No, I did not. But you did.
[edit] Just saw your reply which has completely confused me. Do you want events (my post) or people’s opinions (Véronique’s)?[/edit]
Much like the effect of Brexit on the UK Trump has ‘polarised’ the US, whilst the economy is booming most of the job creation is low wage rather than high skilled. I don’t see him as honest, he just says things to shock and often backtracks. What I thought might happen is that his election would spark some sort of mass Democrat re-awakening but it hasn’t so far, maybe the mid-terms will give an indication of where the US is likely to be in 2020 but unless there’s a power shift in both houses I can see Trump running again.
Surely the point of prefacing one’s thoughts with “I think” means that whatever follows is what one thinks?
A paragraph is generally constructed with several interconnected sentences dependent on the first.
Sometimes what one thinks is an accepted fact (I think the formula for water is H2O) and sometimes it is a matter of opinion.
5 Likes
I well understand your confusion! What has happened is that for some reason my post hasn’t been fully printed. No idea why! Anyway my reply was to you and at the end of it should have been ‘else’s’.
Hope that a has cleared up the confusion.
Couldn’t agree more, with the first part! You then go on to say ‘is’ . Rather negates the ‘I think’. What followed your ‘!s’ isn’t an accepted fact.
I Listened to All Six Trump Rallies in October.
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59e12fa4dee52728165932e8/1:1/w_48,c_limit/glasser-susan-01.png)
](https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/susan-b-glasser)
October 12, 2018
Read what I wrote 
I put it as clearly as I could.
2 Likes
@Ken - Aha! There’s the difference. I like to post links to “interesting” stories and see how other people respond.
If you are interested in my opinion (and I’m not sure why you would be), I think he’s a mendacious, orange arsehole and currently the greatest threat to our way of life and children’s future.
I also believe he will say anything and probably do anything to achieve his aims, whatever they are. I suspect he would like to be remembered as a good president who got things done, but doesn’t think much further than that, which is almost ironic as its the short-termism of his policies which is the most problematic.
Anyhow I hope that clears up my position :).
7 Likes
Yes, Véro, you are always clear, in my opinion.
But not dogmatic, I think, in your opinions. When you say that you think that H2O is the formula apllied to water, you are stating it as a fact. But you are allowing room for the possibilty, albeit infinitessimally small, of challenge to that currently probably universal consensus about what constitutes ‘fact’.
Grown-up facts, in my opinion, always invite closer inspection and sceptical re-evaluation as conditions change. And they do, I think, always change.
That’s what an excellent teacher bears always in mind.
I think it a pity that Kenneth never had the opportunity to sit at the feet of a teacher of your calibre when he was small.
He might have learned to read more thoroughly, and think more deeply, than he seems to at present. And to participate more comfortably and constructively with his peers.
9 Likes
It is clear that Trump lies most of the time that his lips are moving - I don’t think that he is actually capable of understanding, or telling “truth” as most people see it.
I am not sure, however, that Trump lies in the conventional sense either - he has an utterly overinflated sense of his own importance and ability so some, even most, of the time I am certain he speaks the truth as he sees it - unfortunately the truth as he sees it is a fluid thing and not always constant or consistent but simply what is convenient to Trump at a particular moment or reflection of his own aggrandised view of things.
The NY Times has a list and analysis of the untrue and/or inaccurate statements that Trump made in 2017.
I presume that when Ken says he feels Trump is honest he is referring to the fact that he has at least attempted to make good on his campaign pledges, though if I have misjudged that I am sure he will let me know.
It is, however, too early to tell much about the lasting legacy of these actions.
2 Likes
It does indeed. He is a President and you are, like me, someone who hasn’t achieved high office. Of course I’m interested in your opinion. We may not agree but so what?
You are on dangerous ground
2 Likes
No, You haven’t misjudged me. Misunderstood what I said, yes! He has made good on his campaign promises. More than most ever do. I believe that like most people you.can’t be objective.
Paul, I think this ghastly Wheatley chap combines a self-indulgent parasitic attraction to on-line discussion groups with a superficially voguish disdain for French culture and social cohesion, and a written style which, albeit modestly engaging, is as offensive as it is pig-headed.
It seems that the small fame he has attracted by being published in a couple of UK newpapers has gone, narcissistically, to his head. Hungry for more, he feeds his instatiable ego on your efforts, and those of courteous and intellectually superior peers, to meet him on civil, well- informed ground. But he thirsts for victory, and needs to humiliate his prey, even if they surrender.
Like all manipulative types, he is better ignored than parleyed with. This will enrage him, and strike fear into his heart, because he dreads exclusion. It withers his soul. Out of pity for him, and in whatever guise he pops up again, let’s hasten his demise mercifully and swiftly at once, and definitively, with our silence.
5 Likes
You really are a rather sad and bitter person. Still, you do find my discourse at least moderately engaging. Surprised you read my posts actually!
Ken could be the Trump of SFN.
And Peter Goble Hilary Clinton!! Lets see now, my cabinet would be… any suggestions?
I try and spell check before I post Ken.
It seems that you can’t resist having a poke even when I am trying to support you.
No-one can, objectively, fail to notice that Trump produces a continuous stream of mistruths, outright lies and exaggerations so the only way to read your original comment is that you are ignoring the day-to-day stuff and concentrating on his record where campaign pledges is concerned - fair enough.
I agree that he has stuck to what he said, even though I don’t think much of it is any good.
But you then attack me saying that I cannot be objective - in what way?
When you were originally banned I messaged James to suggest that he had been heavy handed - I am aware that I was not the only one to do so - and it was because of that support that James did not immediately re-ban you when you signed up again.
I fear that I was mistaken - sorry James.
3 Likes