The Truth/Untruth about Donald Trump.

[MisterBeale]

Some of you may be familiar with philosopher Stefan Molyneux. He does some great work breaking down and analyzing current topics of the day.

He does tend to be slightly biased, but he still does a lot of reading and digging, so if you want reasonably quick research guide that will reveal the truth that is more in depth than typical CFR media, I highly recommend his research on many topics. Some do say his biases and successes have given him a messianic complex though.

A note of warning, I have heard he is a Trump supporter, so the following video may not be entirely unbiased. I have not watched it yet, I am going to do that tonight. Figuring Trump out has been a difficult task for me, so this is something I have been waiting for.

Stefan has more integrity than someplace like Huffpo or Salon, so even though he is biased, the video may include some warts on Trumps past. . .

 

[MisterBeale]

Fake Campaign Supporters Exposed As Paid Actors - #NewWorldNextWeek

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's interesting about Trump is that he believes in, practices, and represents everything his supporters supposedly hate.

 

[MisterBeale]

How the internet flips elections and alters our thou...

In the end, none of it really matters. They will have who ever they want to be in charge get elected.

 

[MisterBeale]

What's interesting about Trump is that he believes in, practices, and represents everything his supporters supposedly hate.

Such as?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's interesting about Trump is that he believes in, practices, and represents everything his supporters supposedly hate.

Such as?

Trump is a creature of the establishment, benefactor of the political and economic system his supporters claim they oppose; he's a member of the corporate oligarchy, the financial elite, and defender of the status quo.

 

[Never3ndr]

Given that Molyneux is, arguably, the leader of a cult coupled with the fact that people are not going to point-by-point deconstruct and research the points given...its generally far more detrimental rather than beneficial to expose yourself to his work versus the work of more accredited, verifiable, reliable, etc. sources. With that understanding, absolutely NOBODY should view Molyneux's work as a "crash course." Instead, only dedicated academics that are decided to keep a clear mind and research every point and source should view his material.

For example, when reviewing Trump's immigration stance, Molyneux intentionally misrepresents Trump's point, by superimposing his understanding of the subject. It's made all the more wondrous by the fact that he gives you Trump's quote in your face. Trump literally says, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best...They're rapists and some, I assume are good people..." Here, you can clearly see that Trump works with the understanding that the "people that Mexico sends" are bad people (he specifically goes out of his way to say "rapists"), and that there are good people, but the insinuation is that the good people are the exception rather than the rule. However, Molyneux misrepresents this by turning it slightly stating that Trump is only saying that a subset of the illegal immigrants were criminals. This slight turn does not genuinely reflect Trump's language which clearly shows that the assumption is that the illegal immigrants are bad, and that a subset of them are good.

He uses this turn on words and misrepresentation to follow with his rebuttal against various sources that may or may not have truly represented Trump's opinion. Furthermore, he goes on to state that Trump's reason for talking about the issue was that he was referencing an article from Fusion...a pop culture website...if that is enough of a reliable source to go off of, I suppose I should start just reading Salon amirite? Next, Molyneux brings in a much more reliable source to prop up Trump's absurd one (without really pointing out how absurd Fusion is as a source). However, the key is that both studies make claims on how much rape occurs to female migrants en route to America (actually only Fusion, the unreliable source does this, Amnesty makes a more general statement about migrants, which could mean migrants travelling anywhere from Africa to South America for all we know). The real question is, though, what exactly does this have to do with immigrants ENTERING our borders? All they are potentially showing is that we are accepting rape victims into borders...not rapists. Yet, Molyneux does not make this important distinction even though he is undoubtedly intellectual enough to make it (nobody said he wasn't smart).

I would highly recommend NOBODY view his material unless entering it with a critical mindset ready to do hours of study. As far as viewing it as a research guide...you'd have far more luck faceplanting yourself into your keyboard and feeling lucky on Google then getting some information from him.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Trump is a salesman, not a leader.

 

[Missourian]

That was really quite interesting. More than a few points I was not aware of. The media is absolutely corrupt, as is pointed out several times. Add the most recent Duke flap to the list, as Trump had publicly disavowed Duke's endorsement days earlier at the incredibly widely media attended Christie endorsement press conference.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

And it is exactly like the man said...it's like the media doesn't understand the internet...that, as a Trump twitter feed subscriber, I had this information within literally seconds of the instigation of this attack. It would be truly sad if it wasn't so infuriating how the media attempts to manipulate us.

Everyone should watch this.

 

[WheelieAddict]

That was really quite interesting. More than a few points I was not aware of. The media is absolutely corrupt, as is pointed out several times. Add the most recent Duke flap to the list, as Trump had publicly disavowed Duke's endorsement days earlier at the incredibly widely media attended Christie endorsement press conference.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

And it is exactly like the man said...it's like the media doesn't understand the internet...that, as a Trump twitter feed subscriber, I had this information within literally seconds of the instigation of this attack. It would be truly sad if it wasn't so infuriating how the media attempts to manipulate us.

Everyone should watch this.

Sales.

 

[Tehon]

I have never really found anything redeeming about Molyneux's opinions as expressed in his videos. In this one he shows himself to be nothing more than a Trump apologist. His dismissals of Trump's bankruptcies borders on the comical.

 

[MisterBeale]

Given that Molyneux is, arguably, the leader of a cult coupled with the fact that people are not going to point-by-point deconstruct and research the points given...its generally far more detrimental rather than beneficial to expose yourself to his work versus the work of more accredited, verifiable, reliable, etc. sources. With that understanding, absolutely NOBODY should view Molyneux's work as a "crash course." Instead, only dedicated academics that are decided to keep a clear mind and research every point and source should view his material.

For example, when reviewing Trump's immigration stance, Molyneux intentionally misrepresents Trump's point, by superimposing his understanding of the subject. It's made all the more wondrous by the fact that he gives you Trump's quote in your face. Trump literally says, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best...They're rapists and some, I assume are good people..." Here, you can clearly see that Trump works with the understanding that the "people that Mexico sends" are bad people (he specifically goes out of his way to say "rapists"), and that there are good people, but the insinuation is that the good people are the exception rather than the rule. However, Molyneux misrepresents this by turning it slightly stating that Trump is only saying that a subset of the illegal immigrants were criminals. This slight turn does not genuinely reflect Trump's language which clearly shows that the assumption is that the illegal immigrants are bad, and that a subset of them are good.

He uses this turn on words and misrepresentation to follow with his rebuttal against various sources that may or may not have truly represented Trump's opinion. Furthermore, he goes on to state that Trump's reason for talking about the issue was that he was referencing an article from Fusion...a pop culture website...if that is enough of a reliable source to go off of, I suppose I should start just reading Salon amirite? Next, Molyneux brings in a much more reliable source to prop up Trump's absurd one (without really pointing out how absurd Fusion is as a source). However, the key is that both studies make claims on how much rape occurs to female migrants en route to America (actually only Fusion, the unreliable source does this, Amnesty makes a more general statement about migrants, which could mean migrants travelling anywhere from Africa to South America for all we know). The real question is, though, what exactly does this have to do with immigrants ENTERING our borders? All they are potentially showing is that we are accepting rape victims into borders...not rapists. Yet, Molyneux does not make this important distinction even though he is undoubtedly intellectual enough to make it (nobody said he wasn't smart).

I would highly recommend NOBODY view his material unless entering it with a critical mindset ready to do hours of study. As far as viewing it as a research guide...you'd have far more luck faceplanting yourself into your keyboard and feeling lucky on Google then getting some information from him.

I thank you VERY much for viewing this material.

Did I, or did I not preface my post with a warning that Molyneux, like the MSM, has an agenda?

It is my personal opinion though, that he is by far, a more reliable news source than any of the CFR or MSM news outlets.

All of the points you raise, I completely agree with. Especially those rape stats. He was using a common fallacy known as the Biased Sample, which, having a degree in philosophy, I am sure he was well aware he was doing.

Though it was a good indicator that the subgroup was probably an indicator of what Trump was worried about, and the MSM was miscatagorizing what Trump said, his stats do not prove that what Trump said is a legitimate concern.

I would highly recommend NOBODY view his material unless entering it with a critical mindset ready to do hours of study. As far as viewing it as a research guide...you'd have far more luck faceplanting yourself into your keyboard and feeling lucky on Google then getting some information from him.

As far as viewing his material, that would be like saying, you recommend nobody turn on a TV or read a newspaper unless they enter it with a critical mindset ready to do hours of study. As his presentation has shown, the MSM is far more like to have an agenda then he is.

Yes, I agree with you, and I TOLD YOU, before you even viewed the video, we know what his agenda is. However, that being said, it has become quite clear, how absolutely transparent and awful the MSM is. Can you deny that?

Apparently you don't read many of the posters here that have posting count into the tens of thousands. They continually quote sources like Huffpo and Salon. These are major opinion makers. Get with the times sir. Molyneux, by comparison, is a nobody.

 

[MisterBeale]

I have never really found anything redeeming about Molyneux's opinions as expressed in his videos. In this one he shows himself to be nothing more than a Trump apologist. His dismissals of Trump's bankruptcies borders on the comical.

Yep, I can respect that.

I think he is being a fan boy to dismiss those bankruptcies out of hand. To not find anything in the Trump candidacy that is objectionable reeks of being a partisan.

I think he did himself a great disservice by not analyzing the Trump candidacy with less of an agenda. That's just my take. No person is entirely good, or entirely bad.

Well, except maybe Hillary. Just kidding.

Did you ever view his series that he did with Paul Craig Roberts?

I like that he analyzes media and topics that the MSM doesn't, or covers it from an angle the the CFR won't. It is an independent source where the ruling class journalists try to manipulate folks. His agenda is not coming out of the Pratt house, so that is nice.

 

[Tehon]

I have never really found anything redeeming about Molyneux's opinions as expressed in his videos. In this one he shows himself to be nothing more than a Trump apologist. His dismissals of Trump's bankruptcies borders on the comical.

Yep, I can respect that.

I think he is being a fan boy to dismiss those bankruptcies out of hand. To not find anything in the Trump candidacy that is objectionable reeks of being a partisan.

I think he did himself a great disservice by not analyzing the Trump candidacy with less of an agenda. That's just my take. No person is entirely good, or entirely bad.

Well, except maybe Hillary. Just kidding.

Did you ever view his series that he did with Paul Craig Roberts?

I like that he analyzes media and topics that the MSM doesn't, or covers it from an angle the the CFR won't. It is an independent source where the ruling class journalists try to manipulate folks. His agenda is not coming out of the Pratt house, so that is nice.

Well, except maybe Hillary.
Quite right...........all kidding aside.

Did you ever view his series that he did with Paul Craig Roberts?
No I had never seen that exchange before, thanks for pointing it out. I like listening to PCR but he could have let Molyneux get a few more words in.

 

[FA_Q2]

Given that Molyneux is, arguably, the leader of a cult coupled with the fact that people are not going to point-by-point deconstruct and research the points given...its generally far more detrimental rather than beneficial to expose yourself to his work versus the work of more accredited, verifiable, reliable, etc. sources. With that understanding, absolutely NOBODY should view Molyneux's work as a "crash course." Instead, only dedicated academics that are decided to keep a clear mind and research every point and source should view his material.

For example, when reviewing Trump's immigration stance, Molyneux intentionally misrepresents Trump's point, by superimposing his understanding of the subject. It's made all the more wondrous by the fact that he gives you Trump's quote in your face. Trump literally says, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best...They're rapists and some, I assume are good people..." Here, you can clearly see that Trump works with the understanding that the "people that Mexico sends" are bad people (he specifically goes out of his way to say "rapists"), and that there are good people, but the insinuation is that the good people are the exception rather than the rule. However, Molyneux misrepresents this by turning it slightly stating that Trump is only saying that a subset of the illegal immigrants were criminals. This slight turn does not genuinely reflect Trump's language which clearly shows that the assumption is that the illegal immigrants are bad, and that a subset of them are good.

He uses this turn on words and misrepresentation to follow with his rebuttal against various sources that may or may not have truly represented Trump's opinion. Furthermore, he goes on to state that Trump's reason for talking about the issue was that he was referencing an article from Fusion...a pop culture website...if that is enough of a reliable source to go off of, I suppose I should start just reading Salon amirite? Next, Molyneux brings in a much more reliable source to prop up Trump's absurd one (without really pointing out how absurd Fusion is as a source). However, the key is that both studies make claims on how much rape occurs to female migrants en route to America (actually only Fusion, the unreliable source does this, Amnesty makes a more general statement about migrants, which could mean migrants travelling anywhere from Africa to South America for all we know). The real question is, though, what exactly does this have to do with immigrants ENTERING our borders? All they are potentially showing is that we are accepting rape victims into borders...not rapists. Yet, Molyneux does not make this important distinction even though he is undoubtedly intellectual enough to make it (nobody said he wasn't smart).

I would highly recommend NOBODY view his material unless entering it with a critical mindset ready to do hours of study. As far as viewing it as a research guide...you'd have far more luck faceplanting yourself into your keyboard and feeling lucky on Google then getting some information from him.

I noticed that rather dishonest play on that phrase as well.

I do not know if you really need to do hours of research to see through most of what he claims as simple play on words in order to skew the argument in his preferred direction. Most of it is right there when he puts the quotes up and then twists around them. Something else that caught my attention immediately but you didn't mention is that he narrates the quotes he uses as a precursor to what he wants you to think about them. All of Trump's quotes are said straight out in a reasonable and sometimes soft tone. The remaining quotes that attack his position are often read in a whinny, angry or otherwise negative manner.

That is not to say that some of his statements in that particular video are not without merit but the video itself is not really worth watching - it is to skewed.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have never really found anything redeeming about Molyneux's opinions as expressed in his videos. In this one he shows himself to be nothing more than a Trump apologist. His dismissals of Trump's bankruptcies borders on the comical.

Yep, I can respect that.

I think he is being a fan boy to dismiss those bankruptcies out of hand. To not find anything in the Trump candidacy that is objectionable reeks of being a partisan.

I think he did himself a great disservice by not analyzing the Trump candidacy with less of an agenda. That's just my take. No person is entirely good, or entirely bad.

Well, except maybe Hillary. Just kidding.

Did you ever view his series that he did with Paul Craig Roberts?

I like that he analyzes media and topics that the MSM doesn't, or covers it from an angle the the CFR won't. It is an independent source where the ruling class journalists try to manipulate folks. His agenda is not coming out of the Pratt house, so that is nice.

I actually find this rather interesting because those bankruptcies is one of the few instances that I agree. Bankruptcy is yet another tool in business and it would be insane for a business to not use it where the legal structure allows and it is in the best interest in the company. When a company starts out and borrows money that is one of the risks that comes with lending it to them in the same manner that a bank risks loaning money to prospective home buyer.

 

[FJO]

What's interesting about Trump is that he believes in, practices, and represents everything his supporters supposedly hate.

Such as?

Trump is a creature of the establishment, benefactor of the political and economic system his supporters claim they oppose; he's a member of the corporate oligarchy, the financial elite, and defender of the status quo.

All that could have been said about Obama, with the possible exception to the reference of "status quo".

Obama was creature of the establishment, benefactor of the political and economic system his supporters claimed they opposed, he was the member of the corporate oligarchy and the financial elite.

The only difference between Obama and any Republican is that no Republican ever wanted to destroy America by fundamentally transforming it, like Obama.

With that he earned his place in history as not only the first (half) black President but also the only president who willingly and wantingly enjoyed hurting his country, as prescribed his mentor: "No no no not bless America, God Damn America".

 

[MisterBeale]

I have never really found anything redeeming about Molyneux's opinions as expressed in his videos. In this one he shows himself to be nothing more than a Trump apologist. His dismissals of Trump's bankruptcies borders on the comical.

Yep, I can respect that.

I think he is being a fan boy to dismiss those bankruptcies out of hand. To not find anything in the Trump candidacy that is objectionable reeks of being a partisan.

I think he did himself a great disservice by not analyzing the Trump candidacy with less of an agenda. That's just my take. No person is entirely good, or entirely bad.

Well, except maybe Hillary. Just kidding.

Did you ever view his series that he did with Paul Craig Roberts?

I like that he analyzes media and topics that the MSM doesn't, or covers it from an angle the the CFR won't. It is an independent source where the ruling class journalists try to manipulate folks. His agenda is not coming out of the Pratt house, so that is nice.

I actually find this rather interesting because those bankruptcies is one of the few instances that I agree. Bankruptcy is yet another tool in business and it would be insane for a business to not use it where the legal structure allows and it is in the best interest in the company. When a company starts out and borrows money that is one of the risks that comes with lending it to them in the same manner that a bank risks loaning money to prospective home buyer.

Oh, I think we all understand that.

That is not up for debate.

How many times did Warren Buffet declare Bankruptcy? Once?

How many times did Michael Bloomberg declare bankruptcy? Never? I don't think the MSM will ever even give us that info.

Sure, bankruptcy is a risk of doing business, and the Trump brand is supposedly standing for excellence, right? But you can't just gloss over the fact that he has had multiple bankruptcies, while other high profile businessmen don't have as many big deals go bust, isn't that supposed to be the point?

Either you are good at the game, or you are not. Which is it?

Did Trump start a mortgage company right at a time when the market was poor for it? In 2006?
Hell, even I knew that would be a disastrous time to do something like that.
Does that show poor foresight?
Some would say it does. .. .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump is a salesman, not a leader.

He's also a con man and buffoon.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have never really found anything redeeming about Molyneux's opinions as expressed in his videos. In this one he shows himself to be nothing more than a Trump apologist. His dismissals of Trump's bankruptcies borders on the comical.

Yep, I can respect that.

I think he is being a fan boy to dismiss those bankruptcies out of hand. To not find anything in the Trump candidacy that is objectionable reeks of being a partisan.

I think he did himself a great disservice by not analyzing the Trump candidacy with less of an agenda. That's just my take. No person is entirely good, or entirely bad.

Well, except maybe Hillary. Just kidding.

Did you ever view his series that he did with Paul Craig Roberts?

I like that he analyzes media and topics that the MSM doesn't, or covers it from an angle the the CFR won't. It is an independent source where the ruling class journalists try to manipulate folks. His agenda is not coming out of the Pratt house, so that is nice.

I actually find this rather interesting because those bankruptcies is one of the few instances that I agree. Bankruptcy is yet another tool in business and it would be insane for a business to not use it where the legal structure allows and it is in the best interest in the company. When a company starts out and borrows money that is one of the risks that comes with lending it to them in the same manner that a bank risks loaning money to prospective home buyer.

Oh, I think we all understand that.

That is not up for debate.

How many times did Warren Buffet declare Bankruptcy? Once?

How many times did Michael Bloomberg declare bankruptcy? Never? I don't think the MSM will ever even give us that info.

Sure, bankruptcy is a risk of doing business, and the Trump brand is supposedly standing for excellence, right? But you can't just gloss over the fact that he has had multiple bankruptcies, while other high profile businessmen don't have as many big deals go bust, isn't that supposed to be the point?

Either you are good at the game, or you are not. Which is it?

Did Trump start a mortgage company right at a time when the market was poor for it? In 2006?
Hell, even I knew that would be a disastrous time to do something like that.
Does that show poor foresight?
Some would say it does. .. .

In some ways, perhaps. Overall I think that Trump has clearly been massively successful though so I am not so sure that the Bankruptcies show that.