Donald Trump (All Trump Conversations Here)
This thread is intended as a fresh starting point for substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, his political legacy and the enduring questions raised by the Mueller investigation and January 6 riot. The previous thread, sprawling over 800 pages, covered much ground but often veered into repetition, flame wars and rhetorical posturing. Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact.
Some facts have been established in the meantime.
The Mueller Report: A Recap
Released in 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report was the product of a two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump. The report established beyond dispute that the Russian government mounted a coordinated campaign to influence the election’s outcome, primarily to Trump’s benefit. This involved both a disinformation campaign via social media (spearheaded by the Internet Research Agency) and the theft and release of Democratic Party emails via Russian military intelligence.
The report also documented over 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian individuals, including meetings and the sharing of internal polling data. However, it did not conclude that these amounted to a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law, citing insufficient evidence and uncooperative witnesses.
The second volume of the report explored ten instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, including his attempts to limit the investigation and pressure witnesses. Mueller did not indict Trump, citing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president, but explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate him. Mueller referred the matter to Congress, framing it as a constitutional question rather than a prosecutorial one.
January 6: A recap
Since the events of January 6, 2021, a growing body of evidence—gathered through investigations, testimony, and official proceedings—has established several key facts about former President Donald Trump’s actions and involvement.
In the months following the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly and publicly claimed the results were fraudulent, despite being informed by his legal team, campaign advisors, and Department of Justice officials that there was no significant evidence of widespread voter fraud. Internally, aides confirmed he was aware that the claims lacked merit, yet he continued to promote them to the public. He also sought to involve federal agencies in this effort, including pressuring the Department of Justice to back his false claims. At one point, Trump even considered replacing the acting Attorney General with a loyalist who was willing to advance his narrative. This pressure campaign extended to Vice President Mike Pence, whom Trump urged to block or delay the certification of the Electoral College results on January 6—an action Pence ultimately refused, citing constitutional limits on his authority.
On the morning of January 6, Trump addressed a large crowd near the White House, repeating his debunked allegations of electoral fraud and urging his supporters to “fight like hell” and march on the Capitol. As the Capitol was breached, Trump watched events unfold from the White House. Reports and testimony later revealed that he was initially reluctant to intervene, and during the critical first hours of the assault, he made phone calls not to halt the violence, but to encourage Republican senators to continue opposing the certification of the election results. Despite appeals from advisors and family members to publicly call off the rioters, Trump delayed releasing a statement. When he finally did, he issued a video telling the rioters to go home—while also repeating the lie that the election had been stolen and referring to the attackers as “very special.”
In the aftermath, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The Senate ultimately acquitted him. However, the matter did not end there. Congressional investigations and Special Counsel inquiries have since uncovered additional details, including evidence that Trump was involved in a broader, multi-pronged effort to overturn the election—ranging from the creation of false slates of electors to pressuring state officials and promoting baseless legal challenges. While he has not been criminally convicted for these actions - and with his releection probably never will, court filings and testimony continue to suggest that he was at the center of a coordinated campaign to subvert the democratic process.
After he left office, Trump continued to downplay the seriousness of January 6, even going so far as to glorify those imprisoned for their roles in the attack. In campaign appearances, he has referred to them as “patriots” and played musical tributes to them during rallies and issued a blanket pardon to over 1,500 individuals wo where charged or convicted in connection with the events at the Capitol.
A Polarised Reaction
Public and political reactions to the Mueller Report and Cogrnessional investigations fell largely along partisan lines. Trump and his allies declared total vindication, while critics pointed to the documented misconduct and pattern of obstruction as grounds for accountability. The same partisanship has been on full display in the previous Trump thread.
A New Conversation
We've left the Trump thread rage on for way too long. We've closed it, have established the above as fact and will delete any comment or argument denying it without substantial proof as the crackpot theory it is. As always, participants are encouraged to support claims with evidence, engage charitably with disagreement and resist the temptation of tribal thinking.
Some facts have been established in the meantime.
The Mueller Report: A Recap
Released in 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report was the product of a two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump. The report established beyond dispute that the Russian government mounted a coordinated campaign to influence the election’s outcome, primarily to Trump’s benefit. This involved both a disinformation campaign via social media (spearheaded by the Internet Research Agency) and the theft and release of Democratic Party emails via Russian military intelligence.
The report also documented over 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian individuals, including meetings and the sharing of internal polling data. However, it did not conclude that these amounted to a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law, citing insufficient evidence and uncooperative witnesses.
The second volume of the report explored ten instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, including his attempts to limit the investigation and pressure witnesses. Mueller did not indict Trump, citing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president, but explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate him. Mueller referred the matter to Congress, framing it as a constitutional question rather than a prosecutorial one.
January 6: A recap
Since the events of January 6, 2021, a growing body of evidence—gathered through investigations, testimony, and official proceedings—has established several key facts about former President Donald Trump’s actions and involvement.
In the months following the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly and publicly claimed the results were fraudulent, despite being informed by his legal team, campaign advisors, and Department of Justice officials that there was no significant evidence of widespread voter fraud. Internally, aides confirmed he was aware that the claims lacked merit, yet he continued to promote them to the public. He also sought to involve federal agencies in this effort, including pressuring the Department of Justice to back his false claims. At one point, Trump even considered replacing the acting Attorney General with a loyalist who was willing to advance his narrative. This pressure campaign extended to Vice President Mike Pence, whom Trump urged to block or delay the certification of the Electoral College results on January 6—an action Pence ultimately refused, citing constitutional limits on his authority.
On the morning of January 6, Trump addressed a large crowd near the White House, repeating his debunked allegations of electoral fraud and urging his supporters to “fight like hell” and march on the Capitol. As the Capitol was breached, Trump watched events unfold from the White House. Reports and testimony later revealed that he was initially reluctant to intervene, and during the critical first hours of the assault, he made phone calls not to halt the violence, but to encourage Republican senators to continue opposing the certification of the election results. Despite appeals from advisors and family members to publicly call off the rioters, Trump delayed releasing a statement. When he finally did, he issued a video telling the rioters to go home—while also repeating the lie that the election had been stolen and referring to the attackers as “very special.”
In the aftermath, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” making him the first U.S. president to be impeached twice. The Senate ultimately acquitted him. However, the matter did not end there. Congressional investigations and Special Counsel inquiries have since uncovered additional details, including evidence that Trump was involved in a broader, multi-pronged effort to overturn the election—ranging from the creation of false slates of electors to pressuring state officials and promoting baseless legal challenges. While he has not been criminally convicted for these actions - and with his releection probably never will, court filings and testimony continue to suggest that he was at the center of a coordinated campaign to subvert the democratic process.
After he left office, Trump continued to downplay the seriousness of January 6, even going so far as to glorify those imprisoned for their roles in the attack. In campaign appearances, he has referred to them as “patriots” and played musical tributes to them during rallies and issued a blanket pardon to over 1,500 individuals wo where charged or convicted in connection with the events at the Capitol.
A Polarised Reaction
Public and political reactions to the Mueller Report and Cogrnessional investigations fell largely along partisan lines. Trump and his allies declared total vindication, while critics pointed to the documented misconduct and pattern of obstruction as grounds for accountability. The same partisanship has been on full display in the previous Trump thread.
A New Conversation
We've left the Trump thread rage on for way too long. We've closed it, have established the above as fact and will delete any comment or argument denying it without substantial proof as the crackpot theory it is. As always, participants are encouraged to support claims with evidence, engage charitably with disagreement and resist the temptation of tribal thinking.
Comments (1171)
I just did a search and there are 743 instances of you mentioning Biden on this public forum. I didn't read any of the posts listed but I assume they express some disapproval or objection.
Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
Intentionally going for division/polarization/vitriol?
[sup](division favors adversaries, collaboration favors the cooperators)[/sup]
[i]"No, Turd Sandwich is worse!"
"I can't believe you think that! Giant Douche is clearly worse!"[/i]
The silver lining was that at least the subject seemed to have subtlely changed. The children had started to realize that neither Turd Sandwich nor Giant Douche was a particularly appealing option - for they were a set of very special, philosophical children.
Alas, despite this profound insight, the die had already been cast. Someone was going to have to 'win' this argument, which usually entailed convincing the other side that they had better things to do with their time.
Poignant questions about how come there were only unappealing options would have to be answered, presumably, later.
The first post listed in the search for your mentioning "Biden" (743 instances) is your protesting his excessive use of executive orders...
Quoting NOS4A2
Yet you think "all forms of protest are stupid."
Oh, and:
It would be smart of you to protest Trump's excessive use of executive orders also.
Thanks to for another laugh. The hypocrisy (and unadulterated stupidity) are so easy displayed with the cult, if only one takes a little time to do so. Thanks for spending that 5 minutes. Gave me a chuckle at least.
I don't care, that just seems an odd double standard to raise.
I guess it’s an inside joke.
Your stoicism compelled you to spend time, search my name and Biden’s. I love living rent free.
Unfortunately that was 5 and a half years ago. I love how Trump is ramming this stuff down your throat. Three more years.
That took seconds, the hard part was deciding on an EO graph. And stoicism has been out for ages. I’m a Nietzschean now. Will to power, baby! :strong:
U.S. Orders Intelligence Agencies to Step Up Spying on Greenland (— Wall Street Journal · May 6, 2025)
France summons US ambassador over antisemitism claims (— Courthouse News · Aug 25, 2025)
Denmark summons US envoy over suspected influence operations in Greenland (— Reuters · Aug 27, 2025)
EDIT
Rumors will have it that the Trump administration has been doing crap in Alberta, Canada; though being rumors, they've become more credible
That was the labor secretary.
Okey dokey
Beyer: Trump Must Fire Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (— Don Beyer · Aug 28, 2025)
No sh¦t. And a few others. How much longer before RFK Jr gets a cab home? And a few others. Hold the administration accountable.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/investors-worry-trumps-intel-deal-kicks-off-era-us-industrial-policy-2025-08-27/
Nationalize everything!
(He'll either stay, or quietly be asked to resign for some reason they find plausible, is my guess.)
White House says ousted CDC director Susan Monarez was 'not aligned' with President Trump's mission (— ABC · Aug 28, 2025 · 1m:21s)
Quoting Leavitt
Make America Healthy Again
Monarez is better aligned with the slogan than Trump and RFK Jr together
Stephen Miller: The Democratic Party is a 'domestic, extremist organization' (Fox · Aug 25, 2025 · 5m:5s)
Well then, now that it's been broadcast by a government official, what will happen next (if anything)?
Stephen Miller Yells About American ‘Killing Field’ in Unhinged Rant (Daily Beast · Aug 26, 2025)
Stephen Miller rants about ‘killing field’ in Chicago as he appears to liken city crime to Cambodian Genocide (The Independent · Aug 26, 2025)
Taking Stephen Miller Seriously. And Literally. (Charlie Sykes · Aug 29, 2025)
Stephen Miler called Democratic Party a 'domestic, extremist organization' (just double-checking · Snopes · Aug 30, 2025)
Should be passed off as Trump-style ramblings, though I suspect some will pick it up.
What's your take?
Reichstag fire (— 1933)
Shelling of Mainila (— 1939)
Zersetzung (— 1970s—1980s)
"False positives" scandal (— 1988—2014)
Domestic Military Deployments after Trump v. United States (— Chris Mirasola · University of Houston Law Center · Nov 13, 2024 — Aug 19, 2025)
• The Kremlin backs Orbán (Hungary)
• Orbán (Hungary) backs The Heritage Foundation
• The Heritage Foundation pushes Project 2025
• The Trump administration and Project 2025 overlap
Both Trump/Vance and Orbán periodically whine and complain about Europe / the EU, for example. (As well as Putin.) While critique is welcome, crap has been seen going beyond that. Is there a momentum of sorts towards alignment of sorts (or attempted anyway)?
Much more importantly, what's your take, anything to see here? (Could be faces in the clouds.)
So we're seeing the march of the United States into an authoritarian dictatorship, day by day.
Read on for the details.
And per tradition, I’ll ask, what’s the people of the US doing about it?
We can’t blame narcissistic psychopaths for their attempt at seizing power, but we can criticize the people for not removing such people from positions of corrupt power.
People saying that this isn’t possible are essentially enablers of these people to wield their power without consequences.
For instance, the troops deployed in LA was judged to be illegal. If a presidential order and actions on those orders are illegal, then US Marshalls should arrest Trump. Simple as that really. That’s how non corrupt governments handle people who abuse power.
Yet, since that’s not happening, then the people are responsible for upholding the laws of the nation. Maybe the people should remove him from power by force then? Some would argue that this would be similar to Jan 6, but it’s not, since it’s based on the fact that Trump has acted illegally against the constitution and that the systems of government are unable to uphold that constitution. In that case, there’s no other choice for people than getting their hands dirty and out all the people involved with this corrupt takeover and abuse of power.
A democratic leader who acts illegally has revoked their contract with the people of that democracy. That person should be taken down by force if necessary. How else would the US survive as a democracy than to protect itself from those who want to destroy democratic systems?
There’s a point when these people can’t hide behind the fact they were elected democratically. Almost all dictators were ”voted” for democratically. Would people stand in the middle of Nazi Germany’s peak and honestly defend Hitler for being democratically elected after he seized power and created an authoritarian regime? I don’t think so.
No, it's not. Trump is immune. Even before SCOTUS established this (and before they became corrupted), the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel had determined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. So the only way Trump can be held accountable is if he were impeached and removed from office.
The House of Representatives is controlled by Trumpists. They publicly rationalize everything he does. So although a judge determined Trump's action was illegal, Trumpist Congressmen say the judge got it wrong. It will be appealed, and they will continue to say the courts got it wrong unless and until SCOTUS affirms it.
How everything became the culture war
[sup]— Michael Grunwald · POLITICO · Nov 3, 2018[/sup]
Much of the article aged fairly well.
, how far does the immunity go?
All the way until impeachment + conviction by Congress?
Trump's "Fifth Avenue" sequel
[sup]— Axios · Jan 9, 2024[/sup]
Possible Exxon business for lifting of sanctions (which apparently matter to Putin):
Exclusive: US and Russian officials discussed energy deals alongside latest Ukraine peace talks
[sup]— Reuters · Aug 26, 2025[/sup]
Does Sullivan's accusation hold up?
Trump threw away America’s relationship with India just to PROTECT his family’s business interests with Pakistan — a move he says makes US allies like Japan & Germany wonder if they can TRUST Washington at all.
[sup]— MeidasTouch via Megh Updates · Sep 2, 2025 · 1m:32s[/sup]
Ex-US NSA Jake Sullivan Accuses Trump Of Sacrificing India Ties For Family's Business With Pakistan
[sup]— CNN-News18 · Sep 2, 2025 · 5m:47s[/sup]
If this...stuff is true, then...corruption of sorts, though I doubt the Trumpets care.
Immunity applies to any acts that are part of his official duties. For example, he can't be prosecuted for illegally firing people, illegally withholding funds from universities, or violating the Posse Comitatus Act (ordering the National Guard to enforce the law). He's done all these things.
He could have been convicted for his 2020 election fraud, when he wasn't in office. He was indicted for this, but it was dropped when he became President because (it has been decided years ago) any prosecution would interfere with his official duties.
He could certainly be impeached for any of the crimes he's committed, and it Dems control the House after the 2026 elections, they may do that. GOP won't, because Trump controls them. Regardless, even if impeached, he won't be convicted because it requires 2/3 of Senate.
It's going to be a long 4 years.
We basically won't have a CDC in 2028. Aaaaaaaah!
[I]"...questions, outlined under the administration’s Merit Hiring Plan, ask candidates how they would “advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities,” and to name “one or two executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you,” and how candidates will help implement them if hired."[/i]
--
https://marylandmatters.org/2025/08/25/opm-trumps-hiring-questions-mandatory-to-ask-but-optional-to-answer/
And he keeps trying to use the military for domestic crime issues. I wonder if that will feel normal in 2028.
As in so many matters, the permission granted in those orders is contingent upon whether or not Congress resumes the power granted to it by the Constitution. The illegality of ignoring existing statutes is not enough, although a helpful stumbling block going forward.
My prediction: he will not send troops to a city, like Chicago, because that would be a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. He can, and will, send the National Guard to places like New Orleans - where the Governor invites him, since the law allows it. He will then blame Democratic governors for not inviting him and letting their crime rates continue. The whole thing is political theater. This cannot solve a city's crime problem because it can only be temporary. At best, crime will be down temporarily.
But Trump is Hitler, and America is becoming fascist!
I agree. I'm just trying to see the point. Trump says crime is out of control in DC when the statistics say the opposite. He then sends in the National Guard. Whether this is the point or not, it gets people used to the idea that a military body is rightly used for domestic issues.
What do you think the goal is?
I'm sure that's true, but the control he presently has isn't so much his doing. People flocked to him with lists of supporters to plant in government jobs, like project 2025? You think I'm overthinking it?
Yes…. and if people oppose the idea of this being actual rising fascism, they’re delusional. I’m still waiting for people to ignite some actual rage in opposition to all of this. There still not enough of anti-fascist rage going around. Instead, people, even on the side of criticizing Trump and his followers, treat them as a sort of legitimate political side.
But I find it pretty simple; whenever the democratic mechanism gets dismantled and the laws and regulations doesn’t work on a leader who abuse his power for whatever reason, he and his loyalists should be removed, with force if necessary. And if it can’t be done by the agencies meant to protect the nation, then it’s up to the people to do it instead.
I’m still waiting for the people to rage enough that it starts to become dangerous for Trump and his loyalists. Because that could fuel political actors in opposition to take much stronger action and not fiddle around without actual opposition.
But maybe they’re holding back because they want Trump to screw things up enough to win the mid term. And then when they have that power we will see that rage come down on Trump harder than we’ve ever seen on the US political stage. Well, one can only hope that’s the long game they’re playing. If not, then the people itself will need to do something.
The majority of the population doesn't care about (what can be characterized as) legal technicalities, they simply want action that achieves the results they desire. For this reason, I truly wish the center and left would focus on the aspects of Trump's actions that are illegal and unconstitutional, and remind everyone on why the "technicalities" matter - rule of law is critical to our system of government.
I'll give one blatant example. The administration has been denying due process rights to individuals it chooses to deport. Abrego Garcia is the most stark example. He was arrested and deported (in defiance of a court order) based on flimsy evidence he's a gang member. They have consistently claimed he's a horrible criminal, and attacked the left for coddling him. When they finally acceded to court intervention, they fished for what other charges they could pin on him. They took the unprecedented, and absurd, action of working a plea deal with a man who accused Garcia of human trafficking (bringing undocumented workers into the US). Plea deals are typically made with low level guys in a criminal organization to make a case against the higher-ups. In this case, the plea deal was made with a higher up to get Garcia - the lowest level guy in the (alleged) activity.
There's many more instances. Generally, reporting (on the left and center) mentions the illegality, but indirectly trivialize it by criticizing the policy, the morality, and painting a sympathetic view of the victim. Reporting on the right typically ignores the illegality (often criticizing the judges who rule this way) and stresses how great it is to get rid of illegals.
The importance of rule of law is a non-partisan issue, and more stress on Trump's attack on rule of law should be placed. His die-hard supporters will never care, but the other 20% of Republicans would probably care if it were made clear to them.
They would then be forced to admit their own illegal and unconstitutional actions. Trump has almost always won his Supreme Court cases during his second term. In July it was reported that the U.S. Supreme Court granted all 15 of President Donald Trump's emergency applications since April.
The rule of law has been a thorn in the sides of Trump’s opponents, so it would be a little comical to hear them opine about the rule of law now.
There are close to 400 cases against the Trump administration, and a majority are pending. He's likely to lose a large number. I'll mention a few.
His coercion of law firms who support liberal causes (like Perkins Coie) is unprecedented, and will not survive the court challenges.
His multiple violations of the Impoundment Act.
His executive order on "Birthright Citizenship", in direct defiance of prior SCOTUS rulings.
The issue is broader than violating the law. He may have the legal authority to punish career DOJ lawyers for prosecuting cases against Jan 6 criminals, while treating the criminals as heroes - but it certainly is inconsistent with rule of law.
His politicization of the DOJ is unprecedented. They have lost much of the independence they've had since Watergate. It's appalling that his "former" defense attorney (Todd Blanche) has the role of deputy AG, but is still actively working to protect Trump, as in his sham (quid pro quo) interview of Gislaine Maxwell. The DOJ also filed a frivolous lawsuit against Maryland Judges, because Trump didn't like some rulings.
The DOJ's treatment of the Epstein files seems largely based on protecting Trump, including the performative request to release the irrelevant Grand Jury Testimony - which the judge called them out on.
These are just a few things off the top of my head. I eagerly await your damning facts that demonstrate similar or worse behavior by Democratic administrations.
You just listed, nearly verbatim, a bunch of lawfare complaints from anti-Trump plaintiffs and lawyers, which you imply are “damning facts”, even though they haven’t been ruled on.
You know what has been ruled on? Biden’s agenda and a series of progressive causes, much of which have been deemed unconstitutional and unlawful by the highest court in the land.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-biden-historic-series-defeats-2025-01-18/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/10/us/charlie-kirk-shot-utah
Sounds about right.
We should arm conservatives so they can defend themselves.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/northern-utah/political-activist-believed-shot-at-utah-valley-university-speaking-appearance
:mask:
https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/gun-charlie-kirk-shot-with-revealed/
Personally, I would remain skeptical of such engravings as it would be the perfect cover for more sinister suspects, such as the cartels or some foreign-influence operation, who may be trying to goad the reactionaries into action.
I saw that. That's crazy. I'm a bit of a fanatic so I have no doubt he'll actually be on a beach in Belize after a facelift and tan sipping cocktails delivered by scantily clad maidens until he no longer remembers what memories are. Just my take.
Also, this has nothing to do with Trump. Remember, all the enemy can do is distract you to throw you off mentally. And your post seems to be a fairly sufficient example of said phenomenon.
“The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!” Trump said in a letter that he sent to Brazil’s president, who is widely known as Lula, and posted to Truth Social on July 9.
Trump’s letter went on to tie Bolsonaro’s prosecution and de Moraes’ social media rulings to the tariffs he’d later impose: “Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-brazilian-products-tariffs-bolsonaro-rcna222534
:clap: Brazil has a functioning judicial system. Good to see. May he rot in prison, that piece of shit.
Wasn't the US supposed to be the beacon of light for free democratic societies in the world? Trying to install it in other nations by the means of anti-communist wars...? Fighting for the "good".
...how's that going? :sweat:
I'm thinking some of that divergence can be attributed to the history of their foreign support/influence. Seoul went democratic/humanitarian/aspiring, Pyongyang went militant/crazy, etc.
EDIT
HDI: North Korea, not South Korea
Yes, but one needs to also ask, if nothing was directly influenced, could the entirety of Korea have come out leaving behind authoritarianism and not being divided? The probable reason for why they went so far in either direction might be because outside influence pushed the country to that extreme divide.
Point being... if the US would have leveraged diplomatic power through trade agreements and aid... the carrot rather than the stick... might we have had much more peaceful transitions to democracies in the world?
Subsequently, would the US have become an actual force for good? A nation that wouldn't be involved with military and getting criticized and instead through its economic power have actual soft power to influence without stepping on the freedom of each nation it involved itself in.
Sweden was long a great diplomat between nations in conflict, per capita I think we have more diplomats that made a difference in the world than most other nations. But we didn't have the economic power, so we could only act as mediators. If we had the economic power of the US, maybe we would have been able to change much more than the US which produced the consequences of fracturing nations, destroyed people, cultures and giving rise to terrorism.
Americans will probably be paying more for their coffee as a result of this ruling since you're asking.
South Korean workers return home after ICE raids at US Hyundai factory
[sup]— Reuters / Australian Broadcasting Corporation · Sep 12, 2025[/sup]
South Korean workers detained in US raid arrive home
[sup]— BBC · Sep 12, 2025[/sup]
Americans in other countries might want to self-identify as Canadians or something.
I'm sure Canada, Mexico, Europe, whoever would welcome such investments.
Earlier:
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Sep 7, 2025
[quote=David Farrell]The only man who could play both parts in Dumb and Dumber...[/quote]
There was a conflict-ridden momentum.
Do you think it was realistic for a single Korea to remain fairly uninfluenced + thrive, perhaps analogous to South Korea / unlike North Korea?
Technically possible sure, but realistic?
:100:
empathy (uninfected) vs stupidity (MAGA-virus)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012974 :fire:
addenda to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012352
Quoting NY Times
This, from the President who pardoned more than a thousand felons convicted of looting the Capital Building on 6th January 2021. The hypocrisy of this administration knows no bounds.
The only people who believe there are organizations that would fund violence against conservatives are people like Kirk, who believed Jews are attempting to eliminate all white people by importing non-whites. So it appears the cabinet is being motivated by conspiracy theories, to no one's surprise.
https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-appeal-georgia-supreme-court-trump-7be50feee272612484490b53592e7e08
The hopes and dreams of the anti-Trump brigade lied with the corrupt because their hopes and dreams were corrupt.
So basically, "I'm right, anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong." This is cognitive dissonance. A metaphorical demon of sorts. The brain will believe anything it's told from an early age. Why do you love your mother and your father more than a random woman or man off the street you've never seen before? Surely, they're fine people deserving of love, too.
Ah, the path to truth is not for most. I doubt it is for you. You remain useful and serve a purpose. But, the path is there. If you have the will for it. Be warned however, it is not for the faint of heart. Many men die an agonizing death attempting to pursue it.
While our side of the aisle certainly has its crazies, it is a statistical FACT that most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the Far Left.
[sup]— Vance · Rapid Response 47 · Sep 15, 2025[/sup]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1967652535679721576[/tweet]
The killing of Charlie Kirk is part of a grim pattern of political violence in America. This is what the data show http://econ.st/4gwVO6Y
[sup]— The Economist · Sep 16, 2025[/sup]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1967966886320050373[/tweet]
Worse than casual bullshitting. To be called out.
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism (archive·today 2024Oct24, archive·org 2025Sep11)
[sup]— National Institute of Justice Journal · Jan 4, 2024[/sup]
I can see why they wanted to "review" it.
Vance lied straight to everyone (2025Sep16) in typical Trump style.
Miller has taken it up as well. (2025Aug24, 2025Aug30)
Johnson, too? (2025Sep8)
They reached the point of "Put up or shut up" for everything they say some time ago.
Trump sues ‘degenerate’ New York Times for $15B
And the irony that the extreme right have been crying about the "woke left" and their cancel culture, but are now not only doing the very same thing by firing people who haven't even said anything extreme, but also, as a state, threatening a private company into silencing one of their talkshows.
Is it ok to call Trump, Maga and his people fascists now? Is it properly aligning with the textbook definition? Or will people still debate the true nature of Trump and his people and followers?
That's actually how partisan Americans think (as others in other countries). Partisanship has taken such a firm grasp over the discourse. If you do care about freedom of speech and other rights of the individual, democracy or the rule of law, sooner or later the partisans on both sides of the political aisle will hate you and dismiss you. This is because the loyal partisan supporter simply cannot be critical about his or her side.
Quoting Jimmy Kimmel
ABC cowardice on display — good grief that's weak. (Loss of independence integrity?) From the looks of it, Trump managed to not directly violate the law in this case, at least not openly as far as I know.
Over on Fox News, the old "life unworthy of life" was aired, but hasn't received much attention from high-ups, be it leadership or government.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1966878449290649676[/tweet]
Quoting someone
This earns President Trump a space on Mount Rushmore.
[sup]— Trump · Robert F. Kennedy, Jr · Nov 9, 2024 · 6m:36s[/sup]
Did P01135809 then go ahead to implement half of his accusations?
[I]"Disney's ABC announced it is taking Jimmy Kimmel's late night talk show off the air indefinitely following comments he made about Charlie Kirk's suspected killer. During his Monday monologue, Kimmel said: "The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Following his remarks, the Trump-appointed chair of the FCC publicly pressured ABC to punish Kimmel — and suggested the commission could move to revoke ABC's affiliate licenses. Several celebrities and free speech groups condemned ABC, while President Donald Trump, a frequent critic of Kimmel, praised the decision."
--[/i]https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/business/timeline-jimmy-kimmel-suspension-vis
I remember. Also, so-called “election denial” was verboten. Anti-Trump pressure campaigns even got the president removed from the largest social media platforms, along with vast swaths of his supporters. That’s why I don’t care too much about the victims here, and their cries ring rather hollow. This is what you get.
This is very sad that you don't understand my ideas.
As far as I know, currently Trump is planning an invasion into Venezuala. It is possible that Putin will start using again his nuclear threats; and it will cricial important for Trump to tell some information to the Russians. If Trump makes some posts or videos for the Russians, many Russians will watch them. Currently many Russians sympathize with Trump, including those who support Putin, because Trump is homophobic, and the homophoby is a sacred element of Russian state ideology. This gives Trump a chance to start lowering the rating of Putin in Russia; when the rating of Putin will become smaller, very soon a general will ovethrow him.
Trump must carefully and politely tell the Russians that the USA has a lot of nukes, incliding the ones at submarines, and the USA will nuke the Russian cities if Putin starts nuking other cities. I hope that eventually the majority of Russians will start hating the Z-activists, pro-war minority which is responsible on all the horrors of current war, and this minority will eventually go to prisons for their crimes.
Charlie Kirk and The Hate Speech Algorithm (— Evey Winters · Sep 18, 2025)
Net summary is escalating anti-gay rhetoric.
I think the point is that we need to take a good look at stochastic terrorism and judge whether Charlie Kirk was getting more and more practised at this art. Isn't stochastic terrorism what Trump is accused of in relation to the Jan 6 event?
So the free speech absolutist makes an exception, when it entails retaliation by his side; a retaliation that's an order of magnitude worse because it entailed explicitly political speech, and threats to misuse the office of the FCC to inflict that punishment*, and threats of expensive lawsuits
If retaliation (in spades), is acceptable, then you should be fine if there were to be counter retaliation from the left. But obviously, you have no principles.
______
*Amazingly, even Trump sycophant Ted Cruz denounced the threat.
Fascinating analysis! I'm also not sure exactly what to make of it, other than that this seems to be a promising methodology and that her general observations of Kirk seem to have an objective basis.
But I'll focus on one statement I think problematic:
"There’s almost no way he wasn’t aware of his impacts during his lifetime."
Of course there's ways he could be unaware! First, it's not something Kirk would have been interested in, so he might not have given it a thought. Alternatively (or in addition), he may have had an point of view that's an idealization of NOS4A2's: free speech absolutism and holding speech blameless no matter how extreme it is. Such a perspective would deny any relationship between one man's speech and another's actions. Arguably, the statistics are evidence against that point of view, but anything short of deductive proof can be rationalized.
No, I’m pointing out that this is the world that people like Kimmel built. You want censorship you get censorship.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jimmykimmel/status/1347741672289959936?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Trump and his Congressional sycophants accused the "Biden Justice Dept" as being "weaponized" against conservatives, on the basis of the fact that Trump was investigated and indicted. By painting it as "Biden's" DOJ, they sought to link Biden to it. It was "Biden's DOJ" only to the extent that he appointed the AG (a former nominee to the Supreme Court respected for his legal acumen) and a few other top positions. There was never one hint of Biden trying to influence any DOJ actions. Biden continued the post-Watergate norm of an independent DOJ. Presidents set priorities (e.g. prioritizing civil rights violations, or prioritizing violations of immigration law), but they have refrained from directing specific investigations or prosecutions.
Based on this false claim that "Biden's DOJ" targeted conservatives and victimized Trump, Trump & Co are explicitly, and unequivocally, politicizing and weaponizing the DOJ.
On a related note: a family member of mine is an FBI agent, stationed in Washington DC. He has spent most of his 15+ years with them in foreign intelligence (specifically not law enforcement, as some agents do). For the past few years, his full time assignment has been on one specific country- one of our biggest rivals in the world. He now has to spend 2 days each week patrolling DC, so he now spends only 60% of his time working intelligence. All for Trump's political theater.
I don't want censorship, but I have a more nuanced view of free speech than you. And I'm not a hypocrite - like you. I do not, and have not, advocated silencing people like Kirk for their speech. I support rebutting that speech, as I do with you. But if Kirk's speech, which clearly exhibits prejudice, is allowable - why wouldn't satire?
Let’s get this out of the way first—do you believe those in power should decide what you can and cannot say?
Personally, I do not think those in power should wield that power to limit free speech. I believe that is likely unconstitutional, but absolutely believe it is wrong.
He managed to get rich. I suppose maybe he thought all that luxury just fell at his feet.
[quote=Wikipedia]On January 5, 2021, the day before the Washington, D.C., protest that led to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Kirk wrote on Twitter that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 "buses of patriots to D.C. to fight for this president".[51][52] A spokesman for Turning Point said that the groups ended up sending seven buses, not 80, with 350 students.[51][53] In the lead-up to the storming, Kirk said he was "getting 500 emails a minute calling for a civil war".[54] Publix heiress Julie Fancelli gave Kirk's organizations $1.25 million to fund the buses to the January 6 event. Kirk also paid $60,000 for Kimberly Guilfoyle to speak at the rally.[55][/quote]
As a constitutional matter, the call for a free press is clear. What complicates the present issue is that the FCC was formed by Congress to restrict what enough people found to be offensive. That measure was aimed at certain expressions of profanity and extreme references to individuals and groups. Those limits are subject to changes of sensibility over time but also represent a set of negotiated agreements under constant review.
The elephant and the donkey in the room concern how ownership of the media influences that set of controls. That element also introduces the broader problem of regulation of commercial enterprise.
So, the administration uses some of their power to reduce the limits put in place by Congress and heighten other parts when it serves their political objectives.
[sup]— Sequoia Carrillo · npr · Sep 17, 2025[/sup]
I'm getting some vague 1920s-30s Italy vibes here. Isn't the US education system in need of basic improvements, rather than this?
Quoting Kirk said · Jan 11, 2021
Extremist magnet. Who the senders were (domestic + foreign) might be informative.
Such White House interference in Dept Justice actions is, of course, almost completely unprecedented and highly irregular to say the least. Trump complained that the two impeachments and five indictments brought against him were all 'based on nothing', so in his (twisted) mind, filing false charges against perceived adversaries is no different (and as usual never mind the actual facts). NY Times coverage (gift link). Rachel Maddow comment.
He was bought, for his ability to speak, and would speak about whatever he was paid to speak about, regardless of whether he had any real belief.
Quoting Banno (Nov 14, 2020)
Hopefully that turns out a bit dramatic, yet the comment seems to have aged too well. The first emperor, Augustus (-27), also told Romans he was the only one who could save Rome, and they believed him, et voilà, imperial cult.
What laws and regulations can battle that if their entire drive is set on a “second coming of christ” delusion? I don’t think people realize how dangerous such a movement can become, especially when they seem to now self-radicalize because of Charlie Kirk.
It also cements that the US is a christian fundamentalistic nation, exactly in the same vein as how we view many Islamic nations, forming laws and values out of whatever skewed idea in their religious delusions they push forward as their primary creed.
I have no doubt that most of the people at the Charlie Kirk event want to burn the rest of the world in holy nuclear fire. We’re witnessing a proper cult getting dragged out from the dark by someone bathing in their love.
And few seems to actually care. :shade:
House Trump has
Some are typical authoritarian, and democratic backsliding has been seen.
(By the way, my possibly wrong impression is that personally, Trump isn't particularly racist or homophobic, but some who are have his ear.)
I'll leave Trump accolades to someone else.
Looks like he has maintained support among hard-liners/radicals.
Not to critique, but if one was so adamant and such facts were so self-evident, one could easily have made each bullet point a hyperlink a person just has to click instead of researching themself. The fact I don't even want to, rather I don't have the time to check facts, neither does the average person, I mean, it kind of explains why he gained popularity. People are not intelligent. Not in a free society. Thinking is hard. All I need to do is learn how to dress myself in the morning and do a basic function, any function really, it can be as simple as pushing buttons or pouring coffee, and I get to live a life that a monarch 1,000 years ago could only dream of. I do that, I get to make a living. Anything else is superfluous. That's what the average person thinks. That's how they live. That's who they are.
Since he is still in power and hasn't been removed from power, I guess all of that is legal and aligns perfectly well with the constitution? Right?
This is why he should be removed by force. And since he isn't, we know that the US is broken and does not have a functioning democracy that upholds law and constitution. To say that he is in his right to do whatever he wants is to be an apologist for an authoritarian leader and an authoritarian regime.
There's not really much nuance here.
Quoting jorndoe
Did you miss how he talks about immigrants? Or are you saying that he is too stupid to understand what he is saying if he forward racist remarks from others?
It could very well be that he is too stupid or rather, just don't give a shit about what he says. That anything that can give him the love of his followers will be said, regardless of what it is. I wonder how far he is from relaying an idea of using deadly force against democrats? I mean, if he is too stupid to grasp what he is saying, but he gets love from his followers by saying that, then he could say it. Only his legal team would have to scramble to try and cover it, but if he said something like that, I think he's done for.
Quoting Outlander
Yes, and this is why I hate the masses more than the authoritarian leaders. Because that would be like hating a rock for being a rock, there's no point. But the apathy of the people, to ignore fighting for the freedom and good life they have, to defend against those who want to destroy it for their own benefit, that apathetic people are the worst and they deserve the authoritarian boot on their head so they can re-learn what others already know.
Just think of the farmers who voted for Trump, now panicking over rising costs, lost workers to ICE raids, and exports diminishing. They deserve what they voted for, because maybe now they'll learn not to be stupid. Or they'll perish under their own stupidity, either way, normal, thinking people wins. I despise these people; a bunch of spoiled children who whines to their daddy Trump only to end up being left behind when Trump is done with them. Absolutely pathetic.
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump | List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump | Donald Trump's conflict with the media (Retaliatory lawsuits and federal government actions) | Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration | In Assault on Free Speech, Trump Targets Speech He Hates | The Right Takes Aim at Wikipedia | Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies | Government hiring and personnel of Donald Trump | Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | Inspectors general removed or fired by Donald Trump | Trump publicly urges US Justice Department to charge his enemies | Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency | U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective | US democracy under siege | Trump sides with Putin over U.S. intelligence during remarkable press conference in Helsinki | The Cipher Brief: Report for Tuesday, June 17, 2025 | Under Trump, America’s New Friends: Russia, North Korea and Belarus | US vetoes G7 proposal to combat Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers | US Derails G-7 Condemnation of Russian Missile Strike on Ukraine | Trump Bans AP And Reuters But Invites Russian State Media To Zelenskyy Meeting | Trump has pushed America into a new “Axis of Evil” by aligning with dictators and betraying allies | 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting + Some responses | US popularity collapses worldwide in wake of Trump’s return | U.S. Image Declines in Many Nations Amid Low Confidence in Trump | Trump’s War on Science: How His Policies Affect Canadian Research | As USAID retreats, China pounces | Indictments against Donald Trump | Donald Trump quotes
, oh, you're right, something about those evil immigrants eating cats... :D
Racial views of Donald Trump (Springfield pet-eating hoax)
At the moment, I don't have time to organize this stuff — tedious — but can be bribed. ;)
Quoting Christoffer
Yeah. I'm thinking better basic education might help.
"Unilaterally" once meant "done only by one person". Trump used it to mean "Done my everyone except me".
List of countries that recognise a Palestinian state:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium (recent announcements in 2025 — see sources)
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cabo Verde (Cape Verde)
Cambodia
Cameroon (varied positions historically; check source notes)
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Republic of the Congo)
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
Croatia (debated at times)
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo)
Denmark (varied; see source notes)
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea (position has varied; see source notes)
Estonia (varied; see source notes)
Eswatini
Ethiopia
Fiji (historical / parliamentary positions vary)
Finland (varied; see source notes)
France (formal recognition announced in 2025 — see sources)
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel (does not recognise — included here only for completeness of discussion)
Italy (varied; see source notes)
Jamaica
Japan (does not recognise — included here only for context)
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Luxembourg (recent actions 2025 — see sources)
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta (recent recognitions/announcements 2024–2025 — see sources)
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico (varied; see source notes)
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands (varied; see source notes)
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea)
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau (position varies; check source notes)
Panama (varied historically)
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal (recent announcements 2025 — see sources)
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore (does not recognise — included here for context; see source notes)
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Turkey
Turks and Caicos (territories may have local statements; check national government positions)
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Western Sahara *(recognises Palestine — note: Western Sahara itself is a disputed/non-UN member entity)
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Complied by ChatGPT. Recent additions may be missing.
There you have it. That’s a principle. I guess it’s a good thing Kimmel, the multimillionaire who celebrated other people being fired or censored, is still doing his show.
We just found out the other day from Google that the Biden admin pressured them to remove accounts for misinformation, many of whom were Trumpists like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. Terrible isn’t it?
Enjoy Kimmel tonight.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/23/us-news/google-to-reinstate-youtube-accounts-banned-for-repeated-violations-of-covid-19-content/
Quoting NOS4A2
It depends on what the Biden administration actually did. If they "coerced or significantly encouraged" their protected speech, then it was unconstitutional (per the standard set by 5th circuit in Murthy v Missouri). If all they did was flag content that was contrary to Google's policy, they did no wrong.
Despite Kimmel's reinstatement, it is Trump's threats that are problematic. They are continuing, and they clearly cross the 5th circuit line:
"(Kimmel) is yet another arm of the DNC and, to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major Illegal Campaign Contribution," Trump said. "I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. "
Justice Department weighing whether to charge former FBI Director James Comey, sources say
Former AG Barr had reported that Trump wanted Comey prosecuted in his 1st term, but he pushed back.
Trump showed his hand on his "truth" social post:
[I]
“We can’t delay any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social in a message directed to “Pam.” “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” He specifically lamented the lack of criminal charges against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, three of his most prominent political antagonists.[
...Trump amplified his post in a brief gaggle with reporters on Saturday night, saying the post was not meant as a criticism of Bondi but that “we have to act fast.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/20/trump-bondi-truth-social-00574380
[/i]
Siebert's replacement, Lindsey Halligan, has never prosecuted a case in her life. She was an insurance lawyer. She was 3rd runner up in the 2010 Miss Colorado pageant.
Comey has a good case for "vindictive and selection prosecution". I'm skeptical this will go to trial.
Andrew McCabe testified to the inspector general that Comey authorized leaks. Comey in 2020 testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he did not. One of them lied and obstructed justice. Given that during a hearing in 2018 Comey said he “can’t remember,” “can’t recall” and “doesn’t know” 245 times I’m leaning towards him being the liar. They threw people in jail for far less.
LOL! Here's what the IG said:
[I]
"While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation. Indeed, none of the circumstantial evidence provided support for McCabe’s account of the discussion; rather, we found that much of the available evidence undercut McCabe’s claim."[/i]
And even if they had a chance for a conviction, Trump flushed it down the toilet with his comments and actions. In addition to his public comments that I quoted, he had also fired Comey's daughter from the DOJ without cause, and likely got the IRS to audit him.
Incidentally, no one gets convicted of perjury for saying they don't remember.
That’s right, it’s Comey’s word versus McCabe’s, and it’s frightening that this stupid dynamic was once present at the highest levels of law enforcement management. These were supposed to be the experienced adults in the room, and they all turned out to be bickering hacks. Now Comey’s lawyers are going to have to convince a jury that McCabe is a liar and Comey isn’t. That’s hilarious.
On the other hand, your inexperienced prosecutor convinced a grand jury that there was enough to indict.
Getting an indictment is a low bar, and she only succeeded on 2 of the 3 charges.
It also remains to be seen if she followed the proper procedures with the grand jury. The judge will get a transcript of the proceeding and could kick it out if she failed to follow the rules.
Quoting NOS4A2
And the IG judged that Comey's was credible, so how does this make him a hack? And you're ignoring the implications on the current DOJ.
The biggest mistake of Comey's career was to discuss the Clinton investigation- contrary to DOJ standards. This has become common, under the current leadership. Comey acted alone, on his own poor judgement, not under orders. The current DOJ prosecutes who Trump tells them to prosecute.
McCabe says that he had two people deliver the leak and that he did that without asking for, or receiving, authorization from Comey.
What answer can Cruz give to these questions: When and where did McCabe say that Comey authorized McCabe to leak? What is an exact quote of McCabe or even a reported paraphrase that asserts that Comey authorized McCabe to leak?
If it is made clear that the indictment concerns McCabe's leak to the Wall Street Journal regarding the investigation of the Clinton Foundation, then on what basis would the prosecution claim that Comey authorized McCabe to leak?
McCabe and Comey might differ on certain matters, but in what exact quotes or reported paraphrases does McCabe say that Comey authorized McCabe to leak?
(1) Governmental action to restrict speech vs private action to restrict speech.
(2) Speech that does not use public airwaves and speech that does use public airwaves.
It is sneaky, dishonest argument from many on the Left to conflate the alleged shooter's own views with those he was raised with, as perhaps we were supposed to glean from Kimmel's comment that the alleged shooter was at root from the Right. The alleged shooter was, it seems, raised in a Right leaning family but he himself, it seems, leans Left. The fact that he was raised in a Right leaning family doesn't cancel that he himself leans Left. Indeed, reversing Kimmel's own point, some on the Left will do anything they can to make it seem that the alleged shooter is not Left leaning.
And Kimmel's comment was not comedy or even humour. There was no punchline or even irony to it. (The comedy was only in the next paragraph in which Kimmel pointed out that Trump, without a trace of self-awareness, segued his answer about grief over Kirk by pointing out how nicely the new White House construction is coming along.) I don't always mind a comedian getting serious during an act, but I am annoyed when comedians claim that their act, even including the non-comedic parts, should have a dispensation from responsiblity for its content just because it's "just a joke".
But it is ludicrous pearl clutching to claim that what Kimmel said disrespected Kirk or is even remotely in the same universe as "hate speech" (oh come on!). Much of the Right seized on the assassination to try to put the kibosh on virtually any criticism of Kirk by claiming it is "hate speech". That's so ridiculous. It was claimed that the Left and Democrats (virtually always, the claims are couched as if there is a monolithic The Left and The Democrats) were celebrating Kirk's death, as if, en bloc, the Left and Democrats were doing any such thing. Who, other than some crackpots on Internet forums and, as rare exceptions, a TV commentor or two, said anything that could remotely be construed as celebration of Kirk's death? I'd like to know what Democrat in national or state office said anything that could remotely be construed as celebtration of Kirk's death. I really would like someone making the claim to give examples with exact quotes. The Right is a wily adaptive creature - turning woke right back as a cudgel against the woke and woke-friendly themselves. Well played, even if crudely and transparently dishonest.
And Vance and Trump, for example, look ridiculous faulting the Left for claiming that Kirk's commentary included vile ideas, when we consider that Vance and Trump propogated the unconscionable lie - endangering local immigrants (legal) in that Ohio town - that immigrants were eating stolen pets, and even as, when it was made clear to Vance that the claim was a canard, he said it's okay for him still to advance it if it is effective in highlighting that immigration is a problem. Seriously, from a candidate for vice president?!
On the other hand, many on the Left are liable to do similarly if the situation is reversed. Thus the mindless, interminable tu quoque loop. Right and Left are both hypocritical and each is hypocritical for saying the other is hypocritical, ad infinitum ...
And especially ridiculously disingenuous and hypocritcal is the argument that Kimmel or anyone should be restricted from the airwaves on account of making untrue claims. First, as mentioned, the claim was, at face value, basically true (even if underneath it was suggesting an untruth). But more importantly, the airwaves are flooded with falsehoods and lies. Falsehoods and lies are the proverbial water we fish swim in. The President of the United States is himself the apex predator liar of those waters. And then all the way down to the most pathetic radio talk show host at the smallest, most hapless radio station in the smallest, most pitiable radio market in the U.S. If we censored the airwaves on the basis of truth, we'd have dead air across the dials and the proverbial after hours TV test pattern around the clock.
Meanwhile, what a juvenile mind the President of the United States has. He harped about Kimmel's ratings and the El Presidente's estimation of Kimmel's talent. As if that adds to the case for kicking Kimmel off the airwaves for speech that clearly should be protected.
But still, most crucially, the President of the United States, along with his team and many of his millions of supporters, took arguably the most salient philosophical and policy minded leap in American history across the cherished line that the government should back far away from imposition of censoring speech. And then the dishonest, hypocritical rationalizations for that.
Right vs Left and Left vs Right. It gets dramatically worse even from just one news cycle to the next. There is no hope for honest, rational national discourse.
1) Unblocking YouTube
2) Unblocking messengers
3) Cancellation of 280 articles of the Criminal Code
4) Signing a peace treaty with Ukraine.
In the future, a 5th point could be added to these four: the return of 2013 territories to Ukraine in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against Russia. firstly, as we suppose, this point should not be declared, because in Russia there is the 280.1 article of the Criminal Code which prohibits public statements with suggestions to give somebody a Russian territory (this will prevent spreading the proposal by the Ukrainian supporters in Russia). On the other hand, the 5th point is important for calming Ukrainian patriots.
The gist of the idea is that Russia essentially consists of three peoples: an apolitical majority and two minorities - democracts and anti-democratic “vatniks”. Authoritarianism in Russia is based on widespread "sectarianism": everyone only makes friends with people who think like them. "Vatniks" talk only with other vatniks, and they believe they are the majority. If the referendum is held, most Russians will probably vote for all points, and the vatniks will experience cognitive dissonance; they will realize they are a minority, and their views will start changing. If Putin refuses to hold the referendum, the fact of the refuse will make the Russians change their views too.
The goal of this plan is to force Putin to implement democratization in Russia.
How about the USA cedes territory to Russia?
We could give them South Carolina.
As a Brit, the only states I know are California (Hollywood), New York (the city), Florida (palm trees), Texas (cowboys), Alaska (cold), and Hawaii (those flower necklace things).
Can you stop kidding? I am serious.
Probably Putin wouldn't perform this referendum, but the fact of his refusal will make the Russians experience a cognitive dissonance, they will start understanding that Putin lies to them.
They probably already know that.
Not truly.
The authoritarianism in countries like Russia is supported by LIES: the rulers declare that they fulfill the will of nation, but in fact they ignore this will in critical points like freedom of speech.
Trump will be able to go further; for example, he can declare that he plans to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but he would refuse to do so, if Putin nevertheless performs this referendum. Possibly Putin will start again making his nuclear threats. For him, possibly it can be rational to choose the nuclear war instead of the referendum, because if his lies would be exposed, he will loose the power and with the power - his life. But if this becomes obvious for the Russians, they will overthrow Putin.
A simulacrum curb-stomps the fat(uous) orange avatar of American imbeciliity ...
:mask:
Maybe you believe that most Russians support the Putin's war? This is not so. When they vote for Putin, they vote for "stability", not for the war.
I see that in Russia there is an apolitical majority and two minorities: those who support the war and those who are against it. The number of people who are against the war, or maybe have some unconcsious protest, can be estimated by the number of famous writers and musicians who have left Russia after the war - nearly half. Below I present some anti-Putin music videos, which give some insight how many people in Russian are against the Putin's war. Can you look at these videos?
https://youtu.be/q07dm6lPs2k
https://youtu.be/RMg0AGE11oo
https://youtu.be/l07MYf2iPr4
https://youtu.be/6vHufynMM1g
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Oct 2, 2025
I guess everyone knew. At least it's confirmed that there's a Project 2025 element in the White House. Rambling about the others as radicals and scammers will trickle down and out to his herd.
A Boston judge issues a blistering warning over free speech under Trump
[sup]— Axios · Oct 2, 2025[/sup]
Should Young be worried about his future now?
Quoting Stephen Miller · Oct 4, 2025
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1974534850334933179[/tweet]
Another "Put up or shut up" type claim. Most reports over the past few years tell a different story. More erosion of the Trump regime's credibility; more still if no one calls him out on it. Goes along with Vance's and Trump's earlier comments, perhaps Hegseth's goings-and-doings as well. I guess we'll see what comes of it.
Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2022
[sup]— Anti-Defamation League · Feb 22, 2023[/sup]
Underrecognized: Extremist murders are usually from right-wing actors
[sup]— The Washington Post · Feb 28, 2023[/sup]
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism
[sup]— National Institute of Justice · Jan 4, 2024[/sup]
Is “radical-left” violence really on the rise in America?
[sup]— The Economist · Sep 12, 2025[/sup]
Trump Called for a Crackdown on the ‘Radical Left.’ But Right-Wing Extremists Are Responsible for More Political Violence
[sup]— TIME · Sep 16, 2025[/sup]
Trump administration says it will target far-left groups for Kirk's assassination. Prosecutors made no such link.
[sup]— NBC · Sep 17, 2025[/sup]
Right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence ? what the data shows
[sup]— The Conversation · Sep 17, 2025[/sup]
He's an effective propagandist - effective at telling like-minded people what they want to here. It's especially appealing to those who are still in shock at the assassination of Mister Kirk.
Your response, pointing to actual analysis that falsifies what he says, seems to me the correct one, but none of his audience would be at all interested in researching it.
1)Compliance with Court orders. They document 16 instances in which the government failed to fully comply. They contrast this with history over the past 70 years – there’s only one prior instance of the government failing to comply with a court order: in the 1960s, a judge ordered a cessation of bombing in the Cambodian War. In this case, the non-compliance by the DOJ lasted only for a matter of hours.
2) Presenting false or misleading information in Court – 35 cases are described.
3)Arbitrary and capricious administrative action: 50 cases
If anyone is interested, the full report is here.
The lead author is Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, who has worked with the State Department and the National Institute of Military Justice.
I consider this analysis extremely important because it identifies behavior by the Trump administration unrelated to partisanship, but firmly entrenched in the law. No one, of any ideological perspective, should consider this behavior acceptable.
Well said.
This is what the strategy of the new populist right is: entrench yourself in your own echo chamber and create your own version of reality by believing your own propaganda. Facts don't matter as you aren't engaged in any discussion. Everything is simply a show of your loyalty to the cause you engage in discourse to win the argument. The Trump team has learnt this now. Anybody remember Trump's first lies in his first term about inauguration crowd size? At first his people then had difficulties with this and the first spokesman had trouble to give a pure outright lie. Now they don't have any problems: it's just a show of faith. Trump supporters don't care a shit about it. If it causes outrage (as it before did) that was just good.
Politics simply has gone astray when it should something that ought to be grounded in reality and trying to find a consensus between opposing views, it turns into a religion. Then political discussion turns into a sermon where the faithful just compete in showing how faithful they are. This shows that the movement has reached an ideological end. Trump of course, didn't have any ideology behind him, but he just became this figure that ideological hopes were pinned on.
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
First of all, there is absolutely no intension to have a real discourse. Populists aren't for democracy, they have an enemy (usually the rich, but now it seems the Anti-Trump liberal rich). You don't negotiate with the enemy, you fight it. Democracy is only there for you to win the next elections. In a genuine engaging discussion you have to give respectability to the other side. That won't do. Besides, it's just easier to create a semi-fictional enemy.
Not just populists and prominently egregious demagogues, but also "mainstream conservatives", "center right", Republicans in general, "mainstream liberals", "center left" Democrats in general, "centrists", "independents" and even "neutral" commentators. So much terribly low grade argumentation all over the place. The sneakiest are those who operate under a pretense of being "reasonable", "rigorous" and "analytical". While humans have made spectacular achievements in so many intellectual spheres, public discourse on matters of public affairs seems to continually regress.
Well a new power has just ridden into town. Plenary powers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/plenary-authority-stephen-miller-cnn-dictator-b2841627.html
Some of these claims will be heard by SCOTUS in this term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/10/06/bomb-threat-catholic-church-supreme-court/
These sorts of acts, along with the ongoing insurrections occurring throughout the country, hint at a country on the verge of civil war.
Which other insurrections?
Well, usually it starts with the objective being winning the argument just for the sake of winning.
The CDC has been gutted. (— Neil Stone · Oct 11, 2025)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DrNeilStone/status/1977122920905298306[/tweet]
How can anyone think that RFK Jr is helping Americans?
The psychological oddity is the degree to which people allow anger and disdain to blind then to facts straight in front of them.
The fed cuts rates when things slow down. In other words demand has been stifled, not redirected.
No.
Jan. 6 probe potentially investigated over 150 Republicans, documents show
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/29/trump-january-6-republican-senators-fbi-arctic-frost
There's nothing wrong with spying. It's how we find out what those who are not forthcoming in their admissions, are really up to. Probable cause is not necessary, because spying is how we determine probable cause, therefore prior to it. Those who have nothing to hide don't worry about the spies.
You've always been a man of mystery, MU! Thankfully one fact has been brought to light. You're clearly not a minor, one responsible for one, a female, or a minority.
Because otherwise, yeah. Spying is a form of harassment and mental assault on a person's human rights. It is akin to stalking, threatening without threatening. Restricting their movements, patterns, habits, and even thoughts. Presenting an unknown danger and essentially constantly tickling the "fight or flight" part of the brain with a feather. Or jagged piece of metal.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is also not true. You assume people who live lives of deceit are for some reason moral people who would never lie, commit sabotage, or plant evidence that would hinder people of another "team" or race or ethnic group or religion or what have you. That people wouldn't do things at the expense of another to get ahead or further either one's individual or collective interest(s). This is sheer ignorance of the global community and basic history (as well as human nature).
Come on, man, you're slipping! :razz:
[quote=Bob Dylan]There are many here among us,
Who feel that life is but a joke.[/quote]
Ok? Trump doesn't care much how the US appears to the rest of the world. In large part, the standing of the US is something the rest of the world created in the first place. It's been clear that Trump is isolationist for the thousands of years he's been on world stage. Seems like thousands, anyway.
Point is: whether they take him for a chump is their problem. Not his. Or mine.
Good lord.
Why is everyone around here so strongly against spying? Have you succumbed to paranoia? If you want to find out what someone is up to, you spy on them. How is there anything wrong with that?
Who have you spied on?
Other than checking the whereabouts of my kids on the phone app, I don't get the urge to spy. However, I accept it as a reasonable and legitimate way of checking up on someone whom you suspect.
They are children and you are their father. The claim “there is nothing wrong with spying” pertains to all those who “get the urge to spy”, who “want to find out what someone is up to“. Are you fine with them checking up on the whereabouts of your children?
Sure, why would I not be fine with it? It's just a natural and acceptable part of our society. It's sometimes required and useful for identifying wrong doers. If someone (my children, or even myself) is suspected, then that person will be checked up on. And the thing is, that the spying is required before knowing whether the person is a wrong doer or not, it's based on suspicion.
I mean I wouldn't disown my society just because people have the right, and will, to spy on others within it. No, I understand the reasons why people spy, and I accept it as an unavoidable, natural, and rational thing for human beings to do. This is because many human beings are inclined toward bad deeds, and to avoid being prevented from carrying them out, or being punished for carrying them out, they attempt to hide this inclination. Therefore they must be watched when they think no one is watching (spied on), to identify that inclination toward bad deeds.
However, if the spiers fabricate evidence, or do other dishonest things, then that's a different story. But that's not a faultiness of spying in specific.
Why would you not be fine with strangers tracking your children?! Are you serious? What an absolutely mad question to even ask!
And you’re comfortable with just anyone making a decision about what is suspicious or not? Or is it just the organizations that can enforce through violence?
Should we all spy on each other? Make sure no one we know is doing anything they aren’t supposed to?
Your position is utterly baffling to me, what am I not understanding?
It reminds me of the Stasi and East Germany.
It's quite likely happening already, and also completely legal. Why should I worry about something I can't do anything about? That just makes a person miserable. And if it's happening it's not hurting anyone anyway. So if I worried about it, I would be the only one being hurt by it. I'm not interested in self-inflicted harm.
Quoting DingoJones
If that's what you like to do, then go right ahead. I'm sure there are many who already practise, so you won't be alone. I won't be joining you though, I've got better things to do with my time, like hanging around TPF.
This isnt a question of not worrying about what you cannot control. You are really not concerned about say a pedophile spying in your kids? Spying itself isn’t necessarily doing direct harm but the results from spying is the intelligence used to inflict all kinds of harm.
Also, I didnt suggest worrying all the time but good lord in heaven man you can take reasonable precautions against people gathering intelligence (spying) to use against you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps define more how you mean “spying”? Im still utterly baffled by this shoulder shrugging on spying with no exceptions or caveats.
You are changing the goal posts. I am fine with the basic principle as stated "strangers tracking my children". I believe that is a natural, unavoidable, and fundamentally lawful, aspect of our society. But now you ask about a "pedophile", and a pedophile is psychologically ill, or a dangerous criminal. Do you see the difference? You've totally changed the question. Of course I'd be concerned about a pedophile spying on my children. I'm concerned about the very existence of pedophiles. But I'm not concerned about the existence of spying
Quoting DingoJones
If the prospect of people gathering intelligence to use against you bothers you, then by all means take reasonable precautions against it. But if it doesn't bother some of us, then why should we make that effort?
Quoting DingoJones
Let's take your words, "gathering intelligence". And we should add "in secrecy". But not necessarily, "to use against you" though, so remove that as a requirement. The reasons for spying have a very wide range, and the person spied on is not necessarily targeted as one whom the intelligence will be "used against" at any time. Often people spy with the intent of helping the person spied on, so the intelligence in this case, would be used to assist you rather than against you.
No Im not. “Strangers” includes harmless folks and harmful folks, the requirement is only that you don’t know them. Some strangers can and will use spying for harm, ergo we should have some concern about spying.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It should bother you, and it does in the case of a pedophile so you are not actually unbothered by spying. You are unbothered by harmless spying (a minority of spying). That doesnt mean you should let your guard down does it?
Why are you so invested in not being bothered by spying?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
“To use against you” is the concern. Because spying includes the distinct possibility of being used against you I think it is in fact a requirement. Without that requirement
You are ignoring the majority use of spying.
I think I sufficiently indicated that I have concern about those who will do harm, because they do harm. I don't have concern about the act of spying because that act does no harm in itself.
Quoting DingoJones
I believe in placing blame where blame is due, distinguishing acts which are bad from acts which are not, and not letting myself be concerned by acts of other people which are not bad. If an act of another person is not causing harm why should I be concerned about it?
Quoting DingoJones
My kitchen knives have the distinct possibility of being used against me. That's a fact, and requirement of being a knife, it cuts flesh.
Quoting DingoJones
As I said, the reasons for spying have a very wide range. I do not believe that there is any such thing as "the majority use of spying", except as we defined, "gathering intelligence".
Ok.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1989483659980628191?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Yeah, tells something when they covered 23000 pages of files from Epstein:
Number of times of mentions in the documents:
Melania Trump: 12 times
Putin: 792 times
Obama: 1783 times
Trump: 9 379
So it seems that the best friends then had a breakup in their bromance. What else would be new?
Much of it was anti-Trump, though, and he was clearly coaching a Dem congressman what to ask Michael Cohen during an anti-Trump investigation. Like most of you, he had the same Trump obsession. Should we count how many times you’ve said the word “Trump”?
Evidence of the breakup in the bromance?
Definitely evidence of collusion between Epstein and others.
It’s crazy to think he was influencing congressional investigations into president Trump through party apparatchiks, literally feeding them talking points. We can watch it happen live. What other ones did he have his dirty hands in? Whatever it is, that’s a romance of an insidious kind.