"And I was confused by that, too."

 Opinion about verbiage is not equal to agreeing or disagreeing with what that verbiage is referencing.
 
 Trump does not cohesively discuss policy, I consider his statements in regards to policy to mostly be skewed for effect and longer in duration than needed, thus the terms "skewed" and "rambling".  He almost always speaks in sound bites and injects opinion when discussing policy.  I don't care about his opinions when trying to figure out what his policy will actually do.

 For instance his opinion that mostly drug-dealers and rapists are coming across the border mean nothing to me.  How the immigration policy instructs CBP and ICE to conduct operations does mean something to me.  So Trump can ramble on about immigrants all day long, none of that will impact the operational status of CBP or ICE by policy.  Policy is what I care about.  So I don't use mainstream media to know what policy is.

 So while I use Trump's statements, which I interpret to typically be skewed rambling, to look up policy proposals, I do not think his statements are indicative of actual policy impact.

"Really? He actually Said that? I don't remember that. Reference To them being in the people crossing, yeah, but I don't think he said they were in the majority."


 He didn't claim a majority:

"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


 I will amend my assessment for accuracy:

 For instance his opinion that an unspecified percentage of drug-dealers and rapists are coming across the border mean nothing to me.  How the immigration policy instructs CBP and ICE to conduct operations does mean something to me.  So Trump can ramble on about immigrants all day long, none of that will impact the operational status of CBP or ICE by policy.  Policy is what I care about.  So I don't use mainstream media to know what policy is.


"I have a friend with a newborn in Washington. She is having a really bad time finding formula. I'm curious about how much of what she needs is sitting in a warehouse on the border."

 
 I'd assume of that formula the amount she could have ever purchased in her lifetime would be none of it.  There should of course be modifications of appropriated funds that allow for emergency distribution, but there would have to be some significant changes to law for that to happen at this time.

"I see that the Democrats among us and I will not name names, are blinded by civilized behavior. And if I've learned anything in life, it's that civilized behavior is paper thin.

I don't have much faith in that.
Do You?"

 No.

 I also don't think over 50% of people will vote for Trump because of LOVE.  That is also civilized behavior.

assume of that formula the amount she could have ever purchased in her lifetime would be none of it.

Because none has been delivered there recently?
How do you conclude that?

zevenenergie wrote on 11/17/22 at 14:22:31:


Pleasantville. I’ve always thought of it as a metaphor for Eve eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden. The fruit was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once she ate the fruit, she was able to see good and evil. She saw the beauty of the world but she also saw the ugliness.

In the movie, when the cool kids essentially become what today we would call woke, they’re able to see the color and literally start have sex at lookout point.  When a married woman awakens to the fact that her marriage is in a rut and she’s essentially a slave for her husband and children, she suddenly sees color. She has an affair with a painter and leaves her husband.

Once you become “woke” and see color everything is roses and unicorns. Of course we know that’s not true. They show the woman who leaves her husband for the painter at the end and there’s an odd scene with her, her husband and her lover on a bench with some puzzling looks. This is really the only reference to the fact that there are difficult consequences from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The not so subtle message that the paradise they were living in before was in fact a prison and it’s only through seeing everything that you were truly free. There’s certainly something to be said for that, but it’s not so simple.

In Christianity, whether you understand this or not, humans have limited vision. We cannot see the spiritual world that swirls on around us. The Bible tells stories of angels having wars occurring nearby they we’re not privy to. Angels complain to God and ask “what is man that you are so mindful of him, that you make him a little less than the angels and make the world his footstool.”

There’s a good argument to be made that when Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the second law of thermodynamics came into being. From that I mean the decay of all matter began. There’s an interesting question to be asked which is how much time elapsed from the end of Genesis 2 and the beginning of Genesis 3. At the end of chapter 2, everything is perfect. In the beginning of chapter 3 the serpent arrives to tempt Eve. How much time passed between those two events. A year, 10,000 years, 1 billion? It’s impossible to say. And Christianity if we say we believe in an everlasting afterlife, and time has no meaning. It’s only when the second law of thermodynamics comes into play, the things decay and there’s a very clear arrow of time. Once you have an arrow of time then you can measure time. But without that, there’s no such thing as time.

Wow, I think I just inadvertently paddled into some very deep water…..

I have a busy morning but I’m gonna have to ponder that and get back to you.

But talk of organized actions to keep the populace in line is a variation of the Sharpshooter Fallacy which is a man takes a rifle and aims generally at the side of a barn, shooting multiple rounds. When he’s all done, he takes a marker and circles the holes that are the closest together and claims he is a sharp shooter.


 I agree.

 Another issue with a lot of these New World Order style plans is that they require an infinite amount of money and power to be in action.  So if an Organization has infinite money and infinite power, haven't they already won?

 The response of course is always something ego-fulfilling like the NWO population control isn't successful because of people "like us" that keep up the fight.  

 Sure it is.

"... a group of very powerful people  ..."

A friend of my enemy is my enemy.
A enemy of my enemy, is my friend.

Only can last so long.