see, so you submit that one's standards and views aligned with the information consumed are (can be) acceptable, objective truths, for that person? 

No, that's not what  i am submitting. I'm saying that when seeking accurate facts, one has to be objective and this involves not limiting your consumption of information  to news organizations whose positions simply reinforce your own. Broaden your scope.  Admittedly this is hard to do.

[Kalexander2]

28 minutes ago, Cynique said:

 limiting your consumption of information  to news organizations whose positions

 

"Thinking for one's self" through the sensory organ for vision (the eyes) the 'sky is blue' is equally true as the scientific explanation of color sensitivity which without explains the sky is, in reality, violet or grey.  Both can be true, yes?  Or, am I being dogmatic?

[Cynique]

@Kalexander2I'm not talking about  phenomena of nature.  I'm talking about people and events, This is becoming a world where everybody claims their own truth and this is why chaos is brewing.  At some point people have to endeavor to be objective for the common good.  This is all i have to say on the subject.

[Troy]

No @Delano climate change is not simple (see how easily I answered your question).  Sono while climate change is not simple, my questions are:

 

@Delano 

1. What do you know about the website procon.org? 
2. Who is behind it, where does it get it's funding?
3. Can you say with certainty that it is a legitimate site? Indeed legitimate enough for you to dismiss the findings of Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  If so why?

 

 

[Kalexander2]

Fair enough, though the truth is so whether in nature or of people and events.  It's more than philosophical, or phenomena when the senses interpret news reports one way and the truth is something else.  

 

Back to the point: adversely, if political science, economics, and the rule of law show Donald Trump maintaining his presidency up to 2019 and events show something else; what is the truth?   The problem is when consumers of news take in information and conclude "we'll wait and see" even as the objective fact remain elusive.   Not you, me, nor anyone may never know the facts about what is the common good, except for what we believe which may not be good despite of being common.  News reports coupled with internal instincts (views and beliefs) may prove even less truthful.

 

3 hours ago, Cynique said:

At some point people have to endeavor to be objective for the common good.

[Cynique]

1 hour ago, Kalexander2 said:

t's more than philosophical, or phenomena when the senses interpret news reports one way and the truth is something else.  

Well, facts are a component of the truth.  Where humans are concerned, you seem to be focused on examples of people afflicted with a cognitive dissonance syndrome wherein they cannot relinquish their beliefs even if the facts are  right before their eyes. 

[Delano]

Troy check for yourself and make up your own mind whether they are credible. 

That's exactly my position. Make up your own mind  based on the information and knowledge you have.

The following is the transcript of a conversation with The Bob Woodward and President Trump. 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/trump-woodward-transcript/index.html

[Delano]

We are at the half way mark. Hearing yiu say I'm astrological gangster will be priceless to me but $50 from you. 

@Troy

 

[Troy]

@Delano the artful dodger of direct questions.  

 

OK, let me help you bruh, the site you referenced is a bullshit site probably created by a Russian troll farm.  You won't vouch for it because you have not vetted it in you desperation to find anything that contradicts the reality of man made climate change. 

 

Obviously one can find anything to support any hair brained idea they have, I just did not expect this from you -- no insult intended just profound disappointment, no so much that you tried pass this site off as some authoritative source-- when it is not, but that you simply won't admit that you did.  No one is perfect man.

[Delano]

Troy it's pro and con. Read the about section. Make an informed statement. I have read it. So after yiu read it then we can discuss it. 

Alleviate your ignorance first before making unfounded disparaging comments, Brother. 

@Troy

Troy read the about section and then print a retraction. 

[Kalexander2]

8 hours ago, Cynique said:

Well, facts are a component of the truth.  Where humans are concerned, you seem to be focused on examples of people afflicted with a cognitive dissonance syndrome wherein they cannot relinquish their beliefs even if the facts are  right before their eyes. 

1

 

You are not wrong; is it pessimistic only to focus on people's internal disorder, difficulty to change, or is it true that humans want to see that one component of truth; or both?  Beliefs, customs, etc. influence culture-bound limitations but they are not beliefs of themselves.  And, there's no news reporter, scientist, or researcher who can completely separate her/his self from their work; no matter how obvious a fact or truth.  You've verified both your own as well as my point.

[Delano]

Check out the Woodward Trump transcript. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-bob-woodward-fear/index.html

 

[Delano]

Trump is on short time. 

[Delano]

Still think he will finish  his term?

[Delano]

At this rate do you think Trump finishes the year?

[Troy]

Yes, he may be on short time, but his finishes the year. My rational thinking "trumps" your astrology

[Delano]

The 25th Amendment was briefly the most searched term. 

We shall see. 

[Delano]

Interesting ads. @Troyl

 

[Troy]

@Delano I write this in all seriousness:  The advertisements that YOU are served are a function of what Google knows about YOU.

 

 

[Delano]

Paul Manafort is also cuting a deal, with the Special Counsel. 

I guess you will only realise its over for Trump when he is out of office. 

[Troy]

September is 1/2 over and winter is coming.  Just have my $50 ready.

[Delano]

You have a lot of confidence for a guy that's not reading the news. I'll leavr yiu in your bubble. 

[Kalexander2]

@Troy:  

Current events mean potential disaster for not only DT, but Pence, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jeff Sessions, Nunes, and a host of other officials.  We must still wait and see what transpires, I too, am waiting. 

 

With Midterms, less than two months away, even without a ‘blue-wave” are you still confident Trump will remain in office past 2019?  I think my monthly contribution to one of my pet charities is going to get a double donation before 2019, thanks to your skepticism!

[Troy]

@Kalexander2 right now I'm primarily concerned with getting my $50 donation from you.  45 remaining in office beyond 2019 is an entirely different question.  I previously wrote and still believe it is an even money bet that he will serve is full term and that there is a greater that 0 probability that he will serve a 2nd term.

 

@Delano saying I don't read the news then assuming I'm in a bubble is ignorance.  Your problem is that you consume too much news from a single perspective and it has given you a distorted view of the world. 

 

Common sense, and a cursory understanding of the justice system, should tell you that a sitting president will not be booted from office before the end of the year.  

 

Don't make me come looking for you at the end of the year for my money.

[Kalexander2]

5 minutes ago, Troy said:

45 remaining in office beyond 2019 is an entirely different question.

 

Is, in fact, THE question. whether DT will remain in office beyond 2019 (December 31, 2018); for the sake of the wager; whether or not he completes his (FULL) first term in office is 'an entirely different question.'  I applaud your optimism, though, for the sake of your favorite charity - and perils of all else; but I also notice, your lack of convincing argument, for the sake of my favorite charity and America, I just can't see DT remaining in office past 2019, or should I say November Midterms.  At what point does, or have the law, ever played a role in political justice?  I'm still banking on human nature and self-preservation and the direction of events in U.S. politics.

[Troy]

@Kalexander2, The law is the only way anything has changed in this country.  This is what made the civil right era so powerful, the legislation that was signed as a result.

 

Angry tweets, kneeling, and impassioned speeches don't mean diddly squat if it is not back by legislation.  This is a part missing for our game plan.

 

Now as far as Trump is concerned tell me the chain of events that you (or Del) see that will result in the unprecedented action of removing a sitting president in less than 3 1/2 months? 

[Kalexander2]

@Troy: What change?  The Civil Rights movement and post-legislation did little more than encouraged voting rights for Blacks; inclusion to distinguish who takes control of the reins of power that, to this day, still doesn’t include Blacks.  Indeed, the law has only justified disparities the entire country now face; the Constitution as a preface is the root of economic, social, and political evils in America.  The binding custom or practice of a community; rules of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by the controlling authority (the law) was conceived as a means to protect property rights of the wealthy. Plutocracy is alive and well in America, always has been, and will continue.

 

Do you actually believe it is the law that prescribes Mueller’s investigation, or dictates of methods for the other side to politick?

 

Now, Mueller is not there for show-n-tell, or to even convict the guilty.  The man is there to preserve the (ever unworkable) concept of Democracy.  The chain of events involving fear is going to get DT removed, regardless whether such action has never happened before; there’s a first time for everything. 

 

Even if it means enacting new legislation to include ‘indicting’ a sitting President, or amending a standing legislation.  The U.S. Government, though, it has powers of any powerful State, is a two-bit Corporation organized to control the citizens and to justify the supreme rule of the land.  It needs to further justify itself, in the public eyes, that their laws under democratic precepts prevail no matter what.  The powers that be (unseen hands) are getting all they need, events surrounding Cohen, Manafort, and others is necessary to shut down one thing and widen another thing are the events that point to DT’s removal before 2019.  You might want to start reviewing all versions of current events before you ask "what events has happened."

[Delano]

@Troy i just want to remind this is am astrological prediction. I have ave been saying he wont finish his term since March. I cant think if anyone who could rationally see that happening.

I have said to you over time you will converge to my position. I am wondering if you will be astute enough to see his demise when it is already obvious. The public tude is also turning. 

I guess that's the difference between us i cam look past my feelings about a matter. 

I am not a Trump supporter. In the primarues I said I thought he would win. That was a minority position he and amongst astrologers. I them said he wouldn't finish his term and that March was the beginning of the end. Once again i was in the minority. 

I don't think you  can find anyone that called his Presidency and his mot finishing his term. I may be wrong about the when but not the what. 

I will leave the analysis of why to all the Monday Morning Quarterbacks. That are good with details after the events are over. I will take position that are formed by both reason and intuition. 

[Troy]

@Delano, You are not the only one who can look past their own feelings.  I too could see Trump winning despite what everyone else said and what I wanted.  

 

Again, I see 45 finishing out the year despite what you and I want, because even 45 is subject to due process and even if the process got started today (which it won't), they can not get him out until the end of the year, and nothing is likely to start until after the midterms. 

 

I believe it is your desire to see your astrological prediction come to fruition that is blinding you to what is obvious -- even without casting a chart, reading tea leaves, or gazing into a crystal ball. I also believe, despite my desire, that there is a good chance 45 will finish his term. 

 

So while I may indeed come over to you way of thinking, will has not happened yet, and even if it happened before the end of the year, 45 will still be in the whitehouse,

@Kalexander2 Whaddya mean what change?!  You realize it was laws that freed the enslaved, gave us the right to vote, and ended Jim Crow segregation. Now I don't know what you are reading or seeing to lead you to believe so strongly that the United States will remove a sitting president in less that 106 days 

 

[Kalexander2]

5 hours ago, Troy said:

@Kalexander2 Whaddya mean what change?!  You realize it was laws that freed the enslaved, gave us the right to vote, and ended Jim Crow segregation. Now I don't know what you are reading or seeing to lead you to believe so strongly that the United States will remove a sitting president in less that 106 days 

 

You mean freedom from force servitude or voluntary servitude without other options; you mean the right to vote or the right to vote as a last result; ending Jim Crow or ending class distinctions.  I’m not so much reading as I am observing and experiencing, for quite some time now!

 

It’s understanding, however, you’ve fallen for the con that the law has made a difference so as to be counted on when needed. 

[Delano]

Manafort is going to cooperate with more than one investigation. 

Trump is also starting a trade war. 

You should note that quite a few news articles are informational not political analysis. 

Once again you are missing the point. I said that i am not a Trump supporter. I ssid he would most likely bevine president in the primaries and he wouldn't finish his term.

 

I initially thought he would be out by both March then July. Then changed it to you would see a definite shift in July. 

 

Yes I would like to be right how many times do you want your  position to be wrong. 

[Troy]

So @Kalexander2 if your position is that laws make no difference, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

15 hours ago, Delano said:

I initially thought he would be out by both March then July. Then changed it to you would see a definite shift in July. 

 

Sure, but you money is on 45 being booted before January 1st.  Save a heart attack or an assassin, which is far more likely that the scenarios you and K2 have hatched, it ain't happening.