Your Opinion Is Irrelevant, It doesn't matter what you think.

[Pete F.]

You’re a terrible person.

How do I know? It’s easy. You have opinions. Loads and loads of them.

For example: You have an opinion on Donald Trump.

And the people who don’t share your opinion? Well just go have a talk with them on Twitter or Facebook. They’ll tell you right quick what a horrible person you are. And they’re not gonna’ sugar coat it. They’ll find a few choice words that aren’t appropriate for polite society but are the mother’s milk of social media and hurl them at you.

And you? Well, I guess there’s a chance that you’ll happily ignore this insults, knowing they mean absolutely nothing. But let’s be honest: You’re probably going to get upset come raging back and BAM—you’ll have won the argument and the other person will apologize and tell you how much they’ve learned.

ROFL.

I can’t believe I have to tell you this. Honestly, it’s beneath both of us, but patience, kindness, gratitude, and compassion are the most important parts of life. And angrily asserting your opinions on Twitter is an abject waste of time. Actually, it’s worse than that, because doing so probably does harm in ways that traditional time wasting never could.

So yes. You’re a terrible person

“But wait!” you say. “It’s okay! It’s worth it!”

Because at least you know you’re on the right side of history. You’re standing up for what you believe in and you’d never be able to look at yourself in the mirror if you didn’t defend your beliefs.

Well, sadly, “beliefs” are just opinions wrapped in self-righteousness and it would appear that your opinions aren’t making the world a better place. Not for you and not for the other terrible people, either.

Arthur Brooks notes in his book (you should read it) that treating one another with disgust and disdain, which is how we’re being conditioned by technology to approach those with whom we disagree, doesn’t have any net positive results.

Calling someone a moron doesn’t encourage them to revisit their point of view. If anything, it probably chases them back into their ideological camp where their stupid opinions will be reinforced by other wrong-thinking people. And they’ll decide that you aren’t just wrong, but you’re a terrible human being as well. And maybe not even a human being.

My wife is fond of saying that you can be right or you can be happily married. She is wise beyond her years.

People are losing friends and family over their opinions. Opinions that don’t matter at all. Opinions that a JV debate team can easily take turns arguing both sides of and tear to shreds in the blink of an eye. Opinions that the opinion holder themselves probably disagreed with at some point in the last year. Or 20 minutes, even.

Suddenly people are letting these ideas and ideologies determine who they will be friends with?

I’m here to tell you to cut it out. You’re better than this.

What would Jesus do? This atheist Jew will tell you what Jesus would do: He would tell you that you’re being an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. (Probably. I’m quoting Leviticus by memory, so I may have the phrasing slightly off.)

But he’d be right. And I’m not saying this to nag you. I’m not being a school marm. I don’t care if you have bad manners or are crude or ill tempered. The reason this matters is that more and more you are letting your opinions dictate how you regard your fellow humans and how you experience their humanity. This isn’t new. The natural order of things is for us to decamp based on our opinions and then to slaughter each other.

That’s why this is important and even urgent. There are groups out there in whose interest it is to make you hate one another and playing on your heart felt beliefs is an amazingly effective way to achieve that division.

You’re being played.

Vladimir Putin (as just one example) figured out how to weaponize your fragile ego and he’s turning you into an unwitting participant in the decimation of your neighbourly good will. And he’s not the only one. So many entities would love for us to be at each other’s throats. Because it makes you loyal to them and—more importantly—it makes them money.

Look, I’m no better. I have my opinions. You’re reading one now! But do you know what would happen if you told me you disagreed with me? I’d be delighted! I’d love to know how and what about my argument you think misses the truth. And maybe you’d convince me and maybe you wouldn’t but you know what would never happen? Nothing you could say would offend me and nothing you could say would make me despise you. I’m ready for you to hold any opinion at all.

Because I don’t actually care what you think. I care what you do.

I wasn’t always this way. I was as convinced that my opinions matter as you are, but then a magical thing happened.

A few years ago, while travelling on business, I got a call from my friend Dim informing me that Sima, his mother, had passed away. This was the woman who effectively became my mom after my mother died when I was 14.

I was in a hotel somewhere in the midwest, trying to make sense of the loss. I wound up in conversation with a total stranger, whose name was Lori. And Lori told me that she was a nurse in a children’s oncology ward. And I tried to put myself into her shoes for a moment.

Oncology is cancer. And children . . . well . . . they’re children. There are some people amongst us who go into that place. The place where children and oncology intersect.

Now unless you’ve been there, you can’t imagine it. Not really. But you understand it. It’s your worst nightmare. And yet there are people, like Lori, who go there every day. They do what most of us couldn’t. They face this nightmare down. Every day.

Hold that thought for a moment. Breathe it in.

I decided in a single instant that Lori was a saint. Or maybe an angel. I’m not well versed on the ins and outs of Christian theology. But in my eyes, she was sporting the wings, the halo, the whole regalia. A saint/angel. Because us mere flesh-and-bone mortals could not withstand her reality day in and day out. The reality in which children get cancer and suffer and sometimes die while saints like Lori hold their hands and comfort their helpless, broken, parents.

Deep breath.

And another.

Once I had sanctified/angelified Lori, once I had decided that she was from a different plane of existence, and she could do no wrong, she revealed that she was . . .

Wait for it . . .

A dyed in the wool Trump supporter.

I’m not making this up! Lori loved DJT. He was her boy. To her, he could do no wrong. And this wasn’t during the campaign either! This was after DJT had ample time to convince those of us who are squarely on the “DJT is bad” train to be completely certain that he’s exactly the absolute worst kind of human possible.

And yet here I was. Having to square this circle.

But the answer turned out to be remarkably simple: Our mutual humanity is much more important than our vapid and transient tribal affiliations and ultimately worthless opinions.

What Lori thought was that Trump is a terrific guy, what Lori did was she went to hell every day to take care of those who were the most in need of her help. It’s not differential calculus! It’s just a scorecard: Humanity 1 : Opinions 0.

Look, we are all up to our necks in excrement. And most of us want the best for our fellow humans. We really do. And you know what the best way to express this reality is? Of course you do. Just be kind!

Be kind and be patient and forgiving and compassionate. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt and when they prove to you that they’re total #^&#^&#^&#^&heads—then be kind some more.

“But what if they’re evil?” (I hear you say).

Ok—let’s list some evil people . . . Stalin? Dahmer? Putin? They’re not on Facebook. They have no Twitter feed. You’re not arguing with them. Evil comes in all shapes and sizes but it’s relatively rare. The vast majority of people arrive at their conclusions based on some combination of reason and emotion, not because they genuinely want bad outcomes for the rest of humanity. And as sociologists keep pointing out we’re a tribal animal—most of the time we hold our opinions are the opinions of our tribe, not because we arrive at them independently or because they’re factually accurate.

Being angry, being stressed, being afraid—these things are bad for you! You should avoid them—and you can avoid them—you just need to recognize that your opinions don’t matter!

You can do it. Stop judging and stop categorizing and for cod’s sake stop being offended. “I find it so offensive when…” well don’t! Find it irrelevant, find it beneath you or better still just don’t find it. Sticks and stones and all that!

It matters! Look around you: Everyone is in a fox hole and living in a gas mask. Why?

Because life is painful and arbitrary and we’re all deeply flawed and just hoping there’s room for us on the life rafts.

Sure, it’s nice to be sure about stuff but not at the expense of despising those that disagree with you. You can be right or you can be married.

The path forward is and always has been and always will be – patience and compassion and love.

For everyone.

Reconnect with those who voted for the person you could never vote for. Ask them about their pets or their kids or their car troubles. Tell them about yours. Time is so short—you’re really going to waste yours being offended or angry? About someone’s (useless) opinions? Wouldn’t that make you a terrible person?

Yes. Yes it would.

by Yevgeny Simkin

Yevgeny (Genia) Simkin is hard to sum up in a sentence but if you can imagine a funnier (but otherwise wholly less able and talented) Jaron Lanier who fled Soviet Russia as a child and has spent his life bouncing from music to comedy to software engineering you’d have a pretty good idea of who he is. You can follow his comedy Twitter feed here. Oh and he’s the founder of The Russian Mob (but that’s a story for another time).

From the Bulwark
https://thebulwark.com/

[Sea Dangles]

Nice to see you have time to expose this epidemic PeteF., you are a beacon of hope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Lynne Patton On Working For Donald Trump—In Government & Business—& Why the Media Is Wrong About Him

[Pete F.]

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 68

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 68

So then, "it will not be too strong to say" that Trump has the ability and virtue to be President. Obviously, by "virtue," Hamilton did not mean sexually "moral." Otherwise he would not have considered himself or others such as Jefferson to have the virtuous character to be President. So, if we are to have faith in what Hamilton wrote in the entire paper #68, it is therefor a "moral certainty", that Trump is "endowed with the requisite qualifications" to be President.

Most Presidents have had virulent detractors. No matter who is elected, that will always be so. The people who voted for Trump did so in opposition to the opinions of those who consider Trump unfit. Trump supporters consider him "pre-eminent" in "ability" and in having a sort of virtue required to doggedly pursue his convictions and goals. As does Lynne Patton in the above video which, I assume, you did not watch.

What matters, as Hamilton quotes Alexander Pope "For forms of government let fools contest--that which is best administered is best--". And to which Hamilton agreed by saying "that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."

You seem to despair that Trump supporters overlook what you consider moral turpitude but are happy with his results. Hamilton would disagree with you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You seem to despair that Trump supporters overlook what you consider moral turpitude but are happy with his results. Hamilton would disagree with you.

Hamilton would have read the Mueller report

[detbuch]

Hamilton would have been investigated by Mueller.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hamilton would have been investigated by Mueller.

Why would you think that?

I think Hamilton would not have been impressed by Trump. Probably would have been the original Never Trumper. Hamilton was not a man with bonespurs or one to suffer blowhards lightly.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why would you think that?

Bringing Hamiltonian politics into the current party politics climate, the Anti-Federalists who objected to the proposed Constitution would have called for an investigation into the Federalist's deception of turning what was supposed to be merely a revision of the Articles of Confederation into replacing it with a whole new and different Constitution.

And the usual dirty tricks would have been employed--even setting up phony "meetings" between Federalists such as Hamilton with manufactured "operatives" of foreign governments, such as Brlitain, who still had eyes on retaking their own colonies.

I think Hamilton would not have been impressed by Trump. Probably would have been the original Never Trumper. Hamilton was not a man with bonespurs or one to suffer blowhards lightly.

Hamilton was as energetic and tireless as Trump is. And he wouldn't have been judgmental about Trump's sex episodes considering his own sexual infidelity, or considering the sexual proclivities of those in his own Federalist circles such as Jefferson who was not a sexual purist.

He was also as fervently business friendly as Trump. And he supported tariffs to bolster American business. And he believed in immigration only by merit which was useful for American business needs.

Maybe you have some notion that he was a noble spirit. He was a hard driving political and commercial realist, not much different, if at all, than Trump.

[Pete F.]

Does this sound like a letter Don the Con would have written from New York Military Academy?

Dear Edward
This just serves to acknowledge receipt of yours per Cap Lowndes which was delivered me Yesterday. The truth of Cap Lightbourn & Lowndes information is now verifyd by the Presence of your Father and Sister for whose safe arrival I Pray, and that they may convey that Satisfaction to your Soul that must naturally flow from the sight of Absent Friends in health, and shall for news this way refer you to them. As to what you say respecting your having soon the happiness of seeing us all, I wish, for an accomplishment of your hopes provided they are Concomitant with your welfare, otherwise not, tho doubt whether I shall be Present or not for to confess my weakness, Ned, my Ambition is prevalent that I contemn the grov’ling and condition of a Clerk or the like, to which my Fortune &c. condemns me and would willingly risk my life tho’ not my Character to exalt my Station. Im confident, Ned that my Youth excludes me from any hopes of immediate Preferment nor do I desire it, but I mean to prepare the way for futurity. Im no Philosopher you see and may be jusly said to Build Castles in the Air. My Folly makes me ashamd and beg youll Conceal it, yet Neddy we have seen such Schemes successfull when the Projector is Constant I shall Conclude saying I wish there was a War.

I am   Dr Edward   Yours

Alex Hamilton


Trump is the antithesis of Hamilton, Trump is much more like Buchanan, in his defense of privilege, dividing the nation and claims of harassment by Congress.
Buchanan was not successful at that, Trump won't be either.

[Sea Dangles]

Pete, if you don’t think Trump would write something similar about himself then you simply have not been paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Pete, if you don’t think Trump would write something similar about himself then you simply have not been paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To what?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Does this sound like a letter Don the Con would have written from New York Military Academy?

Dear Edward
This just serves to acknowledge receipt of yours per Cap Lowndes which was delivered me Yesterday. The truth of Cap Lightbourn & Lowndes information is now verifyd by the Presence of your Father and Sister for whose safe arrival I Pray, and that they may convey that Satisfaction to your Soul that must naturally flow from the sight of Absent Friends in health, and shall for news this way refer you to them. As to what you say respecting your having soon the happiness of seeing us all, I wish, for an accomplishment of your hopes provided they are Concomitant with your welfare, otherwise not, tho doubt whether I shall be Present or not for to confess my weakness, Ned, my Ambition is prevalent that I contemn the grov’ling and condition of a Clerk or the like, to which my Fortune &c. condemns me and would willingly risk my life tho’ not my Character to exalt my Station. Im confident, Ned that my Youth excludes me from any hopes of immediate Preferment nor do I desire it, but I mean to prepare the way for futurity. Im no Philosopher you see and may be jusly said to Build Castles in the Air. My Folly makes me ashamd and beg youll Conceal it, yet Neddy we have seen such Schemes successfull when the Projector is Constant I shall Conclude saying I wish there was a War.

I am   Dr Edward   Yours

Alex Hamilton

I gave you solid examples of substance re the qualifications for President per your excerpt from Hamilton's Federalist #68 and from the rest of that article not in your quote. You come up with a hyper verbose self-congratulatory letter by Hamilton riddled with language that 85% of the public would not understand, much less relate to, and make Hamilton, from that, somehow better than Trump.

As Sea Dangles said, Trump could well have written that kind of letter about himself, but in simpler English. Trump can connect with common people better than Hamilton. And Trump has personal friends and acquaintances who he is loyal to and vice versa. Trump has probably been way more charitable with his money than Hamilton was, if he was at all. Hamilton was an elitist who could probably never have been elected to the Presidency. There simply were stronger, more empathetic personalities who would have opposed him and connected with the voters better.

And I doubt that Trump would end a letter the same way that Hamilton did " I shall Conclude saying I wish there was a War." Trump may threaten and bluster. But his intention is to avoid war. He doesn't seem to want to get us involved in one.


Trump is the antithesis of Hamilton, Trump is much more like Buchanan, in his defense of privilege, dividing the nation and claims of harassment by Congress.
Buchanan was not successful at that, Trump won't be either.

Trump and Hamilton were quite alike in energy, drive, ambition, dogged determination, political and economic ideology, but different in their ability to put it all together as a leader of others rather than just being a stand alone phenom. Their understanding of other people's foibles is also not in total sync. Trump would never let his son participate in a duel, but if he did, he wouldn't have advised him to shoot first and purposely and obviously miss, as Hamilton told his son to do. Of course, his son was killed because of that stupidity. Then Hamilton was idiotic enough to repeat the same nonsense himself in the duel with Burr. With the same stupid result.

Trump has not divided the nation. The nation was already divided, for a long time and becoming more so. And the forces creating that division are now in hyper-drive to bring him down because he is a threat to their ill earned prestige and power, an absolute threat to their privilege, and a clarifying force who reveals how hypocritical, deceptive, corrupt, and truly un-American they are.

And, for those who understand this, he is very successful in doing so

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

To what?

Your president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Here is a response to a question in the popular online forum QUORA on "Why did so many of the founding fathers hate Alexander Hamilton?" A lot of similarities to Trump in the answer, but certainly not the purely noble spirit that resides in your opinion of him:

Basically, because he was extremely ambitious, pissed a lot of people off, and had a variety of traits that made him incredibly vulnerable to being demonized.

He was an advocate of centralized power at a time when many people feared an effective return to monarchy. Even after the Constitution was enacted without adopting his suggestion of a president-for-life, his Treasury Department quickly ballooned to 500 full-time employees (compared to a dozen civilians in the War Department and even fewer in State) and gained powers that his opponents argued were unconstitutional.

He hated a number of things that were really popular during his time, such as liquor, stiffing creditors, and slavery. He managed to enshrine two of those hatreds in federal law, in the forms of a tax on whiskey and a policy of paying the current owners of bonds rather than the original owners. Slavery, of course, was constitutionally off-limits until four years after his death.

He was one of the leaders of a major political party, and he got right down in the dirt and threw rhetorical elbows at his opponents. But he also sabotaged enemies within his own party, most notably—during both of his presidential elections—John Adams. Think of how Ted Cruz recently alienated many Republicans with his “vote your conscience” speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention; now imagine he had criticized “the disgusting egotism, the distempered jealousy, and the ungovernable indiscretion of Mr. [Trump]’s temper” and complained that “Mr. [Trump] has repeatedly indulged himself in virulent and indecent abuse of me”; and finally, imagine that Trump lost the election because of attack ads quoting Cruz’s speech. Understandably, Hamilton made bitter enemies on both sides of the aisle.

Although they never found any evidence of impropriety, his behavior in office created a constant whiff of corruption around him. For instance:

He started with nothing and became very wealthy, while literally being in charge of the government’s money.
He rubbed elbows with finance types, who were distrusted then as now, and pushed policies that seemed calculated to benefit them.

He was the only Cabinet secretary required to prepare reports for Congress, and he used that access to lobby for legislation.
He clearly, almost openly, traded influence; on at least one occasion he expressed the opinion that no government could possibly operate effectively without this kind of horse trading.

And his enemies hounded him constantly, frequently launching investigations of his behavior in office. People figured that where there was so much smoke, there must be fire.

Though extremely charming by all reports, his rags-to-riches background meant he had to teach himself the social skills expected of someone in the halls of power. He did a creditable job of it, but still came off as nouveau riche.

His background also exposed him to xenophobia; you can see this occasionally in John and Abigail Adams’s letters to one another. Birther-like rumors circulated about his parentage, alleging that his mother was black or that James Hamilton was not his biological father. It didn’t help that it was true that his mother was married to another man (they were separated), and that she therefore fell under the legal definition of a prostitute.

There was a common stereotype that, through too much contact with oversexed black slaves, white men from the Caribbean often gained overactive libidos and were prone to sexual immorality. As a shameless flirt and ladies’ man, he seemed to confirm this stereotype.

Worse, many believed that his womanizing had not been tempered at all by his marriage, and that it might even extend to his sister-in-law Angelica, which was considered incest by the standards of the time. His admission of an affair with Maria Reynolds seemed to confirm the rumor that he was a serial adulterer. (If you’re familiar with the play, you should know that it downplayed the affair; it started about a month before his family left town and continued for an entire year. And some historians argue that she didn’t seduce him, but rather he pressured her into it.)

He was ruthless at using the code duello to get his way; he was involved in nearly a dozen affairs of honor, though only the one with Burr in 1804 reached the “pistols at dawn” stage. In many of the others, he successfully extracted humiliating apologies from the other party.

He had a habit of engaging his mouth before his brain, and made a lot of ill-advised jokes which seemed, when taken out of context, to confirm all of the worst impressions of him. Three examples:
When confronted on the streets by a Congressman upset that the Treasury had refused to repay him for a wartime expense, Hamilton defused the situation by joking that he might reverse the decision if the Congressman changed his vote on a bill. Both of them laughed, but soon enough, it was reported as though it had been a serious offer.
While attending a dinner party at Jefferson’s home, Hamilton said he believed the greatest man of all time was Julius Caesar (i.e., the general who overthrew the Roman Republic and installed himself as emperor). Modern historians think he was merely trolling Jefferson, but Jefferson repeated the story to anyone who would listen for the rest of his life, insisting that Hamilton had revealed his true colors that night.

There are several different versions of the story, so the details are uncertain, but he seems to have made some kind of poorly received quip about religion at the Constitutional Convention. In one telling, Ben Franklin proposed to start each session with a prayer, and Hamilton replied that he saw no need to call in “foreign aid”.

Despite all of these obvious signs of his corruption, immorality, hotheadedness, and tyrannical lust for power, George Washington—universally beloved and incorruptible—trusted Hamilton. Many wondered how this could be. Had he tricked the man somehow? Was he the son Washington never had? Was he literally his son? His gay lover? Whatever the explanation, they all anticipated the coming plot twist, where Hamilton would betray his mentor and his nation for his own benefit.

Start with Barack Obama’s suspicious-to-some background, mix in a cup of Hillary Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and history of unproven scandals, add a pinch of Bill Clinton’s infidelity, stir in a heaping scoop of Ted Cruz’s bomb-throwing and unpopularity among politicians in both parties, and cover with a thick layer of inexplicable influence over a trusting leader which I can only liken to Jafar, and you have the recipe to be as unpopular as Alexander Hamilton.