Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
One side has done so with much greater frequency.
His party affiliation means little, especially when he donated to ActBlue, according to FEC filings. We all remember when Dems were switching to GOP to vote for Nikki Haley in the primaries. Either way, as groups like The Lincoln Project show, anti-Trumpism is a bipartisan moral panic, not limited to any one party.
I totally get it. I can remember when Trump got shot like it was yesterday.
It was yesterday
Everybody, just think how fucking long this thread will be! :yikes:
Now on page 734 and then still going on until 2028 or so...
Every detail of what?
Yea, it's an epic like Star Wars where Trump is Luke Skywalker and his wife is the lady with the bobs on her ears so they can't be ripped off by stray bullets.
Top Democratic strategist pushed reporters to consider ‘staged’ shooting
https://www.semafor.com/article/07/14/2024/top-democrat-pushed-reporters-to-consider-staged-shooting
Actually, no he wasn’t. There’s four months to Election Day, and this will be a blip everywhere by then, except conservative talk radio and Fox News. And maybe Twitter — but they’re irrelevant now anyway.
Agree in part, disagree in part. There is wisdom to the statement that the match isn't over until the final whistle, but the current score and situation on the field matters.
Biden took a major hit with the debate and Trump scored a major victory with the ear bullet. Trump's side is energized awaiting his VP pick and Biden's is in a scramble trying to convince him to throw in the towel.
So yes, anything can happen, but acting like the assassination attempt was just another Friday without far reaching consequences is just head burying.
Well said.
//
It's been obvious from the outset that Trump projects all the evils he commits onto his enemies. What is really depressing is the ease with which it is believed, even by some here. It also really depressing that this episode has vastly increased his apparent momentum and a sense of the inevitability of his victory. It really is as if Armageddon looms.
Biden, even in his old age, is hugely more competent and suitable for the role than Trump. But the issue is his electoral appeal, or absence of it.
True indeed. Many here do believe that Trump is guilty of this.
Not historically, at least with polling. They don’t matter much until a week before the election.
But there’s no doubt Trump has had a very good political run these past few weeks.
Quoting Hanover
No one is acting like that. This was a big deal— but the “far reaching” part is bogus.
"J.D. Vance, a contender for Trump’s choice of running mate, said in a social media post on Saturday that the shooting was “not some isolated incident” and suggested President Biden’s campaign was, at least in part, at fault.
“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Vance said on the social platform X. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” ~ The Hill
"Mr. Trump’s eldest son, his campaign strategist and a running mate finalist all attacked the political left within hours of the shooting even before the gunman was identified or his motive determined. “Well of course they tried to keep him off the ballot, they tried to put him in jail and now you see this,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to the former president. (Later deleted.)
So you can bet that Trump is going to use this attempt as a weapon against Biden, to create further division and fan the flames. His people are already doing it. They'll lap up the condolences and good wishes, and turn them into fuel for the fire.
But there is an objective reason why Democrats are saying that Trump 'threatens democracy', beyond mere rhetoric. And what reason is that? It was a Trump-inspired mob that broke into the Capital Building on Jan 6th 2021, desecrated the offices and chanted Hang Mike Pence in an attempt to prevent the transition of power. The slates of false electors and Republican lawyers working behind the scenes to prevent it. Trump to this day insists that the 2020 election was rigged, despite having lost 60 lawsuits that attempted to prove that. So there's no 'moral equivalence' here - it can't be said that 'both sides are at fault' if the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge the culpability and potential criminality of its nominee. Trump is a proven threat to democracy, and that's not just a Democrat talking point.
I was a full-on liberal Democrat then, and I was fervently against that awful, misbegotten war. And I still resent Obame for not holding the Bush administration accountable (though I concede he did so for sound political reasons).
But if you recall, in the 2016 GOP debates, Trump ripped Jeb over his brother's war. Trump came out four square against the Iraq war and against Bush. And when the audience cheered, you knew there was a sea change in the Republican party. Trump in, Bush(es) out. Peace in, and war out.
That's exactly why I support Trump. He called out Jeb on his brother's war and the GOP audience cheered. Then as president he started no new wars.
I oppose Bush-ism and support most of Trumpism. I oppose the bipartisan neocon wars. I support the cause of peace. Anyone for peace should take a look at the track record of Trump versus the Hillerys and Pelosis and Schumers and Bidens of this world. DiFi, my own Senator for so many years. Voted for the wars while her construction business husband profited from them. That's the system Trump is fighting.
Can't you dial it back for five minutes?
So what small part of "Trumpism" don't you support?
Less talked about was when Trump rid the GOP of their anti-gay stance, their homophobia, which for me was a pivotal realignment of that party’s social conservatism and neocon agenda into the more libertarian spirit we see today.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump said in the fall of 2002 when asked by Stern if he supported an invasion. “You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”
He's singing a different tune now, of course. But if you're going to call out the NYTimes for what they were saying back then, what's good for the goose...
No he isn't. He's a vegetable halve the time and therefore he has no appeal. Don't dumb other voters down just because you think he's still competent. The arrogance everytime of telling other voters how they should think is astounding and definitely a contributory factor to the appeal of Trump.
A provocative question: Why do you support the "cause of peace"? Not why were the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan wrong, but why is peace, generally, the most important consideration?
I think the West's stance on Ukraine is cowardly. If Ukraine is to join NATO and Russia basically (predictably) attacks it because of those NATO statements, they should bear the consequences of those statements. Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. And if we're not prepared to stand up for our own security, we shouldn't antagonised Russia. Who knows what Trump would've done but it hardly could've been more callous than what happened now.
Not saying you have to agree with this assessment: but preferring Trump (or GOP) over Biden isn't the insanity people like to pretend it is.
I still think he should be in jail as well for J6.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-tariffs-proposal-10-percent-1700-cost-per-us-household/
Quoting Benkei
Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ not be a consideration? Don’t you think that if Russia were not a nuclear power that NATO would have put boots on the ground in February 2022?
I didn't say he was smart. I said it's the right thing to do. Chinese goods shouldn't compete with US or EU products unless they meet our EH&S standards as well. Until then it's just unfair competition that we're rewarding.
Quoting Wayfarer
Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons is clear: only in defense of the motherland. As long as they stay clear of Crimea, it shouldn't be an issue.
That's foregone, the moment the shot rang out:
Quoting NOS4A2
Good question, Chamberlain.
A shot into a crowd of antifa/BLM, like in Kenosha, and you hit sex offenders and pedophiles.
Food for thought.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case
Smith illegally appointed. Why do anti-Trumpists keep violating the constitution?
A shot in the crowd of a Capitol invasion and you hit a member of a militia group.
More to chew upon.
I am just glad the shooter did not have a bump stock that the Supreme Court just gave the thumbs up for. There is a model that fits the AR-15 used at the rally.
Special prosecutors were appointed under Trump as well, by both Rosenstein (Mueller) and Barr (Durham). One has even been appointed by Garland (Weiss) to investigate and prosecute Hunter Biden.
They've been used for a long time, with their constitutionality confirmed in Morrison v. Olson.
Here's a list.
Cannon is just an idiot. Or corrupt. Or a corrupt idiot.
But it's a useful decision. Now it can be appealed, overturned, and the case assigned to a competent judge who doesn't act as Trump's lawyer.
Durham was already an employee of the state, confirmed by the senate. Mueller, however, was not. One of his indictees raised the issue of his unlawful appointment, but it was denied by the DC court. It wasn’t appealed so never made it to the Supreme Court.
I suspect Cannon’s decision will be overturned in the court of appeals, but instead of the Mueller case, will reach the Supremes where the final decision will come through. No more unlawful appointments.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this in Morrison v. Olson.
Although admittedly the current court doesn't seem to give a damn about precedent. But as no justices concurred with Thomas's opinion on the matter in the recent immunity case, I doubt enough of them would even agree to hear it.
Sure and Biden has sort of been doing that too but I'm not sure the unilateral way Trump did it was wise. He should've coordinated with other countries and worked out a plan but he's not a man who's known for that. Apparently for his next term, he plans to not only put major tariffs on China, but a global 10% tariff on all imported goods, which doesn't sound like a good idea and will probably worsen the inflation that people will vote him in for.
Quoting Benkei
I'd support sending them weapons as long to defend themselves as they work out a peace plan, which unfortunately doesn't seem like what the Biden administration is doing (though I can't say I'm aware of what kind of talks are being had behind the scenes). It just seems inevitable that this whole war will end up with Russia not taking over all of Ukraine, Ukraine not taking back Crimea, Ukraine not joining NATO (which could be used as a bargaining chip, and whatever negotiated settlement being determined along the Donbas region.
Although people keep saying that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president, I honestly feel like the opposite is true. Trump is an isolationist who has bad ties with NATO and a bad history with Ukraine's president, so it's not hard to see that Putin would have an easier time if he were in power, and probably sort of bet on him being reelected in 2020 as part of his plans. As for what Trump would do if he got back in power, he'd probably force a peace deal on Ukraine which I support though it's what follows and how this relates to the situation in Taiwan I'm not as sure about.
Quoting Benkei
No, no, I can certainly see why his America First policies are appealing to people, especially in the aftermath of the interventionist and globalist policies of previous administrations. The problem is that he's an idiot so he doesn't really know what he's doing half the time. He pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal and then tried to do make a similar agreement with North Korea for instance.
Quoting Benkei
Well he's gonna be king now, because the Democrats like in 2016 are too incompetent, arrogant, and anti-democratic to mount an effective challenger. And by "Democrats" I really just mean the handful of people in leadership, not the voters who never had a say in nominating an 81 year old man, the majority of whom thought was too old.
“Congress may grant authority to the judicial branch to appoint independent counsel without violating the separation of powers, even though the independent counsel are members of the executive branch.”
I’m not sure it applies because Smith wasn’t appointed by the judicial branch.
You need to read more than just the opening sentence.
It points out that by the very wording of the Appointments Clause, "Congress may by law invest the appointment of 'inferior' officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments."
It then explains that a special counsel is an "inferior" officer.
So it finds that the Appointments Clause allows for Congress to "invest the appointment of [a special counsel] to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments".
[removed mistaken reference to CFR 600]
The relevant law in Morrison was the Independent Counsel Act, which expired in 1999. CFR means federal regulations. Regulations are not statutes. Judge Cannon notes there is no such statute that exists today, nor was there one when Garland appointed Smith.
Thanks for the correction. Reading through the order it was actually 509, 510, 515, and 533 that were cited by Garland when appointing Smith. 510 and 515 are the basis for establishing 28 CFR 600.
Relevant to this is United States v. Short, 1956 by the 9th Circuit:
Since 1999 when the Independent Counsel Act expired, all of the above is likely what has been used to defend the constitutionality of special councils, e.g. here where the DC Circuit unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of Mueller's appointment.
So again, I expect the 11th Circuit to overturn Cannon's anomalous order.
:up:
I vote corrupt idiot — as most Trump appointees are.
But then, the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity is being practically interpreted by Trump as an affirmation of what he's always believed, and what his followers believe - that he's above the law. An emperor, not an elected official.
Justice Thomas wrote a separate bit in the recent immunity decision aimed at Special Counsels and Cannon received the lateral pass and ran with it.
She is very open to new ideas.
That is not a good thing though.
Nor are your comparisons. I was employing sarcastic irony.
Comparisons are not a "good thing or not", they are either true or not. And my comparison is true.
Wow. Or maybe whoa. A true believer emerges. I will leave you to your own devices.
Can I be Vice President now?
Oh definitely. It’s basically more powerful than the church at this point.
Years of priming believers for unquestioning loyalty — in the church, but also in sports fanaticism, the WWE, country music, conservatives talk radio (Rush Limbaugh et al), Fox News — has coalesced into what you see today.
Have you hand it to Trump and his base: they toughed it out and took over one of the two business parties. Now, thanks to Democrats, they have the chance to do even more damage for 4 years.
We’re not a bright country.
Yes, good point. And he's softened on the abortion issue. He says to leave it up to the states. That's upsetting some hard core pro-lifers, but where are they going to go?
Trump's a New York city builder. He's been dealing with people from every walk of life and every socioeconomic level for decades. He didn't become a "racist" till he ran against Hillary. Before that, the Clintons came to his (third) wedding. Maureen Dowd wrote about When Hillary and Donald Were Friends.
The difference is that the NYT always supports the warmongers. Trump's off that train.
Choosing Pence. Choosing all the disloyal people he did. Being so pathetically ignorant of how the government works and what a pile of snakes DC was that he just got rolled by the bureaucrats and deep staters. Giving in to the worst of the covid authoritarianism, though by then I don't think he had much choice. These are political or tactical mistakes. Off the top of my head I can't think of any particular policy I didn't like. Toss me out some egregious examples, I'm sure he must have done something I didn't like at the time.
Firing Comey, which by then everyone in Washington favored, but then the next day inartfully saying it was because of his own legal issues. That sent the left into a feeding frenzy. If he's just shut up, nobody would have complained. They all hated Comey for sinking Hillary at the end. So in general, being his own worst enemy. Saying things they could use against him.
But like I say, remind me of what I might have forgotten. Every time they called him Hitler, I'd think, "I'll reserve judgment to see if he invades Poland." He never did. Nor did he invade anywhere else. That overrides almost anything bad he might have done. If you'll just remind me what you think I should object to. You might remember something I didn't.
Most important, all things being equal. There might have been a good war among all the bad ones. WWII gets credited with being a war that needed to be fought. Maybe the last one. Most of the others have been gravy train operations for the military-industrial complex, which has had Washington by the throat since WWII. JFK turned toward peace, but the MIC didn't take kindly to that. Or else there was a lone nut and the MIC just got lucky, as they so often do.
Why peace? Because people living together harmoniously despite their differences, engaging in free trade and the free exchange of ideas, is better than tearing each other limb from limb every time they have a difference of opinion or a difference of interest. As JFK said at American University on June 10, 1963, five and a half months before his assassination:
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
That's why.
Wow.
I did invite the person who asked to remind me of incidents or policies I'd forgotten. It's possible. I give you the same invitation. I didn't like Trump's tariffs, that's one that just came to mind. I'm more of a free trader. I didn't approve of the massive tax cut combined with a massive spending bill, that primed the pump for Biden's inflation to follow. Trump's no fiscal conservative.
Well the Trump cult does love their delusions.
Yes. People who think you should go to war because the government tells them to.
Trump is against the draft? I know he's against drafting himself, but I haven't heard a peep from him about changing our draft policy.
What draft policy would that be?
Oh, you mean the one that isn’t a draft?
Register for Selective Service (the draft)
https://www.usa.gov/register-selective-service
https://www.usa.gov/register-selective-service
I don’t think anyone should be forced to register for anything.
I don’t know. Do you believe in the draft?
Nope.
What was that bet again? $10.00 to charity of choice? Looks like I'm about to pay up.
Thomas did give it unofficial authority but I don't think it is a new argument. I think she is complicit in the Trump run out the clock strategy. The timing of her decision does not seem to me to be merely coincidental.
— Donarudo-san. Get up, Donarudo-san.
— ...Shinzo?
I forget the exact bet, so you’re off the hook. I thought it was about Biden being the nominee?
Strange
The discord part or the political affiliation? Discord is a pretty standard messenger for gamers.
I just read it as "we locked the account and turned the contents over to law enforcement", given that he states they're fully cooperating. Actually deleting the data would certainly not be cooperation.
Agreed, not a new argument.
Coincidence requires the absence of a pattern. There is a pattern.
It will be interesting to hear what the appeal process will bring forward.
My doubts about Biden from spring 2023 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781755
"So what happened to your ear?"
"Oh. I took an AR-15 round while I was talking about immigration the other day. "
Yes, I took that onboard. I'm still hoping the Newsom-Whitmer team walks out on stage at the Convention as the eventual nominees. If it's Biden, I'm very afraid.
https://www.ft.com/content/6d9e121a-b493-4305-8016-f43fb381552f
Cheney, pointing to previous statements from Vance, drew a stark contrast between the freshman Ohio senator and Trump’s first-term vice president, Mike Pence — whose refusal to abide Trump’s request to reject certified electoral votes from certain states that voted for President Biden turned him into a pariah in many GOP circles.
“JD Vance has pledged he would do what Mike Pence wouldn’t – overturn an election and illegally seize power,” Cheney said on the social platform X. “He says the president can ignore the rulings of our courts. He would capitulate to Russia and sacrifice the freedom of our allies in Ukraine.”
“The Trump GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln, Reagan or the Constitution,” she added.[/quote]
What's wrong with Biden? Why is he being criticized so much?
He has a speech impediment. He stutters. Old people tell me that every year after 80 gets harder. I don't think that's true for everyone, but the basic idea is that as a person's mental and physical health decline, whatever problems they've always had get a little worse. For Biden, this means his ability to communicate gets worse.
So in America, criminality is more acceptable than aging?
Lord have mercy!
His criminal son is his closest advisor in case you were worried.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/they-deserve-know-if-donald-trump-is-an-agent-russian-federation-democratic-senator-makes-case-trump-being-compromised/
Sen. Bob Menendez found guilty on all counts, including acting as foreign agent, in federal corruption trial
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/sen-bob-menendez-federal-corruption-trial-verdict/story?id=111295557
It must feel so embarrassing.
You have to understand that the mindset is that all politicians are criminals, Trump's just the only one who's honest enough to be caught.
Criminality is better than dementia. There's a worry that Biden will soon be unable to recognize people around him. We don't know.
:100: :pray:
I still don't like him but it was well done indeed.
The difference being, when a Democrat member is found guilty of felony, the Party expels him. When it's a Republican, they make him leader.
Birth certificate? Driver's license? Social security? Taxation? What are you anarchist?
One accepted bribes from foreign countries, the other’s accountant wrote “legal fees” in a ledger. One did something wrong, illegal, the other did nothing wrong and was railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor. That’s the difference.
NOS’s political analysis in a nutshell.
That’s right.
Dementia.
Quoting L'éléphant
Dementia.
Quoting Benkei
Thanks. If you are interested, the "half of the time" is due to sundowning.
Shinzo Abe's actual death, being no longer a PM and only a member of the chamber, seems more relevant in comparison, especially when the matter of Unification Church is taken into account.
[quote=J D Vance]What Trump offers is an easy escape from the pain. To every complex problem, he promises a simple solution. He can bring jobs back simply by punishing offshoring companies into submission. As he told a New Hampshire crowd—folks all too familiar with the opioid scourge—he can cure the addiction epidemic by building a Mexican wall and keeping the cartels out. He will spare the United States from humiliation and military defeat with indiscriminate bombing. It doesn’t matter that no credible military leader has endorsed his plan. He never offers details for how these plans will work, because he can’t. Trump’s promises are the needle in America’s collective vein.[/quote]
That's a curious statement.
Trump is not a free trader. You asked what Trump did that I disagreed with, and I mentioned tariffs. He's big on tariffs. So he's the opposite of a free trader.
So when I said I'm a free trader (or more of one; it's a matter of degree, of course) you could have said, "You're delusional to be a free trader." We could have that argument.
But to say that the "Trump cult" is delusional, in the context of free trade, makes no sense. I PART with Trump on the issue of free trade.
Was that too subtle for you? You ask what Trump did that I disagreed with; then I tell you free trade; and you say I'm in the Trump cult because I DISAGREE with him on free trade.
Hmmm. This is perhaps the one instance where I think who becomes the next US president somewhat matters.
The US establishment has been deeply split over the 'pivot to Asia' (ergo - pivot away from Europe and Ukraine). If Trump were to become president it might be the moment this pivot finally happens. That would mark a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. This is why Europeans are getting nervous, Ukrainians are getting nervous, etc.
The election might be considered irrelevant to the extent that US foreign policy will be guided by geopolitical realities anyway, which will force it to pivot sooner or later. Whether that happens now or during another presidency somewhere down the line (headed by Trump or someone else) I think does matter.
The world changed drastically over the course of Biden's presidency, and it may change drastically again over the course of the next.
The window during which the US can defend its position in the world is closing.
If the US has to endure another presidency during which it focuses on the wrong things, makes the wrong decisions and sees its international power and credibility evaporate, I think it will greatly influence the US position when the pivot to Asia finally does happen and it will most likely be too late.
And now writer Max Boot, an anti-Trump propagandist from the Washington Post who made his name accusing Trump of being a foreign agent, his wife has been accused of being a foreign agent. You can’t make this stuff up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqv5qd82pjlo.amp
Accuse others of what you yourself is doing is the [i]modus operandi[/I] of these people. It applies to nearly everything.
Then let me make it simple:
You’re part of the Trump cult.
The Trump cult loves their delusions.
Free trade and free markets — are delusions.
I never said Trump loved free trade. Trump has no principles or real beliefs of any kind.
There are many dreadful things about the prospect of Trump winning, but chief amongst them is that the many lies he tells, and that his followers seem to swallow whole, will become baked into the record.
* He really won the 2020 election, which was rigged (even though 60 lawsuits attempting to prove it failed and it became subject of the largest defamation payout in American history.)
* Joe Biden is corrupt (even though a multi-year Congressional Oversight enquiry never found a shred of evidence)
* The January 6th assault on American democracy was either exaggerated or instigated by someone other than Trump
* The many recorded conversations of Trump threatening States Attorneys General to shake down votes don’t matter or mean anything
* That all the criminal indictments and civil cases brought against Trump were the consequences of deep state corruption.
*That Trump’s first term was something other than a schemozzle
Like, we’re all supposed to swallow these, and forget about the lies told and crimes likely committed. That lies will become the truth, and ‘alternative facts’ will prevail.
That the bad guys will have won.
Hopefully at the last, 51% of the electorate will see that, and vote accordingly.
That’s exactly what you lot said in 2016, and you were wrong. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Repeating the lies isn’t going to make them any more real.
Something you’ve demonstrated every day for the last four years. Why anyone bothers with your nonsense is beyond me.
Quoting tim wood
Eastern bloc, I’ve always thought.
The two main takes are:
he incited what happened
he didn't incite what happen
each of those takes usually has two subtakes, ...and it was good/acceptable, or ...and it was bad.
I have a kind of in-between take when it comes to the two main takes - I'm not convinced he did incite it, but I am convinced his actions after it started make him ethically culpable for it anyway. His actions after it started, reportedly, are he watched it unfold on TV, just sitting there watching it, and people around him kept asking him to make an announcement to stop it, an announcement that would hopefully reach the people at the capitol somehow, a request for them to stop and go home. And when he was requested to do that, repeatedly, he refused.
This makes me think that one of the two situations is the case:
1) he did deliberately incite what happened, even if his literal words allow for some plausible deniability
2) he didn't deliberately incite what happened, but *he was perfectly happy to see it unfold anyway*
There's not a good argument to be made that he didn't want it to happen, because he's a Leader, allegedly, and as a leader if he didn't want it to happen, and he didn't lift a finger to stop it, then... that's no leadership at all. If you want to excuse his lack of action, you cannot simultaneously believe he's a good leader. So either he wanted it to happen, or he's an exceptionally poor leader, not both. And it's clear to me that he IS able to get people to follow him, so if it was his will to stop what happened, he absolutely could have. He didn't want to stop it.
But is that criminal? If he has (a) plausible deniability in the words that led to the riot, and (b) just failed to do anything to stop it, is that criminal? Should it be?
Obviously if you think storming the capitol was good or ethically neutral, then that question doesn't really matter. But if you think it was bad, what happened at the capitol, then the obligation of a person to stop something bad from happening does matter. Some people don't beleive in obligations like that - some people believe you don't have to stop anything bad from happening if you didn't directly make it happen, and his plausible deniability in his words at the rally that preceded the storming arguably give the defense that he didn't directly make it happen.
So, how much plausible deniability does he have for what happened?
And, regardless of that deniability, was what happend *bad*?
And what kind of responsibility does he have given his refusal to lift a finger to stop it?
I’m sorry I cannot really respond because my eyes gloss over as soon as I see your name, for some reason.
I don't think Jan 6th happens unless Trump gives the speech he gave right before.
I’d love to see the range of your moral compass, if it isn’t just a fallacious and bad-faith sponge. Tell me what he did wrong, then.
Vance is growing on me. He's in favor of monarchy. Can you imagine? Think about how easy it would be to do something substantial about climate change if we had a king. Wall St's power could easily be broken. The US becomes hyper isolationist. Let China and Russia do whatever they want. Project 2025? I'm asking why not? For real.
Possibly an act of sedition, but not one of treason.
She's a prosecutor so I'm not worried about her ability to make a factual case. It's her ability to not seem fake that's more worrisome about her. That being said, still better than the corpse we have now.
Trump uses false claim about Chinese auto plants in Mexico to call for UAW president to be fired
[sup]— Tom Krisher, Mark Stevenson · AP · Jul 19, 2024[/sup]
Serial bullshitter, serial liar, going for the White House.
And others I did not tag here:
So, may I ask, who's the next best thing to replace Biden now that he contracted covid? Is it too late to find a good one? Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, Gavin Newsom?
I cannot believe what's happening in the American election.
I'm pretty sure that a monarchy arising out of a Trump-Vance presidency-become-king would not result in addressing climate change, or addressing problems of class, or make the US hyper isolationist.
Vance is hyper-isolationist and concerned with real wages. The two issues are linked for him. It's like he wants to turn the USA into a bubble country. He's what Trump has been missing: brains and a real social agenda.
I just brought up climate change because that's the issue that made me start thinking about abandoning democracy. It's wild for me to see the Republican party morphing before my eyes into a party that embraces the dark Enlightenment principles.
For a while now the polls have been showing that young Americans favor Trump over Biden. I think Trump is just a sort of vanguard. I don't think politics in America is ever going to go back to the way it's been.
Sure, and same, given that our current versions of democracy don't seem to be able to address this real problem that we all face.
Vance fits the form of a moral hero that Trump needs: it was a good pick for him, strategically. But the "why not, for real?" is the various connections the Republican party has: Republicans will be anti-labor, no matter the elegies written. Trump already proved this with his presidency.
I think we're watching the Republican party going into metamorphosis. The message Trump won with was that China and immigrants are the reason for the diminished security of blue collar workers. The answer was to stop immigration from the south, put tariffs on China's goods, stop spending money on foreign wars, and withdraw from NATO. None of that is Reagan. This is all stuff that would have been palatable to Democrats in the 1980s, loosely, anyway. Instead of seeing government as the problem, the Republican agenda going forward will be to put Trump allies in all corners of the civil service including the Pentagon so the next time Trump wants help, nobody is pushing back. There won't be a coup. The presidency will just change into a rightist instrument.
Now that this blueprint is in play, it's energizing the Republican party, propelling the change. Even if Biden or Harris wins this time, Vance will be there next go round with the same network ready to go. And if Trump wins, all bets are off.
The key to understanding how this is happening is to see the similarities between young Democrats and young Republicans. If you listen closely, you'll notice that they're saying the same thing: get out of Ukraine, get out of the Middle East, and focus on Main St. The people who are trying to say no to that are mainstream Democrats: Bill Clinton's people with their NAFTA and reduced support for the poor.
Look behind the curtain of Trump's bullshit and you'll see a pending American reformation. That's how the puzzle pieces are coming together for me. How about you?
A quiet bloodless coup? Or a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the world works and our role in it? Or perhaps the movement of popular public opinion that can change with the wind?
Eh, it doesn't look good, though I doubt that's a surprise since you're asking me :D
I could say who I'd vote for, but since this is a place of truth it doesn't matter who I'd vote for: living in Missouri I already know who I'm voting for regardless of who I vote for.
As democracies do.
This Missouri?
https://youtu.be/rfywkvRq4Ns?si=utbm4wP1Afol_8ed&t=34
It came to mind cuz:
I think what you're seeing is the trend away from the old left / right distinction and the movement towards a system of multiple elites with their respective supporting and opposed groups, as put forward by Piketty.
The situation used to be that young people tend to vote against the elite, i.e. for the left. This is no longer the case as experience in Europe already shows. But the voting behaviour will depend on whether the "elite" is identified as the economic elite or the academic elite.
In addition, the big wedge issue that defines politics in the non-asian industrialised nations seems to be migration. There seems to be a culture shift where younger voters, traditionally more accepting of social changes, including migration, are now more pessimistic about it.
People are still using right/left terminology, though. It's just that they've redefined it. The new American right is skeptical of liberal democracy, which would have been a blasphemous position previously. They're populist and anti-establishment. They basically want to fire everyone in the US government who isn't loyal to their cause. They've already talked about how to defy the SCOTUS if they resist this transition. I don't know who the significant elites are in this situation, but it looks like the existing establishment has nothing to gain from this and quite a bit to lose.
Quoting Echarmion
I think that's because the present establishment is very centrist, isn't it? The rising movement is rightist. That's a big switch from the old days. Everything used to be pretty moderate.
Quoting Echarmion
For the American right, this is specifically about jobs. They want to stop immigration and force out all the illegal aliens presently here. That would up-end the economy, so it's bizarre that they're actually thinking about doing that.
Sure, they're still being used as shorthand, but whereas in the past those categories actually represented a social spectrum with voting behaviours changing from left to right as you travelled from poor to rich, they no longer do.
Quoting frank
That's their rhetoric in any event. Though in my view, the republican party can hardly be anti-establishment given that they're half the establishment. It's not like they want to abolish their own position, they intend to remain an elite. They just want to extend their power.
So some part of the establishment has a lot to lose, but not all of it. The republicans will be fine. Their donors will be fine. Republicans aren't looking to curb the power of Elon Musk.
That's what I mean by multiple elites: the republicans represent one elite (the elite of wealth), leveraging the anger of one disadvantaged group, who favor a populist nationalism, to extend their influence at the expense of another elite - the "intellectual" elite whose power is less directly based on wealth but on influence in the media and in education.
Quoting frank
This is a difficult question to answer because of the unclear definition of the terms. We could say that the establishment is centrist by definition.
I'd say the current establishment is internationalist, economically liberal, socially progressive and bureaucratic. What's historically unusual is the socially progressive part. So in that sense yes, the different establishment also means a different counterculture. What's different is also that the rising right wing movement is not traditionally conservative but progressive in the sense that they want to actively change society.
Quoting frank
I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere. And young people specifically are (seemingly) facing a world of dwindling resources and intensified competition, so that might be one reason for the change in attitude.
They're actually making lists of loyalists to plop into critical spots. I think they're serious. This isn't the old Republican party.
Quoting Echarmion
Exactly. The Democrats stand for the status quo. The parties switched roles (again).
Quoting Echarmion
I don't think that's true. The political pendulum swings and the establishment is a dragging reflection of that. This is why people like Vance want to actually change out the government's employees in a far reaching way. He wants to get rid of everyone who refused Trump's orders the last time around. They're saying the government needs to be friendlier to the Right. They mean they want obedience.
Quoting Echarmion
Which is weird considering the economy is booming.
Right, but that makes it a power grab, I don't see how it's anti-establishment. These are not revolutionaries, they're part of the elite cementing their (relative) power.
Quoting frank
At least partially, yeah.
Quoting frank
That's also true, but requires some amount of comparison either in space (other democracies around the world) or time. I just wanted to note that it's hard to make definitive statements around the terms "left", "right" or "centrist" because they don't have fixed definitions.
Quoting frank
By the numbers it is. Lots of people seem to "feel" that something is deeply wrong though, and have been feeling that for some time.
I guess you could call Trump elite, but I wouldn't say he's part of the establishment, which is those who set foreign and domestic policies. His power came from public support that was so strong that establishment Republicans dared not antagonize him. In that way he's anti-establishment. The only reason he's not a revolutionary is that he couldn't pull it off. No?
The Biden administration record is quite good. The American public have been sold a bill of falsehood and rhetoric that has affected/effected the common persons' opinion in such a way that they believe all sorts of thing that are simply not true about this administration.
I'm not a Biden fan.
That whole post is wishful thinking. Note what he did during his presidency was mostly to benefit rich people. Duties on Chinese goods also protects local business, which can be a smart industry policy but since no such policy existed, we know why it happened. Not to help main street.
When I read that Vance's memoir is a good way to understand how Trump was elected, I thought about a conversation I had with a woman from Kentucky. The way she described it, heroin addiction is like a plague there. This was back when it was coming in from Afghanistan, so I don't know if it's improved since then. I'm not sure what to do with those puzzle pieces.
Trump as a person is not, or was not, part of the establishment. But since he also did not come with any formed policy, his actions ended up being mostly in favour of the republican establishment.
He has the irreverence and the populist instincts of a revolutionary, but not the conviction. So I guess we could say that he is not an establishment candidate, but he also doesn't care about being anti-establishment. As long as the establishment - in this case the republicans - stroke his ego he won't move against them.
Trump is not only part of the establishment, he is the Republican wing of the establishment. The Republican Party is Trump. Trump is the Republican Party. Any daylight between then has vanished.
Yes, but I think this is a conscious choice on the part of the more strategic thinkers among the Republicans.
i agree. I'm just more focused on what it means that there was so much popular support for him. He was telling people what they wanted to hear. Let's focus again on what that was: what did they want to hear? Think about it terms of social forces instead of personalities. That's what I've been doing since he was elected, anyway. Focusing specifically on him as if that's going to tell you what's happening is forest for the trees.
So if you think of Trump vs Harris in terms of the social forces involved, how do you read it?
This kinda goes into the realm of armchair psychology, but my take from talking to Trump supporters is this: Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. His message is "we're all naked, don't be ashamed. In fact the ones who pretend they have clothes are the stupid ones."
His populism is otherwise pretty boilerplate stuff. It has a nationalist/ isolationist bend but nothing about it is unique. So I think the appeal lies mostly in the irreverence itself.
Quoting frank
At the core of Trumpism is ultimately a deep pessimism, I think. That's what his apocalyptic rhetoric fuels. "Make America Great Again" is the slogan, but it's more like great rearguard action, fending off the encroaching decline. It's willing to throw formerly sacred values overboard because they cannot be saved anyways. So better throw them away now to get what advantage you can.
A counter-movement would be one that develops a positive vision for the future.
If you listened to his speeches in 2016, the message was: we're going back to the 1960s and 70s in terms of job security. That was the positive vision he outlined. Obama commented on how his vision was impossible because the industrial infrastructure of America is already gone. I take it you missed that aspect of his first campaign.
To borrow from Homer: Trump clothes himself in shamelessness.
When Trump got elected, I posted my general thoughts on the matter, something like "What did you f***ing expect to happen when huge swathes of Americans have been lied to by both parties since the Carter administration. The end result is no teeth in consumer protection, no teeth in antitrust law enforcement, no recourse for those who've watched their livelihoods be swiped away by the stroke of the legislative pen, no decent paying jobs for non college folk, few decent paying jobs for those who got swindled by college for profit, etc."
The American government has not erred on the side of the overwhelming majority of people when there is a conflict of interest between those who already have the most and those who have the least. Chomsky and Sanders both make irrefutable argument by just plain stating the facts that led up to all that.
In short, Americans have the best government money can buy. It sickens me to think about it, so I stay busy making stuff.
Oh, and Vance's memoir is pretty well written. He's a fraud though. Profit and power are his sole motives. Coincidentally, he and I happened to be born in the same town, a once thriving area chock full of industrial opportunity. Now a zombieland full of hopeless people with little to no chance of any decent livelihood, unless their lucky enough to have been born into it.
Yes, creating a "flexible" labor market was supposed to help avoid stagflation episodes. That meant less job security. It wasn't just evil doers on high, there was a theory.
Quoting creativesoul
Why do you think that?
I do think it fits in, actually. It's nostalgia as a substitute for the future. Obama is ultimately correct here, though of course one can debate the details.
It was anathema to neoliberalism, so anti-establishment. I think we're just quibbling over who the establishment actually is?
Now he has to be a young man, since he’s currently the oldest candidate. I can’t wait for the sheep to fall in line and agree. The spin will be fantastic!
His schtick, which is very much tailored towards the Midwest rural Americans, is a shared distain for the 'elite'. The 'elite' are scapegoats to be blamed regarding all the lost opportunity for regular folk. It's their fault in those peoples' worldview. He may have believed all that at one time. The problem, of course, is that the people who've lost those opportunities have been convinced to be mad at and blame the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He knows that now. Rural Americans have been talked into voting for people and policies against their own best interests as well as being convinced that ideas and things that really are good for them, are not.
His railing against the 'elite' just perpetuates the problems above. He's cozied up to Trump, which goes against all the earlier talk of 'elites'. He's not so much against elitism insofar as they think their better than regular people. Rather, he shares the same sort of thinking that he's better than others. He just wants to change things so that he's in the elite group.
He's Trump's running mate. I have a hard time believing that a Yale graduate would have such a change of heart about Trump and people like Trump based upon an understanding of Trump and the way things work in US politics. He has both. So, why/how the sudden change of heart? Trump is transactional, and offered Vance the reward of a means for power, status, and privilege.
That's part of "why" I think that.
He openly expresses pessimism about democracy. That doesn't sound like a schtick to me. It sounds like something else.
People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them.
I don't think you understand. He believes in authoritarianism. I get that you're not taking it seriously. I do, though. I don't think it's an act.
No, I don't disagree that the rhethoric is anti-establishment. But I'm not seeing any evidence that it's connected to any actual conviction. Trump did enact some tariffs on China, but he doesn't have a plan to restructure the entire US economy. As I said he has good populist instincts, but what's his actual plan to combat neoliberalism?
Exactly. His rhetoric gave him so much power that he seemed untouchable. That's a social current worth examining.
Oh absolutely. People want something to change, this has been visible for a while now. But neither of the big political blocks is able to deliver, and that goes for much of Europe, too.
I think it usually takes some kind of crisis before the basics change. It's interesting to try to guess what the change will look like
Believer’s Summit, Florida.
Realizing the implications, a Trump spokesman later helpfully added ‘of course he didn’t mean it.’
Of course.
I fixed his statement:
Trump faces backlash for ‘in four years, you don’t have to vote again’ remark
Some Democrats say his comments, directed at a Christian audience, signaled his plans to be a dictator. His campaign says he was talking about ‘uniting’ the country, and experts point to his ‘deliberately ambiguous’ speaking style.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/27/trump-faces-backlash-four-years-you-dont-have-vote-again-remark/
What's missing is some context, namely, the speech itself. His scolding of Christians for their low voter turnout makes his later comment make sense, and his enemies imaginations looks stupid.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?537386-1/president-trump-speaks-turning-point-believers-summit
But the anti-Trump movement is going back to the tried and true Live Action Role-play tactics, so with their activism they can pretend they are saving democracy, looking for that straight up dopamine hit. And this after their party removed the primary winner and installed their own candidate, so it's a double deceit.
People who vote for Trump think we need a dictator. Do we?
He wants to change term limits.
Get angry when I do it, dead silence when others do. You’re in good company.
Disinterested? You get miffed and insulting when anyone corrects the record, but when they lie and spread disinfo it’s dead silence. Just weird priorities, that’s all.
But refuting plain nonsense does equate to correcting the record. One thing you cannot do is defend the nonsense with lies any longer. This whole thread is a compendium of your work, your disinterestedness. So it might be best to avoid bringing up disinfo.
You’re the second post.
So do you think Trump’s comments signal that he will end elections?
Still can’t tell me what he did wrong?
The potential results of his political career are legitimately worrying, but he is clearly not the psychopathic mastermind everyone is positing half the time (and a bumbling moron the other half.. go figure). If anything, he is being co-opted for his charisma for genuinely either malicious, or delusional politicians behind him (the heinous Christians, obviously, one of which he is not. He is LARPing, ironically).
There is one thing Trump cares about - Trump.
Quoting AmadeusD
What do you make of Project 2025?
Quoting AmadeusD
Of course he does! He is driven by his ego. He wants unquestioned loyalty. He courts strong-man leaders of other countries. He uses the dictatorial tactics of fear, disinformation, and scapegoating.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is half true. He is not a mastermind. He has other people doing the thinking for him.
Quoting AmadeusD
He is not. There are some who use his popularity and think they can use him for their own ends, but this is a mistake. He is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.
Yep, agree there.
Quoting Fooloso4
It's not much to do with Trump. He's running with it because it'll work for him.
Quoting Fooloso4
Haha, case in bloody point mate.
Quoting Fooloso4
This is a ridiculous statement and patently untrue. I'll leave it there.
I'm not all that interested in Trump. I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future. When asked about his authoritarian language, he commented that a lot of people like it. Where a lot of people favor dictatorship, one is likely to develop.
(Y)
Quoting frank
Well, of course he would. And most people do like strong, decisive language. It's hard to take seriously hte kind of mealy-mouthed horseshit most politicians give out. That's not to say this is good but it certainly doesn't insinuate his votes want a dictator. That's a rather bizarre claim, tbh (not that you precisely made it).
A lot of his supporters do want a dictator. His running mate believes democracy should be replaced with monarchy.
Perhaps - but his running mate is also an idiot, who voters aren't happy with. Indicates a lot..
But also, there's a monarchy in several states where there is no dictator :) I realise Vance is probably not thinking along those lines. But, he's also not really to be taken seriously.
I think that's because where you are everything is upside down.
It will do for him what he in his incompetency was not able to do in his first term.
Quoting AmadeusD
? These examples show that he does care to be a dictator. Dictators grab power for their own benefit.
Quoting AmadeusD
On almost a daily basis he demonstrates that he is unpredictable. He cannot be controlled because he cannot control himself. By all means leave it there.
I agree that eliminating Trump does not eliminate the problem. I don't know if the factions can remain united without him though.
Quoting Fooloso4
More-or-less agree.
Quoting Fooloso4
The, quite strictly, do not.
Quoting Fooloso4
I note your ability to predict him, and nought else :) That's fair.
True
https://apnews.com/article/trump-assassination-attempt-fbi-9c3838fcf9753b3e61caf97804112fca
Many of Trump's employees descend into the moral panic, as do many seemingly qualified and rational people. Add on top of that the historical failures of that agency, their likelihood to use methods like entrapment and deception, the situation is ripe with danger.
But during the same interview he also said that he has:
“never seen” the plan and had “nothing to do with” it.
He has never seen it and has nothing to do with it, and yet he knows it has many fine points and many that are absolutely ridiculous. What we do not know, because he has not said, is which of them does he think are the many fine points and which are ridiculous.
Paul Dans has stepped down from his leadership position on the project, but a spokesman for Heritage said the project is not shutting down. In typical fashion, following the criticism of the plan, Trump is now attempting distance himself from the project, many of whose proposals were crafted by people who served in his first administration. Unfortunately for him, either way, the damage has been done.
I expect his opponents will continue to keep this before the public.
But the brief event, and the subsequent attempt to pick up the pieces, shows how easily viral nonsense can be effectively downloaded and installed as knowledge without much effort, much like Russiagate. All that’s left is motivated reasoning bias to keep it in the mind’s eye.
NBC News
Some will deny he said this but there is a video of it.
Some will skirt around these facts and never even mention them because it contradicts their imagination.
He might be a populist but he really is the man of the people. I doubt he crafted himself this way but his character and personality really resonate with voters.
I hope he wins the presidency.
By the way, this is coming from a Democrat.
DonOLD The Clown – adjudicated¹ ra[c/p]ist, MAGA-GOP candidate for "dictator-for-a-day" – who is very afraid of a much younger & stronger, incredibly smarter, and charismatic black woman (who happens to be the current VPOTUS) and too chickenshit – must be them ol' "bonespurs" – to debate her in the fall.
¹1973 & 2023 respectively
Roevermber is coming for you, Bonespurs! :victory: :mask:
:lol:
Laugh! They cannot tolerate not being taken seriously.
Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:
His choose of Supreme Court nominees was decided by the Federalist Society. His come to Jesus charade was created to get Evangelical backing. His sycophant bowing down to Putin requires bending over to kiss his ass.
Quoting Shawn
He really is not. He is the privileged son of a wealthy, racist, corrupt, real estate swindler (Fred Trump) who joined his father's enterprise to bilk the government and battle one law suit after another. His father gave him what he says was a "small loan". It was at least a million dollars with which he started a series of failed businesses, leaving the contractors to foot the bill. In an earlier skin he was shunned by the "beautiful people" of New York he so desperately wanted to be a member of. He tried to buy his way in, but his ostentatious attempts to display class were regarded as too crass even for them. He was obsessed with and courted the gossip columnists, anonymously feeding them stories about himself. The infamous lawyer Roy Cohn was his mentor.
He is a manufactured image promoted by reality TV. Packaged and sold to the American people. A con man who has conned his way to the top.
How do you square your admiration with his immoral character? In particular, the numerous instances of fraud. I can (kind of) get overlooking his sex crimes since they are against individuals, but fraud is a way of life with this guy - and he's applied it during his Presidency - manipulating his supporters with lies. His "drain the swamp" proclamation was a fraud - he had the most corrupt set of appointees in history. He tried to weaponize the DOJ, and then complains (without evidence) the Democrats have done that, while promising to prosecute people in retaliation for the fiction they've gone after him.
When has the DOJ ever gone after Trump for a "process crime"?
Quoting NOS4A2
Applying the law equitably entails "moral panic"?!
It seems Trump fits right in with the people who run the White House, but perhaps the reason he is so impopular is because he's not trying to hide it?
A fair question. Harris just yesterday repeated the tired slogan about Israel having a “Right to defend itself,” now 10 months into a [s]genocide[/s] ethnic cleansing campaign. Republicans would have a point in calling this out— but, of course they support Israel even more forcefully. As does Trump.
Never. But my point was that they are going to, not that they have.
No, believing Trump is an existential threat entails a moral panic, and many of his disgruntled former employees have stated as much.
So it's just paranoia toward the FBI (hmm. I wonder where that came from ;-)) that induces you to assume the worst about them....
Quoting NOS4A2
...but the paranoia of people who've worked for Trump and fear for what he might do (based on what they've heard him say and things he tried to do) is the only thing that's unreasonable.
It comes from a mix of principle and evidence. I don't trust authority in principle. As for evidence, most of those convicted in the Mueller investigation, for example, were for process crimes. Now that we know that there was no underlying crime to begin with, that the entire investigation was a failure and had no reason to start in the first place, it makes their indictments all the more unjust.
It is unreasonable because it isn't grounded in any reality and completely unfounded.
Setting aside the fact that Manafort committed serious financial crimes, DOJ often threatens to prosecute "process crimes" to induce the witnesses to cooperate. It often does work, but in this case - Trump managed to keep them loyal by promising them pardons. Loyalist Barr killed the potential obstruction indictment of Trump which would have been well-deserved.
The evidence made it clear that Trump was willing to conspire with the Russians, and that he indirectly did so through Stone's coordination with Wikileaks. But because it couldn't be proven he had made a direct deal to act on Russia's behalf (it' supposed to be a mere coincidence that Russia asked him to speak supprortively of the Crimea invasion, and he did so), no case could be brought.
So...it seems that your judgement of the DOJ is based on Trumpian falsehoods.
It’s based on special counsel findings. They should never have launched a full investigation. They used raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence. Investigators concluded “the (Justice) Department and FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report”.
You’re just repeating media falsehoods.
On the contrary, I read the Mueller report, the IG's report, the Senate Acitve Measures Report, and the Durham Report. You seem base your view entirely on the Durham report, and don't even seem to understand what he was examining and saying.
Durham's opined that Crossfire Hurricane should only have been opened as a preliminary investigation, and he based this on his assessment of the evidence listed in the case proposal. What Durham doesn't mention is that had it been opened as a preliminary investigation, it wouldn't have changed it's course and it would have been upgraded to a full investigation as additional evidence came in. Durham has a right to his opinion, but it is the FBI directors opinion that matters - because it is his call to make. The IG investigated and agreed. A difference of opinion with the FBI director does not imply any wrongdoing was done. And this isn't even the Mueller investigation - that investigation was initiated because Trump fired Comey. Durham had nothing but praise for Mueller.
Quoting NOS4A2
Complete nonsense. The IG found some mistakes made during the Crossfire investigation (not the Mueller investigation), specifically with the FISA warrants on Carter Page. Durham found no other mistakes. He disagreed with some specific judgements (e.g. Durham felt that some misinformation from Russian Intelligence about Clinton's involvement should have been more fully investigated, which is ludicrous given that it's abundantly clear Russia was truly helping Trump).
You don’t mention that the Mueller probe took over from crossfire hurricane, for some reason, acting as if they were somehow separate. The only reason we got a special counsel was because the conspiracy theorists among Congress demanded one after Comey’s firing.
So independent was it that the incompetent and biased investigators on the failed Crossfire Hurricane investigation were simply moved to the office of the Special Counsel. You won’t mention that these investigators were fired for anti-Trump texts.
The whole charade was the fruit of a poisoned tree, none of which should have went past a preliminary investigation, but all of which had been used against just one political campaign.
Knowing all you know about counter-intelligence investigations, would you apply your discernment towards the other campaign? because according to DNI Radcliffe: “U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-29-20_Letter%20to%20Sen.%20Graham_Declassification%20of%20FBI%27s%20Crossfire%20Hurricane%20Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf
Perhaps you don’t know, or at least won’t mention, that “On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.” Again this was released by DNI Radcliffe, and this info was briefed to Obama himself by CIA director John Brennon. Despite the knowledge, referral, and briefing to the president, no investigation had started as far as we know or.
That sounds suspiciously like the hoax proffered by the press and the anti-Trump brigade, exactly what the FBI fell for, and subsequently tried to cover up—a Clinton campaign ploy to use Russian active measures to injure her political opponent. Yet it went on. It appears to have worked because even now you’re defending it.
Between this and his VP pick, I wonder if one or more of his advisors are intentionally trying to sabotage him.
Would any of these things even matter to the core followers of his cult? The only ones who might be swayed seems to be regular swing-voters who're on the low spectrum of education. All the people who are actually affected by political propaganda and demagogue speeches. But since the republicans found a cult that can feed them votes, they basically have a giant bag of votes that will never change, regardless if Trump at a rally, pulls off his meat face to be revealed to be a malicious alien.
Nothing matters to his cult.
It's the moderates and independents that he's losing.
No, I think he defies them. Wouldn’t be surprised to see them walk out.
But then the question is, if they didn't understand how he's unfit for presidency before, would any of the current problems matter to them? Being ruled guilty in a trial should have been enough for them to sway away from voting him into office, so what's the parameters that actually matter to these people who aren't directly in the cult?
I suspect Biden and Trump share the same staff.
As a cult member myself, being ruled guilty by a corrupt, anti-Trump, Democrat Judge, whose daughter raked in millions from the Biden and Harris campaign, is a badge of honor. Non-cult members are seeing that too and they’re joining in droves.
Having conspiracy theories invalidates your input's value in this discussion. Risking an ad hominem, you're mostly a laughing stock in this discussion. I'm not interested in discussing Trump with you so I'll just ignore any future writing that isn't a proper argument with actual substance.
I gave you my opinion, but since you cannot find what’s wrong in it, you fall back on what you know best.
If you fear the facts and resort to imagination, and seek only comments that validate what amounts to propaganda-driven gossip, you’re not fit for discussing anything. None of that is going to stop me from pointing out your failures.
You don't provide facts in the way in support of your conclusions. You are doing the same as any other conspiracy theoris; connecting dots you want to connect between stuff that you deem to support those dots. It's impossible to deconstruct your arguments or have a proper discussion with you, as seen with how people try to do with you, because you're basically using all fallacies and biases known to man in order to just slither your way past what everyone says. I, and the others, have no problem discussing with people of opposite opinions, but such ability relies on the two interlocutors able to handle facts and arguments with epistemological responsibility. There's no point in discussing this with you because you don't care about such scrutiny.
I was simply answering your question, particularly regarding “being ruled guilty in a trial should have been enough for them to sway away from voting him into office”. Or were you just wondering what members of your own cult were thinking?
You couldn’t dispute anything I wrote, resorting to ad hominem by your own admission, then lecture me about “epistemological responsibility”.
:smirk:
Yes, Crossfire Hurricane led to Mueller. And despite the fact that you consider the investigation inappropriate because of mistakes made on 2 FISA warrants, the investigation was warranted by the evidence. Russia had stolen DNC emails, and Papadopoulos knew about it before it was released: a crime was committed, and a Trump advisor had knowledge of it. More evidence developed after that. Trump behaved suspiciously throughout the Mueller investigation - and that added more reason to investigate, irrespective of what reasons or excuses one makes for that behavior.
Durham doesn't even deny the investigation was warranted, he just opined it should have started as a "preliminary investigation", which would have changed nothing.
Like Trump, you are irrationally claiming the investigation tainted by the mistakes that were made, as an excuse to ignore what it exposed: Russian involvement (Trump STILL hasn't acknowledged this fact), cooperation with Russia by Trump staff, Trump's willingness to accept dirt on his opponent that was obtained illegally by a foreign government, and he was eager to hear what additional dirt they could provide (the infamous Trump Tower meeting) and to hear what they wanted in return. This happened. A crime wasn't committed only because Russia didn't actually have any new dirt to offer.
Quoting NOS4A2
I alluded to this in my prior post: the "intelligence" was from Russian intelligence! It was part of their misinformation to convince people they weren't involved. There was no evidence this occurred other than this Russian fabrication! No one took it seriously for that reason.Durham and Barr flew around the world to try and get more evidence of it, but failed - because there was nothing. Read about it in this NY Times Article
Quoting NOS4A2
You're referring specifically to Peter Strzok, and repeating Trump's slur. Strzok didn't like Trump. So what? The IG assessed Strzok's work and found no evidence of inappropriate actions. He was removed from the Mueller investigation because of the appearance of impropriety that resulted from the release of his private text messages (Strzok recently settled a lawsuit about his unjust treatment). Durham judged that there was "confirmation bias" in the investigation, but that is debatable (investigators often follow their instincts). Durham's own confirmation bias is obvious. His judgement that a "preliminary investigation" should have been opened was made at the time the IGs report was issued, not after his investigation was concluded.
.
Serious question: if he had nothing to hide, why did Trump obstruct the investigation (which was a crime, btw) and why didn't he answer all the questions he was asked?
It is kinda odd that the Trump campaign and the GOP more generally don't seem to have a ready-made strategy against a Harris campaign. Obviously you can't stop Trump from just throwing random bullshit out there, but that could at least be framed by consistent messaging.
I kinda expected them to go all in on blaming her for their favourite topic - the border crisis - and just treating her as a hapless nobody with no qualifications.
They're trying, but "Harris was never given the portfolio of border czar ... instead, Biden asked Harris to lead diplomatic efforts to reduce poverty, violence and corruption in Central America's Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, as well as engage with Mexico on the issue."
Quoting Echarmion
She's the Vice President, a former Senator, and the former Attorney General of California, so that won't work.
I mean it's not like they're going to let the facts stop then. Anecdotally, many people don't seem to know much about Harris' previous career, which is a chance for both sides to try and cement a certain framing. So far the Republicans appear to be doing a rather bad job.
Well that's just a truism.
You are making wild conjecture through right-wing bias, with no actual evidence of corruption against Trump. Since there are actual evidence presented for what Trump has done and which was the foundation for the court rulings, you have to provide an extraordinary body of evidence for your counter claims to supersede this. But what you're doing is rather make wild conjecture through an emotional response to everything. This lack of epistemic responsibility is further proven by how you look at the supreme court dismissal of Trump's guilt in a positive light, an act that should be equally treated as a line of corruption, this time in Trump's favor. The treatment you make of each event that's happened just underscores how any event that's favorable to Trump gets treated as a win in your posts, but anything even remotely in his disfavor gets a rant about how the democrats are corrupted. Your right-wing bias shines brighter than a neutron star, and it absolutely makes you fail epistemic responsibility. This is not an ad hominem, this is an analysis of your ability to stay neutral in analysis of what's going on about Trump. The reason why most of us are in a position against Trump is because it's been proven so many times over how unfit he is for presidency, and it's this sum of all parts that produce a consensus on the matter. If anyone tries to dispute this, then they need extraordinary evidence and rational reasoning to support such defense claims. So far, you've contributed nothing of the sort.
I don't really care what you think it exposed because all of it turned out to be a big nothing-burger. And I'm glad I saw those emails.
But no, Durham didn't just opine it should have started as a preliminary investigation.
He said they started a full investigation based on flimsy evidence. They did so "without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information", "without any significant review of its own intelligence databases", "without any collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities", "without interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received" or "without using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence". "Had it done so," writes Durham, "the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials". If you have any reason to dispute this, let me know.
Further, he writes of the two-tiered system. He writes: “Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information. This lack of action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral memorandum to Director Comey and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action.”
Everyone knew of intelligence regarding the Clinton plan to tie Trump to Russians. The CIA knew, Obama knew, Biden knew, Comey knew, Strzok and McCabe knew. They let it happen.
Read about it in this New York Times article! Let me guess, unnamed sources, current and former officials, like Adam Schiff or Hilary Clinton? Former officials like Comey, Strzok, and McCabe? Let me guess, Russian disinfo? Like Hunter’s laptop? This is what it has come to!
It's a complete lie. The Durham report goes over the specifics with named officials, where the Clinton intel went, where it came from, who had it, who knew about it, and what they did in response to it. No one interviewed mentions your claim as the reason they didn’t take it seriously. Brennan said he didn't even remember it. And against your baseless claim, no one in the IC knew the accuracy of the information. Despite knowing that they were using Clinton-funded dirt as their evidence, and that there was intel suggesting it might be a Clinton ploy, they didn't even stop to investigate. There is no evidence of even a cursory glance, "preliminary investigation", let alone a full blown investigation by Crossfire Hurricane, like the one premised on a dodgy dossier and some flimsy tip from an Australian ambassador, all of which turned up absolute garbage.
What we have is hindsight and evidence. We not only have the plan, the bad and biased actors, and the Clinton-funded dossier which lead the FBI, DOJ, and the media on a wild goose chase, we have the fact that it all played out on the world stage. They got played, the media got played, you got played.
He has no handlers because he cannot be handled. He cannot even control himself.
His campaign specifically wanted to increase his support among blacks from 12% to 20%. I don't think he accomplished that.
The judge’s daughter owns a company that helps Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win elections. The judge donated to democrats against ethics code. The DA ran on prosecuting Trump. The prosecutor was Biden’s top 3rd man in the Department of Justice. Are you just ignorant of all these things?
This is the effect of misinformation: you post so much stuff that's obviously wrong that I don't make any assessment of your posts. Does freedom of speech require this sacrifice? That your communication approaches meaninglessness because its truth is dubious? I'm just asking.
What have I posted that is wrong?
You do it all the time. I thought you were doing it on purpose. No?
Like what, for example?
So you're saying you never intentionally post stuff that's wrong? You'd have to be delusional if that's true. C'mon.
Not purposefully. Can you give me an example?
This tells us something about him and his campaign. Their bad judgment is one thing. Trump's wild overestimation of his abilities to win people over is quite another. He had some success with the Art of the Schmooze in his business dealings, at least until his reputation caught up with him; but his attempt to dominate a room of journalists as if they must be put in their place and lying to them, shows how out of touch he is. No doubt the Trumpsters will applaud, but they are not the people he wants to convince.
Well, you said this:
Quoting NOS4A2
What rigging and cheating?
They threatened Biden to pull out of the race when they knew he was losing and replaced him with a candidate who did not even get a single vote.
Where is the rigging and cheating? Those words imply rules that have been broken. There's no cheating.
Those words do not imply rules have been broken. You’re starting to spread disinfo now.
To rig:
"Manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person."
To cheat:
"act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage"
So we need some fraud, some dishonesty, or unfair dealings. It appears none of that exists.
"Cheating" does not imply rules have been broken? Please. You can troll better than that.
It’s unfair to replace a candidate from a race because you’re losing, especially against the will of the voters, and it’s dishonest and fraudulent to say you’ve done so for any other reason as Joe Biden and his surrogates did.
Uh oh, RogueAI appears with his valuable insight.
Durham makes no allegation of a "two-tiered" system. What he said was this:
Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates, it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia.
This was the most damning thing Durham had to say about the matter: there was POTENTIALLY some confirmation bias involved. At the time at which these Russian memos were obtained, it had already been established that Russia was working to help Trump and hurt Clinton. This background knowledge would surely have influenced the investigation. Does the DOJ always follow up 100% of leads, irrespective of their deemed credibility? I doubt it.
Much of the information Steele provided was confirmed, most importantly - the basic fact of who Russia was trying to help and who to hurt. Contrast this with the Russian memos: there has been no evidence of any kind to corroborate any of their information. Durham tried to find corroboration, but found not one whisper of it. Durham's entire tirade is based on his opinion that the Russian memos (which we now know with certainty were disinformation) should have been treated as equally credible to the Steele memos. IOW, he laments the fact that investigators failed to waste their time pursuing it! The course the investigation actually took was fruitful, in spite of the fact that errors were made along the way.
Also consider the implications of the supposed "Clinton Plan": it would have meant that the Campaign was pushing some disinformation about Trump. I admit that I would find this appalling, but a Trump supporter - who embraces and repeats Trump's frequent lies, would be hypocritical to do so.
Quoting NOS4A2
Genetic fallacy. The Times article merely fills in a bit of context about the Russian disinformation memos:
"The [Russian] memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.
Durham says nothing that contradicts the above. He wrote, "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication." That's not a lot of daylight between his comment and the NYTimes quote: he's tacitly admitting that it could be fabrication. It IS clear that Durham sought corroborating evidence for the allegation, but came up with nothing. Even if one chooses to believe the FBI committed an error in failing to follow up, it's clear that this possible error wouldn't have made a bit of difference - it would merely proven to be a waste of resources.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about why Trump obstructed the investigation. I fully realize you don't care that he did, but how would you defend it to someone who's open-minded? Imagine some other politician being investigated by the FBI, who took steps to silence witnesses - don't you think that would be a major scandal if it came out?
I need to also respond to this:
Quoting NOS4A2
As usual, you're repeating Trump-campaign propoganda.
The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed. If Democrats are unhappy with the way it played out (or Republicans fear this could happen to them) they can push to change the rules (as was done with the prior role of superdelegates). There aren't many Democrats who are upset with the result, though - despite so many Republicans trying to convince them that they should be.
It would be unfair if the Republican party wasn't capable of doing exactly the same thing if they so chose. Since the parties are following the same rules, it's fair.
Do you think it’s fair to the millions who voted for Biden in the primaries?
Do you think it’s fair to lie about Biden’s abilities up until the moment they couldn’t lie about it any more?
So let me get this straight. The primary voters chose Biden, then Biden said he wasn't going to run. Now you're verklempt over the disappointment the voters must feel about that. Is that correct?
Quoting NOS4A2
Who lied, and about what? Give us facts we can check.
That’s wrong. The question at the end of the sentance indicates I was asking you a question.
So you have no evidence of unfair practices, rigging, or cheating. Why did you assert it? Did you dream that there was some cheating?
He probably was sharp when Schumer said that. 80 y.o. dudes don't go into dementia like falling off a cliff. Even those closest to him might just suspect at first.
I already stated why so think it was unfair. Do you think it’s fair to the millions who voted for Biden in the primaries? Do you think it was fair to lie about his condition throughout his presidency, past the primaries, until 3 months before the election? Do you think it is fair that they threatened him to drop out, only when it was clear he would lose?
Schumer said it 5 months ago after the Hur report came out questioning Biden’s mental competence.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4465074-schumer-biden-mental-acuity-is-great/
Ok, I missed it. Tell me again why you think there was cheating.
The Trumpsters kvetch but its Meshuggeneh. (That is about the limit of my Yiddish)
Anyone who is honest and paying attention knows that 1) unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary an incumbent president will be the nominee, 2) Biden's performance during the debate is compelling reason to have him step down. Not simply because he was likely to loose but because there is substantive reasons to question whether he is fit and able to be president for the next four years. 3) It is Trumpian conjecture that the primary voters feel that they have been treated unfairly. 4) There is good evidence that Harris enjoys greater voter approval that Biden did before stepping down. Most likely, many primary voters approve of the change. 5) The Trumpsters are pretending that it is a matter of fairness, but the only thing that they really think is unfair is that they spent a lot of time, effort, and money preparing to run against Biden.6) They question Biben's competency and wanted to make it a major campaign issue, but when after the debate more and more Democrats raised concerns and acted on it they cry foul.
The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended.
If he did obstruct the investigation, it was because it was an unjust investigation. Obstruction of justice is wrong, Obstruction of injustice is laudable.
I can repeat Biden campaign propaganda and get the same result. In a letter to Democrats:
“We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively. I received over 14 million votes, 87% of the votes cast across the entire nominating process. I have nearly 3,000 delegates, making me the presumptive nominee of our party by a wide margin.
This was a process open to anyone who wanted to run. Only three people chose to challenge me. One fared so badly that he left the primaries to run as an independent. Another attacked me for being too old and was soundly defeated. The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party.
Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?
I decline to do that. I feel a deep obligation to the faith and the trust the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned. The voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.“
https://apnews.com/article/biden-letter-democrats-4562a72aa3a891e55261617d0d494d00
So as usual you’re spouting DNC and big donor propaganda.
Maybe. NOS is really good at evasion. I'm trying to learn how he does it so I can do it. The first step is to reject something obvious, like the meaning of "rigging.". Then when your opponent hands you a definition of the word, you pick up something extraneous in the definition. The goal is to drag the victim into the weeds, puzzling over stuff that has nothing to do with the original issue. Then you ask them a question about what they think. "Do you think it's fair that cats are so dependent on humans? I mean, do you?"
Cool stuff.
Who?
I've been reading that he has two campaign managers, Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, who have been trying to domesticate him and get him to stick to talking points. They were behind all the talk about the new, 'unifying' Trump after the NDE, and were also behind the pushback against Project 2025. But, as some commentator said, there's Teleprompter Trump and then there's Truth Social Trump, and the latter is the real one, and impossible to corral.
That’s odd because you still haven’t answered the question I asked. Bad faith can only get you so far.
An apt distinction.
Ain't that the truth?
I'm pretty confident that for 99% of the people who voted for Biden in the primaries, the answer is "yes, actually".
It's just obvious nobody cares, and why should they? Biden had no serious opponents and very few people were invested in the outcome. Trying to make an issue out of this topic seems 100% useless from the perspective of Trumps campaign. Noone is going to be dissuaded from voting for the democratic candidate because they believe Biden was treated unfairly.
Swing voters with no party affiliation have even less reason to care about the "fairness" of the democratic primary. It seems to me it's more likely that complaining about the selection will make Trump look like a sore loser.
I’m sure that’s true, especially if one prefers expediency and power-grubbing over principle. So long as others recognize the hypocritical violations of their core principles, as Biden himself did, I’m fine with it. It’s enough for me that they reveal themselves for the frauds they are.
Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's laughable. Are all investigations unjust when hindsight shows the person was innocent? In this case, there's not even a rational basis to claim Trump was proven innocent - because Trump's obstruction was successful: who knows what Manafort may have revealed had he not been promised a pardon? And no, I'm not insisting Trump conspired with Russia, but it would be false to claim he was proven innocent. His obstruction undermined the investigation and thus tainted the conclusion. If there weren't so many bigger crimes by Trump, it would be a worthwhile campaign issue for Dems.
Regarding the investigation, there was a great deal of reason to be suspicious, and Trump's behavior (including the obstruction) is not the least of it. An innocent statesman would have merely expressed his confidence that the investigative process would prove his innocence. Instead, Trump's childish tirades have led to his cult members losing trust in the justice system. Despite errors being made during the investigation, they did not lead to inventing evidence or bringing false charges. That is the best evidence that the system works (setting aside the obstruction, which was clearly criminal).
I already knew you applauded Trump's illegal obstruction, and I expect you wouldn't care if Trump had conspired with Russia, either. I asked you how would justify it to an open-minded person. You obviously couldn't.
Quoting NOS4A2
I had neither heard nor read Biden's statement. I stated something I believe to be factual based on m own analysis: the process was followed, no rules were broken. You didn't dispute that.
Biden had a perfect right to drop out, and others had a right to talk him into it. I would have accepted an open convention, had that occurred, but what I consider what occurred a better outcome because the prime objective was to defeat Trump - not to nominate the most popular loser.
I do generally wish incumbents weren't always the default candidate. Real choices would have been great, but there really weren't any - which actually makes the primary process meaningless when there's an incumbent. Since the primaries didn't offer a real choice, it doesn't make sense to suggest my will as a voter was ignored.
I am curious: since you so value democratic principles, are you in favor of eliminating the electoral college?
That’s the only thing you can say and it’s taken place of your arguments. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. But you have nothing to dispute it.
What obstruction of justice? You’re just mad because an innocent man protested a sham investigation, and now you wish he had been charged for it. Sorry, pal, no charges, no obstruction, so go find some more deep state propaganda to keep the conspiracy theory going.
That’s because you’re uninformed. The core principles were violated, just as Biden said. Remember that when they try to scare you about “threats to democracy”.
Quoting Relativist
Quoting NOS4A2
I believe I've reviewed the facts with you before, but nevertheless I'll go over it again.
The law firm of Perkins-Coie represented the 2016 Clinton campaign and the DNC.
Marc Elias, a partner of at the firm personally hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump . Fusions research on Trump was already in progress, funded by GOP opponents).
Fusion’s research consisted of digging through court filings from Trump’s numerous lawsuits and through newspaper reports.
From their research, they saw a suspicious pattern of associations with Russians. This led Fusion to hire Steele to investigate further. Fusion told Elias only that they had hired someone from outside the US to collect intelligence about Trump’s ties to Russia. Elias gave no direction to the activities, and had no idea who was doing it. As the only conduit between Fusion and the Clinton campaign, this shows that there was no direct connection between this intelligence collection and the campaign. The work was ultimately funded by the campaign, but there has never been any evidence of wrongdoing (or direction) by anyone associated with the campaign (including Elias). Perkins-Coie paid Steele, and passed the charges along to the Clinton campaign – which incorrectly booked these costs as legal fees (based on the fees being incurred by the law firm – although it should have been identified as opposition research).
So...sure, they paid for it, but they had no idea they were paying for faulty intelligence. Furthermore, the campaign never used Steele's intelligence in their campaign. So the "propoganda I was referring to was the falsehood that the Clinton campaign wanted to make stuff up about Trump and that they used this in the campaign. That is categorically false.
But they did.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi
Yeah, well now that there's been a switch in the competing candidate, the crew focused on consistent messaging will become irrelevant, and the random bullshit will inevitably ramp up, to fill the void. Should be interesting.
Quoting NOS4A2
No they didn't. Read the closing of the article which you yourself referred:
"There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI."
There was the intel provided by Dutch to the CIA earlier in the summer. The fact that the allegation was utterly false just makes it all the more egregious.
Regardless, when a person provides false information which they believe to be true, the person is not guilty of making stuff up.
Look at Saddam Hussein's WMD for example. When there is a faulty interpretation of the intelligence, people are not "making stuff up", because they firmly believe in the truth of their interpretation. It's a failure of the intelligence system.
The above paid no attention to what preceded it. Vance could also believe that authoritarianism is a preferable form of government/society/nation.
He could have gone from a broke drug influenced and otherwise horrible upbringing to the greedy - profit at all and any cost - profit as the sole motive for action - glorified on public media - American venture capitalist. He was portrayed as such for a minute.
Vance could not have gone from believing that certain elites were/are to largely to blame for the socioeconomic circumstances/depression he suffered through...
...to wanting/trying to be one...
...while acting in the best interest of midwestern Americans.
'The elites' harmed American people by virtue of influencing government action/legislation. The elites bought/buy the politicians. Common belief was that our government was being illegally bribed by powerful wealthy entities, but nothing could be done about it. A strategically placed representative can have certain language included in certain pieces of legislation that will provide huge financial gains for you personally. If you have the money and know the right sorts of people. If you're an elite. Trump is.
American politicians are for sale.
Donald Trump himself said so. He bragged about it on public stage, in front of everyone watching. It happened as plain as day. As clear as the nose on your face. The media downplayed it. Well, that's being nice about that very troublesome fact. The lack of attention given to, the sheer lack of outrage regarding that particular event is a sure sign that too many people have accepted the fact that Americans have the best government money can buy.
Vance cannot be both. against elites and with them. I understand just fine, thanks.
The opportunities available for many, some of which are Trump supporters, but many more of which are not, have been steadily decreasing since the early mid 70's. Systematically. The normal blue collar and other normal everyday workers/citizens - on a whole, and generally speaking - have had power taken from them and transferred to the owners/employers. This is particularly relevant when there is a conflict of interest between the American workers and their employer. The owners are/were the elites.
The regulations/legislation have been erring on the side of huge corporations and other powerful entities for over half a century. The history of anti-trust legislation shows the slow methodical practice of systematically removing the ability to enforce laws meant to protect Americans from fraud and otherwise being taken advantage of by those who could not care much less about their livelihoods when that conflicts with stock values and/or the actors'/owners' potential profit margin. Consumer protection and antitrust laws are gone... toothless.
Trump is both an elite, and a fraud.
Vance became Donald Trump's running mate, championing the suggested path forward in the 2024 American presidential election, written by the elites. Vance accepted and joined those he claimed were responsible for the plight of very large swathes of midwestern American people. He's becoming one. He's supporting one.
Look through the well documented history. He 'suggested', for lack of a better term, that certain entities were responsible for the passing of certain legislation resulting in fewer equal opportunities for Americans in general. The powerful well-connected elites. During some of those times, he wrote/read [i]as[/i[] an author/speaker/user that was sincere, honest, and forthright. He seemed to believe what he said at the time.
Vance can believe that elites like Trump are largely to blame for the plight and suffering of rule following, law abiding, otherwise hard working midwestern Americans. Vance can believe that people like Trump - the tremendously wealthy powerful people - are largely to blame for all the outsourcing of jobs and lowering of American wages devastating middle America. Vance can believe that Americans have been starved into agreement with competing with foreign workers who do not earn anything equivalent to an American fair wage. Vance can believe that American government has passed legislation that paves the way for business owners to move all operations overseas. Vance can believe that there is legislation amounting to legal government bribery written by entities whom the public are not allowed to learn about/know of... all in the guise of 'free speech' nonetheless.
Vance cannot believe that and believe it's okay to join the elites unless he is okay with unnecessarily harming the aforementioned Americans in the devastating ways they have been hurt by both parties since the late seventies. If espousing authoritarian style government allows him to become an elite, he will.
That's the act.
No, they didn't. Clinton was presented information purported to establish a secret communications link between Trump and Russia's Alfa Bank. She approved the proposal to make this public. No one lied, they were simply mistaken.
Funny you'd bring this up, since this incident led your hero, Durham, to prosecute Sussman for making a false statement to the FBI (one of those "process crimes" you complain about, when it involves a Trump loyalist). But it was shown at trial that Sussman believed what he told the FBI. It also came out that no one in the Clinton campaign approved taking this to the FBI. If you were consistent, you'd be complaining about the injustice done to Sussman. It never should have gone to trial.
~Simone Biles, the most decorated Olympic Gold Medal & champion gymnast in history
https://x.com/Simone_Biles/status/1819284274224173147
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/31/trump-nabj-interview-black-jobs-rhetoric
Considering that the make-up gets darker and darker I think he may be aiming for one of those black jobs. It seems that there is no longer much demand for orange ones.
Just five words and MAGA hates her and thinks she should keep her mouth :zip:
It seems to me that Vance invited her into the conversation when he labeled her a quitter on Fox News, and isn’t MAGA all about hitting back when someone is nasty to you. I guess that’s only cool when Trump does it. Speaking of which, I hope he attacks every popular Republican governor in the swing states. That would be cool.
:up:
Sometimes its absolutely fine to accept what's right in front of you - the media is exceptionally good at being wrong no matter which side is in the spotlight. This is almost solely an issue of personality, given almost everything else can be boiled down to statistics.
This isn't a 'you' problem, but it is certainly a problem of this and the Election thread. Pretending that the media is accurately informing you but inaccurately manipulating your opponents. No. You're all in the ditch. NOS has this issue, 180 has this issue - why the fuck a bunch of adult men pretending to do philosophy can't just be adults and humans about this type of thing is entirely unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless.
Governing is conducting policy and organisational aspects of policy and action of a given entity (in this case, the USA). It is not my definition, but thank you for the stark illustration.
Quoting AmadeusD
If Vance actually graduated, what's curious to me is how the hell did his dumbass get out of Yale?
The media hasn't presented him as shallow and biased. Neither his book nor the movie in which his grandmother is played by Glenn Close give the that impression, so I don't know what you're talking about. I think he's a moron because he's had an abundance of opportunities to turn the "catlady" thing around and he won't do it. This is the hill he's willing to die on: Democrats don't have children. In other words, he's no where near as bright as we expected him to be when he was chosen.
Quoting 180 Proof
Exactly.
Have you been paying attention to his campaign (previously), his continually declining abilities and acknowledgement of such all and sundry?
His inability to even form coherent chunks of speech is a pretty prime indicator. Continual mis-steps in recollection is another. HIs absence from his actual job, almost continually, also contributes to this view.
Quoting tim wood
Yeah, you're definitely not being an adult about any of this, if these are you only two options to land on. That is absurd.
Quoting frank
That is literally all i have read about the guy - he's hypocritical and incredibly biased in (essentially) bigoted ways; that he is incapable of carrying the mantle of VP or P as a result of his political leanings and inability to reach/speak to/engage with Women, POC and other Minorities. Every article that has come across any of my SM or non-social media has been either a comedic attack or a "He's going to be the end of America" type of nonsense.
And definitely some of those earlier claims are true - his PR skills are terrible. But to take all of this serious to judge him as a human being, based on this source of information, is bizarre. The film, btw, has been universally panned by all non-right-wing media for roughly these reasons (you can tell, because Close and at times Adams are praised as "despite" the film lol which might be fitting).
Quoting frank
Well no, this is the unchartiable, childish and ultimately misleading version of things the media likes to put out. His claim isn't "democrats don't have children" anymore than "deplorables" was an actual claim to be applied to every Republican or MAGA-adjacent person. It clearly wasn't, and Hilary unfairly suffered for her lack of precision imo. I wouldn't call the current situation 'unfair' because you're right, he's had several chances to even back out of that thing - but the same mechanisms are at play. They want you angry and incredulous. I'm not really defending him, to be clear. I don't know him. I'm aware he's an awful politician and it's a shame he's running with Trump, amongst all else to deplore there. But it truly is bizarre to see the exact same industry being treated completely differently when they spin different sides of the same coin (i,e two-party politics/politicians) - particularly when I know most of the posters here are far, far more intelligent than to allow what is clearly, and inarguably an industry which does not thrive on accuracy, truth or verdicality but clicks and views.
Quoting 180 Proof
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think you'd have a clue, and that your opinion is anything more than your bias writ large. Perhaps it just hurts that you did not?
I haven't seen any of that. I mostly get info from the NYT, the WSJ, and Politico. I'd say narrow down input to only sources that at least try to present an unbiased account. You usually have to pay for that.
Quoting AmadeusD
As I said, I'd back far away from new sources that want to play on your emotions. Just junk all that wholesale.
To add to this, there are several people who post on this forum who, based on their ability to make insightful contributions, appear to be pretty intelligent but who nevertheless have views on political issues that seem bizarre.
I would argue that while there are political opinions that are overall correlated with at least academic achievement, this does not hold on a personal level. I think it is to a certain extent true that "politics is the mind killer" in that there seem to be situations where otherwise intelligent people are incapable of seeing flaws in certain political positions. And that is of course assuming the positions are held in good faith and not the result of entirely different motivations.
What is bizarre from one point of view may be 'normative' in another. The problem with saying the 'bias' is doing the talking is that it dispenses with other peoples' views a priori.
Therefore, it is a useless argument in political discourse. Noting that condition is far from denying that bias does exist in many forms of feeling and expression.
I will always assume good faith, until shown otherwise. Unfortunately, across threads as long as these two have been (Trump/Election threads) It's hard to continue that assumption. Otherwise, the above is bang-the-heck-on.
Quoting Paine
This is certainly true - I think all we can do to counteract is point out inconsistencies in approach. LIke trusting the media one way, but not hte other.
I recognize that media is a big player in the description of what is happening. We have to decide for ourselves what is being discussed. And if that collection of selves is just different worlds of facts, it is all for nought. All the King's men could not put the egg back together again.
“Unhumans,” an anti-democratic screed that far-right provocateur Jack Posobiec co-wrote with the professional ghostwriter Joshua Lisec, comes with endorsements from some of the most influential people in Republican politics, including, most significantly, vice-presidential candidate JD Vance. ...
The word “fascist” gets thrown around a lot in politics, but it’s hard to find a more apt one for “Unhumans,” which came out last month. The book argues that leftists don’t deserve the status of human beings — that they are, as the title says, unhumans — and that they are waging a shadow war against all that is good and decent, which will end in apocalyptic slaughter if they are not stopped. “As they are opposed to humanity itself, they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman,” write Posobiec and Lisec. ...
“Unhumans” lauds Augusto Pinochet, leader of the Chilean military junta who led a coup against Salvador Allende’s elected government in 1973, ushering in a reign of torture and repression that involved tossing political enemies from helicopters. ...
Vance provided the first blurb on the “Unhumans” book jacket. “In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through H.R., college campuses and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people,” he wrote. “Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”[/quote]
Inclluding purges of the civil service and intelligence agencies, a plan already outlined in detail in the Project 2025 manifesto.
So now we can add unhuman to unmarried female cat-lovers…..
Idiotically leaning into the ‘weirdo’ branding.
I wonder what Ambrose Bierce would have made of all this in his seminal Devil's Dictionary.
:smirk:
A "very successful" businessman who was bankrolled and bailed out by his father several times, who declared bankruptcy six times, and repeatedly cheated contractors. What he is most successful for is selling his name and image, letting others do the work and walking away when things do not work out.
It is not clear whether he thinks the federal government can operate this way. His "better instincts" do not include the understanding that the United States of America is not a business, however much he wants to slap his name on it.
A month later, and I was right. As usual.
Remember when everyone was saying “he just got elected”? :lol:
What are your thoughts about the current state of the GOP? Is it in disarray or better than ever?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/letsgometsf_a_n/status/1822469015651971185?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
See Shameless, Brian Tyler Cohen.
I wouldn't say it's in disarray. There was a crisis around Trumpism but the party has now reworked it's strategy around it. Adopting Trumpism comes with the cost of a bunch of very vocal cranks, but they need the highly mobilised base in order to have a chance.
Overall Trumpism seems to have accelerated the republican trend / strategy towards minority rule, it remains to be seen whether it was too fast and the frog jumped the pot.
I expect you interpreted his performance from the perspective of your bias. My evaluation is based on the actual evidence. I'll grant that IF the GOP conspiracy theory is true (that Biden's people are hiding his dementia), then I'm mistaken. But there's no objective evidence this is the case.
Now that one cognitively declined candidate has dropped out, are you hoping the other one does? Imagine what shape he'll be in, in 4 years! If it was relevant for Biden, then if you're consistent- it should be relevant to Trump.
The current state of the GOP is that it perished under the onslaught of Trumpism. It bears no resemblance to the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or Reagan.
I cannot be overstated how utterly bereft of reality this is. You had to eat crow about Biden the same f'ing week this took place (i.e the ass. attempt and ensuing up-tick for T-Ump. ).
Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
Please stop double-posting this kind of stuff in this and the election thread.
Thank you. :smile:
Looks like Melania because she’s squinting? Trump gets weirder by the day.
:up:
And a Harris crowd that was AI-generated. Don’t forget that.
He’s losing his fucking mind. :lol:
Getting so looney tunes that he's starting to sound like Daffy Duck.
:up:
Harris’s crowds are big. He doesn’t like that — so it doesn’t exist.
He lost the election — but he can’t lose, so it didn’t happen.
What’s more pathetic, though— Trump, or his slavish followers that go along with the beyond obvious lies?
“I’m a lot of things, but weird I’m not.” — Donald Trump :lol:
That's a weird thing to say.
The more the handlers try to control the wild beast, the more it rebels.
Quoting Wayfarer
If the dangerous beast escapes the handlers and flees in a final flailing effort at freedom, sympathy may prevent it from being shot.
I do think, though, that it's pretty clear it's not Kamala winning but Trump leaning into all his worst aspects - as if that were the way to win an election smh. Even his voters probably prefer someone cogent, but dangerous, to someone intransigently irrational (and dangerous). And that's just perceptions - im sure the reality is worse for both.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/politics/donald-trump-harris-election-outcome-denial/index.html
For now it looks good though. So then I'm wondering what will the Trump cult morph into next? Assuming Trump is done after losing this election and doesn't stick around for the next election.
I think something we could probably agree on though is that your description of the last lets say 10 weeks indicates that Trump's voters rely on spectacle. The election cycle is not one (in this sense). So, either he pulls a Jan 6 (don't bother arguing with this, but to clarify, I do not think he incited anything on that occassion) properly, or he doesn't get a look in. And even in the former case, I think he'd just be arrested for it given he isn't in office.
I think it's going to be quite clear that Trump cannot run again in '28. He'll be in his 80s, and the hypocrisy would be too much, if nothing else. I also just htink he's run his course (speculatively). He's declining even among those who try to take the 'view from nowhere' and give hte devil his due. I was essentially in that position, but it's now clear with Biden out of hte running that Trump is simply not an electable character once octogenerial. You can kind of get away with what he's doing as the more spritely candidate - and he doesn't have the wit of Regan to pull it back in his favour. His actual politics don't seem to matter that much to that group voting for him.
Also, fucking hell. Discussing the elections of the '20s (as oppsoed to 90s/00s/2010s) is spinning my head.
Probably rabid domestic terrorists ...
Trolls asking troll questions. :yawn:
Not a single interesting thing has come out of you.
My eyes glaze over whenever I see your name, Xtrix. No good questions, responses, and even the insults are boring. Gotta try harder, man.
Whenever you see my previous screen name? :lol:
Even your jabs don’t make sense.
Quoting NOS4A2
They can’t all be on the level of reading the NY Post for my opinions and then trolling on an Internet forum with stupid questions like “are you all upset?” That level of genius is monopolized.
I just wonder whenever I write a post, your name appears shortly after. It’s odd.
It's an opportunity for Harris to take the high road and decry foreign intervention. Has Donald ("I love Wikileaks") Trump said anything about it? I'm curious what your view is, considering what you've said about foreign interference in the past. Do you think it would be appropriate to release it at politically strategic times, like Wikileaks did (working with Roger Stone)?
I do think it’s appropriate because it’s newsworthy. The duty of a journalist is to publish it.
Unrelated question, more related to our exchange in the other thread.
Trump recently said that social security recipients shouldn't have to pay taxes on their benefits. How do you suggest we treat that statement? Promised policy?; whistful rift to be ignored?
Full disclosure: I started receiving SS this year, when I turned 70.
I like the idea, personally. I’m against all taxes. I also think it is fundamentally absurd to tax money that has already been collected as taxes. So I’d treat the statement as a good one.
What do you think about it?
A more reasonable campaign promise, which unfortunately no one is making, is to fix the SS funding problem with a comprehensive overhaul. Even in such an overhaul, I can't see eliminating the tax on benefits, because it would have to be traded off with more revenue.
It's fine to have a philosophical opposition to taxes, but practical considerations can't be ignored. SS started being taxed under Reagan. It was a back-door method of reducing benefits for the more well-off, in order to extend the life of SS.
It makes no sense to me. The money in the fund has already been confiscated as taxes, for example, via payroll taxes, and added to the fund. That is money that has already been taken from you. How does confiscating that money a second time help you any?
I have no problem with your philosophical point of view here, but you're ignoring the practical problems I brought up.
I was addressing your point that it would “be reckless to pass it because it would exhaust the SS trust fund sooner”. How does taxing your social security benefits, in other words taking money from your benefits, replenish or otherwise reduce the exhaustion of the fund?
Raising the cap on taxable social security income levels would more than fix the problem. Only those who benefit the most would see a SS tax increase. Somewhere around 175K yearly.
[i]"Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments....
... The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983."[/i]
It might offset this particular (effective) benefit increase, but I don't think it would completely solve the overall funding problem. I feel strongly that reform ought to be comprehensive, rather than helping out one or another interest group.
I'm not being self-serving here. I started receiving SS benefits when I turned 70, and get almost the maximum benefit. This would be net me a good bit of extra money.
Ever read/listen to Robert Reich?
Pretty much what I just did. :wink:
Periodically, there are bills proposed to eliminate the problem in whole or in part, but the problem is always the same: paying for it. There's no free lunch (modern monetary policy theory nonwithstanding).
Still, if less and less workers put money into the fund, and more and more recipients seek to benefit from it, exhaustion of the fund is inevitable. The aging population and lower birth rates make this reality an increasing concern.
Absolutely, and that's exactly why a comprehensive plan is needed- and it will have to include more revenue (i.e. taxes). If Trump removes the income tax on SS benefits, it means even higher taxes on those who are working to pay for the higher outlays.
Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past, Steve Benen.
So here’s my question: is this satire, or is this what the former president wrote on his social media platform?
“Garbage Dump” :rofl:
Like holding an ice cream cone up to a fan in Mobile.
The pedicure of Ozymandias cracks alone in desert sand.
The Clown is so fucked! :clap: :lol:
Roevember is coming! :party:
Up until last night I worried about coyotes eating my dog. Now it seems I have worry about illegal immigrants eating my dog. Or is it all immigrants? Or just those from "shithole countries"?
Apparently, only Haitian immigrants, and only in Springfield Ohio. If you live elsewhere, you can breathe easy.
The debate was much as I expected. Trump a fire hydrant of mendacity, as always, and Harris lucid and controlled in comparison. But the irksome thing is, that even while most of the mainstream media acknowledge this, they are all obliged to add that it may not matter. He can spout lies, exaggerations and hyperbole for 90 minutes, and everyone can acknowledge that this is what he's done, but it may not matter. Me, I think it does matter, and I think in November the American electorate will have judged that it matters, but this is one real measure of the damage he's doing to democracy every time he opens his mouth: he's persuaded vast numbers of people, and a large number of very powerful politicians, that the facts are what he says they are, no matter how far from the truth.
I find it particularly amusing that this was in response to a question about him tanking a "Ukraine aid for border control bill," termed by the Senate GOP as "the largest border bill in over 30 years." Of course, his failures and recalcitrance, even in terms of what his own base wants him to do, once again get nicely covered up by a debate on how much pet eating is going on in the US.
For a large portion of his voters, it doesn't seem to matter. It also doesn't seem to matter that his statements about immigrants is one of the most blatant examples of his racism. Maybe because his core voters are blatant racists themselves? Who knows. I just know that in modern politics, it seems that racism is fine and there's no apparent will or action to get the racists and racism out of corridors of power.
That in itself is a clear sign of how the current structure and system of government is a failure in every form other than playing with authoritarianism under a plutocracy.
I too think it matters, but the question is how much it matters to the voters. Certainly it will to may, but will it be enough in those states that matter most? I would like to think so, but a lot of people have and will overlook everything else if they believe they will benefit with Trump and/or be hurt by Harris. How they might calculate that, if they do calculate it, or go with what their gut tells them, remains a mystery.
I would not be surprised if this escalates. Eating people is next.
That is part of Trump's reasoning, and I don't accept it. Believing that it's hopeless plays into his hands.
Anyhow, I'm still convinced that Trump/MAGA is heading for a historic defeat in November. Can't come soon enough.
The very early point which sailed right by, was Trump's apparent belief that if he puts tarriffs on China, that this costs China. He still seem not to understand that the importer pays the tarriff, that it is a form of sales tax. It was the very first item in the debate, and it went right by.
Laura Loomer, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who flew with Trump to the 9/11 memorial yesterday, wrote on X that the “Biden-Harris regime imported over 20,000 cannibalistic Haitians who are now killing people’s pets and hunting domestic animals on the streets of Ohio.”
What I mean and criticize is how someone like Trump is even approved to be running for presidency. That people in democracies play far to loose with democracy and are generally totally oblivious about how to protect democracy from collapsing.
The US is not electing a representative of the people, they elect a king or queen, someone who can be totally incompetent and play into any demagogical scheme they want in order to gain power beyond the laws of the nation that any other citizen is obligated to follow.
Someone like Trump should, in a healthy democracy, be blocked from running as a representative, because people like him are clearly incompetent for the job.
In any other job that feature dangerous operation, you need a license, or be approved to work with said dangerous operation. But not presidents in the US; they can be any level of moron and idiot and use any methods to mislead and fool the population into voting for them. And the people of the nation can only shrug and be forced to go along with it.
With that combo, they really need to protect the childless cat ladies cats from the immigrant pet eaters! :scream:
I perfectly agree, and so, I’m sure, do millions of Americans. The whole saga has been so totally unlikely from the very beginning. In hindsight, the selection of Hillary Clinton was a disaster. I remember at the time, many of the US contributors on this forum were utterly scathing about her. I never had a strong sense of hostility toward her in particular, but I always thought the fact that she was part of a ruling dynasty and a representative of the Washington élite was a really bad idea. The FBI investigation didn’t help either. AND she won the popular vote. So Trump’s ascension was a fluke, in some ways, but I’m sure he’s never going to win another election.
The obese, 78-year old lunatic should enjoy himself. He’s most likely only running again to avoid court losses anyway— and since he has never had any principles, he can do it. Just drop out that make up a story, say it a thousand times, and his supporters will come up believe it’s true.
So which book was banned and burned by both Nazi Germany and the US? "They" do not want "you" to read this!
[hide="Reveal"]The Mass Psychology of Fascism[/hide]
That's cool, the way to fight fascism is through sexual freedom, and the pure unadulterated enjoyment of it, "harmonious channelling of libido and orgastic potency". Why would anyone ban something so pleasantly childish?
And thus, it shows that the problem isn't that morons can run for president, but that the guardrails of democracy are non-existent. The solution is not to fight the morons, but to evolve democracy and the ways of how governments works and function in democracies.
Finding a place in which the system itself guards against bad actors, while promoting competence and problem solving for the people that does not play into and promote people's inability to understand what an actual solution is.
This is a philosophical question I'm constantly thinking about. That society today is too quick to just summarize democracy as being the end point of how society is functioning.
It only takes minimal insight into psychology, sociology and media theory to summarize a conclusion that while democracy is the best of what we have, it is extremely flawed as it is used in society today, and a perfect tool for malicious actors to rule as a dictator under the guise of the people's freedom. Essentially giving people a Baudrillardian illusion of reality while living as a king, all while the people fight for things they have been fooled to believe is forth fighting for.
That's not irony - that's policy!
I was half joking, but not really surprised.
A healthy democracy would be dominated by a well-informed, rational electorate. There would be no need to block an incompetent, irrational, demagogue who disrespects the criminal justice system.
Sure, but MAGA folk don't do implication good. For instance, what does Trump traveling to the 9/11 memorial with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist imply? It appears to imply that he's literally onboard the plane with QAnonish alternative realities. I think he's onboard with such realities because, like a religious authority, it allows him to be the ultimate arbiter of truth. If he says that he won the debate, for example, then that is the truth. If he says that he won the election then that is the truth.
Great question and observation. This allows him to say something without using words while leaving him an out. Having an out is very important to him. He can just deny that he believes what she says, but why bring her?
We are getting footage confirming the carnage:
It is remarkable that the conservative landscape in America is so bereft of meaning that someone like Trump could be a modern day Mr. Bumble.
The burst into the dining room with all the food is Trumpier than Trump himself. Desperate hunger portrayed as barbarity.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-09-15-24/index.html
We’re reaching peak anti-Trumpism. The moral panic only escalates until the absurdity is realized or the threat is neutralized.
Dick Cheney has lost a lot of weight.
Let\s not be mean to Dick. He's already going to prison for life. :party:
Anyway, look forward to this being forgotten in 48 hours.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/15/republicans-react-apparent-assassination-attempt-trump-florida/
This may be a silly question but why is Trump the enemy of the establishment?
My ninety-year-old mother is still a better shot than the kid was in Pennsylvania. The Florida dude looks like he was angling for Bill Murray's role in Caddyshack. These efforts are a far cry from the work of 9/11 and 1/6.
Huh? Two thirds of Republicans in Washington support the “big lie,” and pretty much the rest kowtow to his every whim.
Isn’t everyone supposed to hate Kamala, btw?
European media exclusively reports negatively on Trump, and that's given me the impression everyone hates his guts. That's the main reason why I feel that he's running against the establishment. He doesn't have any influence in the media in Europe, whereas the US establishment certainly does.
I don’t get it. If the US establishment hates Trump and they control the media then wouldn’t all US news be fake news (news unflattering to Trump)?
You forgot to explain how there can be US news which flatters Trump if the establishment controls US News and hates him.
How about an argument that right-wing news isn’t controlled by the establishment.
Oil tycoons, corporations, and interest groups finance Trumps political campaign and lobby for policies favorable to their interests. We’ve just established that there’s influential US media that favors Trump. Trump has been involved in politics for at least 25 years, having first run for office in 2000. He was president for four years. How is he not part of the establishment? What did he do during his term in office that disrupted the establishment?
We also have decent investigative journalism with the Correspondent, Follow the Money, Nieuwsuur and Investico.
Springfield is close to where I am currently residing... many around here believe the immigrant invasion propaganda, regardless of what's happening. Get enough people saying the same thing and you'll end up with commonly held belief. Sad.
Yes the thought occurred that if a professional had been involved, DJT would have been long gone. But many of the usual suspects would rather see him prevail.
My sense is that we're talking past each other, but if you're interested in what I'm talking about here's a lecture by John Measheimer explaining in detail. Relevant timestamps are in the description.
Or if you're looking for something recent, here's a panel discussion with Jeffrey Sachs and Mearsheimer discussing American (geo)politics, the 'uniparty', 'the Blob', etc.
Trump dispenses with unity and blames Democrats after apparent second assassination attempt
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna171218
Not a day has gone by where Trump hasn’t been vilified, so this comes off as quite silly. What’s worse, he has been portrayed as some sorcerer capable of dividing the country, stoking tensions, “fanning political flames”, and increasing the threat of violence with his words and tweets. Meanwhile the entire media industrial complex, his opponents, including the Whitehouse, all of whom have far greater power and reach, are completely innocent.
It's a good tactic now that he's behind. Not so sure about the Taylor Swift thing as a strategy--although the media outrage concerning his dislike of a spoilt superstar while they happily support Biden's (albeit indirect) mass killing of citizens in Gaza does confirm yet again that the establishment is morally insane.
Yeah, tribalism is the moral equivalent of burning your eyes out with a hot poker and then insisting you drive a racecar.
As far as I can tell, Swift has supported worthwhile projects and given/donated substantially more to charities/goodwill than McClown; happy to be proven wrong.
I sure hope McClown's supporters are upfront with the kids of the US about who they're supporting, especially the Evangelicals and conservative Christians.
It's funny how in the upside-down world of 'Murica, that's meant to be an insult. Although, it is in a way. To any self-respecting Marxist.
This account says he has procured a sworn affidavit from an ABC whistleblower that they rigged the last debate, up to and including working with the Kamala campaign to taylor the event in her favor.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/docnetyoutube/status/1835358499548602666?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
I was pretty certain during the debate that it was rigged, but I don’t believe the affidavit. Although, it isn’t completely out of the ordinary for those wedded to the establishment to rig these sorts of things. Recall in 2016 when a CNN and DNC apparatchik gave Hillary Clinton the questions before a townhall. The J6 inquiry hired the president of ABC to turn their inquiry into mind-numbing propaganda. The DNC emails (which have gone missing from Wikileaks since Assange’s release) revealed the incestuous relationship between the DNC and the press.
Sounds cool. How did they force Trump make a fool of himself and talk about immigrants eating pets and stuff? Special drugs or?
Kamala is an empty suit. A power seeking zombie with zero principles except her own aggrandisement. There are so many ways to undermine her that these conspiracy theory hoaxes start to look like the work of the DNC to distract from anything that might actually be effective against her.
Actually, just seen elsewhere, I quote (verbatim):
So, McClown's lying has caught on.
Sure, my point was just that McAmerica as a whole is the real clown here because the whole thing demonstrates that almost nobody over there knows what the word even means.
Here's a suggestion for Kamala's detractors: rather than falsely pin her to an ideology that suggests she actually believes in something, point out the fact that she has no solid policies at all, that e.g. her website is a bunch of gobbledeygook, a Rorshach blot of cliches designed so that any vague bullshit can be read into it. She is horribly and fatally scared of committing herself to anything other than being Not Trump and her ultimate faith is in the stupidity of the opposition in not realizing and exploiting that, but rather focusing on easily rebutted insults that harm their sources more than her. She was laughing at the debate and she'll laugh her way right into the presidency if the dummies on the other side keep going the way their going.
The whole optics thing is quite funny, that she needs a smaller podium so she doesn’t appear nearly a foot shorter than her opponent. So they actually made her a smaller podium. And this appears to be true given the size of the video framing in which she did her cringy gesticulations. Man, political theater is so interesting.
I know you don’t catch any US political ads over there but they are at least hitting her on those angles in adverts. But the Trump campaign doesn’t have the reach the Harris campaign has, what with the media, the government, and Hollywood backing her, so I fear it is an uphill battle.
Good. She's just another Obama, a brand, though a less polished one. To say the very least, she doesn't deserve to waltz into the most powerful job on earth on the basis that she smiles a lot and isn't a big meanie like DJT.
Well, she’s been in the second-most powerful position for a few years now and has absolutely nothing to show for it. I’m banking on people realizing that.
We're not talking past each other, it just seems that for whatever reason you're refusing to argue how Trump is anti-establishment. Measheimer doesn't see him as anti-establishment.
Oh wait, did Trump say that he's anti-establishment and you believe him?
Quoting Literally the first minutes of the discussion
Alright. Done wasting my time on you. You're obviously here begging for some kind of argument in which you can paint me as a Trump lover. Go take a hike, you lazy child.
Why would I care if you’re a Trump lover, you can’t vote for him?
You forgot to include the part where Measheimer says “I bet against Trump” pushing back on the deep state.
You must understand that Trump makes all sorts of promises that he has no intention of fulfilling. If the establishment is all about pursuing regional hegemony why would Trump be opposed to that pursuit? We know that if there’s one thing he values it is power.
The level of dishonesty with you is off the charts.
Uh, what??? You just lied about what Mearsheimer said. Nowhere does he say that he believes Trump is running against the deep state. If you mean running as a candidate who promises to push back on the establishment then sure. That promise may have helped him get elected in 2016. Did he fail while in office or did he not actually try?
I see it as a device to reduce agency to a play of puppets. The puppet masters cannot be seen directly but they are responsible for all you do encounter. When someone seems to be speaking for themselves, they never are. Unless, of course, the speaker is one of the vanguards pointing this situation out.
Within this framework, there is no possibility of being corrected.
Because many Americans have no clue. They are capable of holding unshakable certainty about some things, despite the fact that they know nothing about them. The "common good" and "what's best for the overwhelming majority" can often offset the kneejerk emotional reaction to "socialism" and "socialist".
I actually watched their debate. My purpose was to find out if Trump was really crazy as the media portray. I did not find him crazy. What I found is someone who is willing to ask the hard questions. I didn't expect either one to have a complete vision of a government given the 90 minute format of the debate. That would be ridiculous. But, my god, Harris was scared to say anything with conviction. She loved teasing Trump. And she failed to answer the first question thrown at her by the moderators. Nothing in the way of conviction about reality. I would say it is cowardice.
Eating dogs and cats, and after birth abortion isn’t cray cray where you’re from?
We can only hope L'éléphant is not a voting-age US citizen. :mask:
You're one of 'them' aren't you!
"All is chaos under the heavens - times are excellent." - Mao
No, I think people can speak for themselves.
Quoting Paine
It must be me, then. Yikes!
Bob Dylan, Idiot Wind.
He does a lot of long-form interviews, podcasts, rallies, so one can get a fairly good judge at competence. Weasels can bring up one or two lines that they find nuts, and sometimes rightfully so, but when compared to the millions of other things he says their portrayal turns out to be false. Kamala does zero interviews.
I feel I am not in Kansas any longer. I thought we were talking about believers in the Deep State.
The millions of things are really a few things stuck on repeat. Never things describing a healthcare plan, for instance, or how he would end wars across the globe within 24 hours of assuming office, or how he would use the military to deport 11 million immigrants (including the legal cat munchers).
How do you know?
:rofl:
Stating that immigrants eat house pets as some form of large scale problem isn't something you would find defines him as crazy? Or in other terms, unfit for presidency? It's either that he's a total nutcase, or he's a blatant and obvious racist, or both. You think either is a good foundation for a presidency?
Good points.
I count the use of language that includes the use of the word 'vermin' to describe other people as an immediate disqualification. I would be fired in a heartbeat if I did that at work. What does it mean that it now gets treated as a rhetorical flourish?
It either means that racism is getting normalized, or that people have forgotten when we battled enemies in deadly combat to free ourselves from such depraved world views. Either way leads to either future; a place where racism is the norm, or a place in which respectful and good people don't dare to speak up against the racist norms.
To be harsh... maybe good hearted people need to understand that setting limits and hard lines on what's acceptable or not in society also requires there to be sufficient consequences for those who cross the line. Stop accepting all the racism. Fight back against it. Stop acting like it "will just go away on its own", because it won't. Racists can act more and more according to their ideology if there are less and less pushback from society. There's no wonder that someone like Trump gets into power with his obvious racism... no one cares. If people cared, there would be riots and demonstrations pushing the nation to the brink of collapse. But the US would end up in civil war long before society actually pushed back against these forces.
Generally, people are sleepwalking into dangerous territory and if shit hits the fan they'll just cry out "how did this happen!?" :shade:
:up: I'll check them out.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/business-book-award/books/2024/longlist/lucky-loser-by-russ-buettner-and-susanne-craig/ :clap: :mask:
A book based on facts cannot compete against a manufactured TV and magazine image developed over decades that gives him the appearance of being the embodiment of the self-made man having attained the pinnacle of the American Dream.
Having spent the last ten years in the midst of the 'cultural war' up close and personal, the freedom to lie is a component of the desire to disrupt a certain kind of conversation while establishing particular narrative as facts. The method combines the power of received ideas with fictional narratives. Maybe the best example is when Trump discounted the severity of covid. He asked his followers to discount evidence as he does. Whatever goals are entertained by the believers, it is the freedom to not be concerned with evidence that is most appealing. And yet the group keeps producing "evidence." They are immune from contradiction.
And further to which, FEMA workers are being threatened by MAGA conspiracy theorists who believe the guv'mint is 'controlling the weather', as per the idiotic Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Weird.
Edit: Sorry, wrong thread.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1845993766441644386?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Sexist too. What about black women?
Although if you read beyond the soundbite, it's "... to Black entrepreneurs and others who have historically faced barriers..."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/collinrugg/status/1846179930490724807?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
She doesn’t need to buy their votes.
"Protect cryptocurrency investments so that Black men who make them know their money is safe."
What does that actually mean? And how is that "creating opportunity" for Black men? If anything it sounds racist against Black men. Why is protecting cryptocurrency investments protecting Black men more unless you're saying they're more likely to fall for scams or whatnot?
It's just another soundbite. The slightly more in-depth account is:
So it's more like "I'll make cryptocurrency safer, black men use cryptocurrency, therefore I'll be helping black men."
To be fair it is typical American political pandering. Kamala headquarters noticed they are failing with that demographic, historically so, so their propaganda reflects it. Trump does it with women, the working class, etc.
Basically saying nothing again. "Cryptocurrency is good. But it might also be bad. We'll make it better in the most non-specific way possible. Now be on your way, pleb."
Yeah, agree.
Excellent attempt at reframing the odd into the normative. Your job is secure until it does not matter.
Your normative is teleprompters, celebrities, and slick marketing. Let’s hope it goes the way of the dodo bird.
Of course, in all of this, he is describing his own actions, but projected on to The Other, blatantly obvious to anyone not inside the Bubble.
I'd say that's quite the feat. The envy is showing.
Responding to a question from an undecided voter, Trump called January 6th a 'day of love'.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1g6kb8n/trump_judge_releases_1889_pages_of_additional/
Trump judge releases 1,889 pages of additional election interference evidence against the former president
It includes various plans for Pence to help them change the election results.
It also includes evidence that Trump called AZ officials and asked them explicitly to decertify the electoral college vote
Trump and his team are truly despicable. It's not an exaggeration to say they're a threat to democracy.
Corruption can be fought by enough engagement and pushback by the people. But it seems the people don't care enough either about the corruption or Trump's actions.
Where's the push back? Where's the demands? The outrage? The damn revolution?
Maybe the nation need to update the constitution to incorporate all the improvements into democracy and government that has occurred since the last 240 years in favor of protecting democracy and the competence of the government?
There are ways to do this... but the people... don't... care.
I will never criticize the people in power more than the people letting themselves be governed by such people. It's the people's responsibility to take care of a democracy for the people. Just relaxing and being lazy towards caring for it will roll out the carpet for bad actors to corrupt it over time.
And there will always be bad actors, outliers that are absolutely power hungry and unfit to be in power. So it is the responsibility of the people to organize and make sure those outliers never seize power and to do it in time before it's too late, as well as install regulations and laws that prevent the abuse of power by a small entity.
If there's any fundamental part of civilization that protect the people from abusers of power, it is the people themselves caring for that power to be handled with care.
If someone has the ability to seize such power as to absolutely put society under their boot, there had to be a long series of events that placed them in that situation. Events populated with unthinking, uninterested and complacent people rolling out the carpet for them until it's too late.
There should be at least 100 million people marching for a change of the system, against corruption and to change the system to a better one. But there isn't and won't be, until someone in power, abuses that power too far.
Donald Trump Allegedly Craved His Favorite Soda Amid Capitol Riot
Make America Sane Again. We can do that nowadays, you know - we have these really smart nano-bots we can inject you all with and control what you think through G5. You'll all become so smart you'll think just like me. And you won't have to vote because the government will already know what you think.
I just saw this sign on a video:
"Orange is for pumpkins, not presidents."
Thus saith the Lord.
Nero fiddled.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not 'the most damning thing'. It is the most trivial and non-incriminating thing. The only kind of thing you will allow yourself to see.
Meanwhile 'On Thursday Trump turned more than a few heads by effectively blaming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for Russia’s invasion. Trump said Zelensky “should never have let that war start.”' More here.
One candidate’s administration is going after their political opponent with the DOJ and abusing the law in order to influence an election. That’s anti-democratic.
As far as I can tell, the candidate's administration has very little to do with what's going on. And if someone did something illegal, the fact that they're running for election shouldn't stop them from getting a court case about it, should it? "in order to influence an election" this makes it sound like you think that because he's a candidate in an election, they should just let him get away with it. He did evil shit, I'm glad to see him being taken to court over it. I'd be gladder to see him in prison but that can wait.
I know for a fact that if biden did half the shit trump did, eg calling governors telling them to find votes, organizing fake elector schemes, jan 6 etc, you would be a lot less tolerant of it.
He contested an election, wanted the governor to find illegal votes, led a protest. If Biden or Kamala did that he’d be a hero.
I doubt that if she asked a governor to find illegal voting and contested an election you would call it evil.
Now, you keep saying "find illegal voting" and that's not my understanding of what he said, nor is it the understanding of just about anybody else.
The words he said were, "I just want to find 11,780 votes". I mean, if you're saying trump asked him to find votes for trump, illegally, then yeah -but I don't think that's what you're saying. Trump then also tried to intimidated him into doing trumps bidding during the call, saying that if he didn't find those votes it would be criminal.
So if Kamala Harris calls up governors saying those words, "find me
And imagine they succeed where trump failed. Imagine they lose in 2024, and they somehow manage to succeed in some of the strategies trump employed. They call governors asking them to find votes, they get Congress to not certify the electoral college, and in so doing Kamala takes the presidency. In this bizarro world, you'd feel like nothing untoward happened, correct?
That's because you haven't read the transcript of that call. That's the going rate, and you're in good company, but it's wrong. It's been misconstrued that he is pressuring the governor to magically come up with votes, not that he wants to find the illegal votes he's been speaking about the whole call.
There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud or illegal voting in the 2020 election. Judges dismissed claims of illegal voting and improper vote counting across multiple states. As president, "dumb shit's" direct intervention with a state election official goes against the separation of powers and simply is abuse of executive authority to try to influence election outcomes. Elections are primarily managed by states, and federal officials, including the president, should respect state sovereignty in conducting and certifying elections. And this is really obvious; simply the conflict of interest here should've barred Dumpf from calling in the first place.
Pursuing unsubstantiated claims of illegal votes after courts had rejected such allegations undermines public confidence in the electoral process as do his claims of fraud and incompetence. Given such context, Trump was indeed pressuring Raffensberger to "find" votes or overturn results, especially after courts had ruled on the matter and that he shouldn't be calling him in the first place. The fact he personally did, was because he expected Raffensberger to agree to his bullshit despite the court rulings.
Like maybe if he didn't specify who the votes were for, and didn't specify any quantity of votes, and just said something like "there were a lot of illegal votes in Georgia, I think you guys should put some more effort into identifying those illegal votes and throwing them out", that might make some sense. But to specifically find illegal votes for his opponent, and specifically the number that would make him win... He's asking the governor to make him win. It's mind boggling to me that that's acceptable to anybody.
So I ask again, if Kamala Harris does the same thing this year, you're cool with that? She calls up the governor of somewhere and says "find me the right amount of votes to make me win", you've got no problems with that?
As I've discussed before, the mere fact that he stated the number of votes he needed is not relevant. What IS relevant is that he was pressuring the state officials to change the result using lies (here's a list of lies he told on the call).
"It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election," he said following his November 2020 defeat, according to a witness who overheard the remark. "You still have to fight like hell." (as noted in Smith's filing).
“The details don’t matter,” Trump said, when told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn’t be able to prove the false allegations in court, the filing states.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/21/trump-voting-north-carolina-helene/
Election fraud! :lol:
Oh, there's that infamous phrase from the Jan 6 speech, "fight like hell". @NOS4A2 likes to interpret that phrase as being in the context of campaigning for an election, "a hard fought campaign". Now we see the intended context very clearly, to fight after the election, to subvert the legal outcome. Of course, that was already obvious to anyone but NOS, because the Jan 6 statement was nearly two months after the election.
That’s false. He explicitly asked them to investigate illegal voting. You keep repeating the one phrase his enemies do, but leave out the rest of the call. The elector scheme wasn’t to “overturn the election”, but to force a recount. You have problems with recounts? You don’t like to investigate illegal voting? Fine, but lying about it turns people away from your cause. One of these days your comrades are going to say “I’m tired of being lied to”.
You guys tried to play it off as calling for violence. Once proven a stupid idea you pivot to something equally as ridiculous.
Be specific: what exactly did I say that was false?
I have not repeated the "one phrase". In fact, I a knowledged the irrelevance of that one phrase.
You claim Trump "asked them to investigate illegal voting". Provide a quote of Trump's where he explicitly asks for this.
It is an unequivocal fact that Trump was asserting he won the state, and was repeating allegations that had been investigated and debunked directly to him. This includes the allegations against Dominion and the "ballots pulled from under the table" at State Farm Arena.
Shouldn't one's vote depend on which comedian gives you your best money's worth?
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1g9u07a/heres_what_was_in_the_evidence_document_trump/
I'm not sure how much of that community is actual legal experts (it would be naive to think they're all legal experts, but I think overly cynical to think there aren't a hell of a lot there), but there seems to be a consensus there that he did try to overturn the election results (rather than just the soft-ball wording of NOS4 that he was merely contesting the results), and that his actions throughout this ordeal were illegal.
Raffensberger certainly believed he was being pressured, and even hired a lawyer because he feared Trump would push a wrongful prosecution against him (source).
There are two kinds of judgements that can be considered:
1) the threshold for a criminal prosecution
I'm not sure, but NOS4A2 may be trying to argue that there's reasonable doubt about whether Trump's intent was to pressure Georgia officials. The prosecution will have the burden to prove this. I think they CAN, but that will be decided in a courtroom. I also think this is moot at this point. This will only go to trial if Trump loses the election.
2) the reasoned judgement of an objective voter
I suggest that a voter can, and should, judge this for himself. I don't think NOS4A2 can make a case that it's MORE likely Trump was merely encouraging an investigation rather than actually applying pressure. I'm aware of no exculpatory evidence - and there's an abundance of evidence that Trump had been disabused of the notions that any of the fraud claims were valid. So IMO, the most benign interpretation is that Trump is exceedingly stupid or pathologically incapable of accepting a reality he does not like. No reasonable person should vote for someone who is either exceedingly stupid or incapable of accepting reality - much less if he actually broke the law.
the Guardian – 23 Oct 24Donald Trump groped me in what felt like a ‘twisted game’ with Jeffrey... 1
Stacey Williams says the ex-president, whose spokesperson denied the allegations, touched her in an unwanted sexual way in 1993, after Epstein introduced them
Epstein led this model to Trump, and upon meeting her, Trump started groping her and feeling her up.
Now in any other world, a woman says this about a guy running for president and I have some reasonable doubt. Maybe she’s in it for fame, maybe she’s been paid off by the opposite party to lie - things like that are conceivable.
But we’re talking about trump here. Mr grab them by the pussy himself. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
And of course his own words make this weird relationship with Epstein credible too:
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine that year for a story headlined “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery.” “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
There’s no reason to take any future denial from Trump seriously, he’s already told us he’s the kind of guy to do stuff like this.
And let’s not forget Trump has already been found to be a rapist in court. Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal
So Trump would like some nazi generals. They did have pretty stylish uniforms. It's not like Trump has any use for unquestioning loyalists who would follow his orders even if it leads to catastrophe, right?
Though honestly I kinda doubt Trump even knows enough about the nazi generals to appreciate their warped sense of military duty. He's probably thinking more on the level of "they did win a lot and winning good".
It could all work out in everyone’s favor, though, because the media only discredits itself further. No matter the results of this election a bright side to all of this might be their total collapse as an institution.
By they I assume you mean Soros funded radical left transgender cannibals.
According to Kelly, Trump did not believe him when he pointed out that some of Hitler's generals tried to kill him. I am sure you are right about the image of success.
Trump's real problem is that the Constitution limits the role of the military in our society.
Elite Hollywood pedophiles, to be precise.
This caught my attention. Please educate me on this - which Hollywood elites are pedophiles, and how do you know they are?
This will be an opportunity for you to explain how you learn what is going on in the world (at least this one allegation), given the fact that you distrust the mainstream media.
It was a joke.
The 'moral panic' language can be found on Fox, Washington Times, Breitbart, and Red State.
The sources for the 1/6 action at the Capitol being engineered by the deep state is less available. Like his master, Nos for a two cannot be fact checked.
That’s a lie. Remember when you repeated the “very fine people” hoax? You’re just projecting, and angry, a bad combo.
Election interference, anyone?
Lol, what a shit show. :rofl:
Accused Iranian hackers successfully peddle stolen Trump emails
The funny thing about this is that anyone ever believed the Washington Post's lies about itself. It was a business, is a business, and will continue to be a business, nothing more. Bezos is just saying out loud (through his actions) what anyone with any sense should have known all along. The hysteria is comical and delusional.
Despite the fact that most of what he's saying is utter bullshit, I can see him coming across as sincere and likeable. If I just remove the words and their meanings, I could like the guy too. Better than Kamala whose personality problem is that she has none. Trump just seems human, unpolitical, and like Joe, many Americans are laughably helpless at unravelling his B.S. and that then is enough. It's looking worse for Kamala every day, but surely the establishment has a few tricks left up its sleeve?
Of course it is a business. They serve their market just as the Washington Times serves theirs. If it was a matter of only the marketplace, the paper would not suffer for declining to endorse. If we are to believe the narrative, Bezos does not want to be on the enemy list if Trump wins. That too, can be a financial decision but a different calculation than maximizing profit.
True.
Your take of his persona is odd for me to hear.
I have been working in construction for almost 40 years in NYC. He has long been the client you do not want to have. He makes deals to burn them. I worked for outfits that made similar deals with similar people. I never got paid fully from them. Pour Champaigne on me twice, shame on me.
The other factor is the pull that Trump has even despite his obvious malfeasance and incompetence. Any sane judge of character would immediately grasp Trump’s unfitness for office. But he’s succeeded in convincing a very large number of people that the facts don’t matter, or alternatively, that they’re not facts, and that he’s the sole purveyor of facts. And that is definitely evil, although he has many willing co-conspirators in the dissemination of that evil.
Both sides are scared of upsetting the Jewish lobby, or want them onside.
Isreal is a running sore, which previous administrations have tried and fail to cauterise. This isn’t so much evil as the result of repeated political failure.
The entire US political system kowtowing to a lobby of genocidal lunatics - 'an unfortunate state of affairs'.
But Orange Doofus saying words we don't like, or Elon Musk making money (what was his crime again?) - oh, now that's evil!
They're not even in the same ballpark son. Anyone who is unable to see that must have a very thin grasp on reality indeed.
And if Biden were to halt arms shipments to Israel today. What would happen?
Or what do they fear would happen?
Evil is something that goes on in a person’s head, which is acted out. If someone failed to broker a peace deal a few decades ago, which was partly responsible for the situation as we see it in Israel. How can that be an evil person, when it had disastrous results, further down the line?
It's about using the word 'evil' to describe a person whose crimes do not extend much further than being an idiot and the fact that he shouldn't be running for president, while ignoring the actual evil that is being perpetrated by the US government as we speak.
Apparently, paying hush money to a pornstar is the epitome of evil while aiding and abetting genocidal maniacs is simply 'an unfortunate state of affairs' for which no one seems to bear responsibility.
That says more about us than it does about him honestly. Fact is, even if Trump loses (an apparent coin flip at this point) it'll only be a matter of time before the next lunatic comes in that people will find reasons to support. It's happened before in Germany, it's happening now, and it will happen in the future.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. Condemn the sin, and not the sinner.
Quoting Mr Bee
Yes. This is the hard lesson to learn; that it is plainly arguable where the most evil lies in American politics. Plainly, because people are arguing it here on this page in seeming good faith.
If politics is characterised as an equal battle between good and evil, then necessarily, evil will triumph, because the good have scruples and the evil have none. Or else there is no difference and the analysis fails altogether.
When the opposition has to be called evil, it is the failure of the good to maintain their own standards that has allowed it to happen. If there is a party of the good and a party of the evil, there is no question who to vote for; it is when one cannot tell them apart that evil can triumph.
Trump’s enemies have set the blueprint. The crying wolf and the hoaxes are one thing, but Trump’s enemies have also used the state to go after him. Now we have a discredited media, a two-tiered justice system, a political intelligence community, and a swath of activists ready to head the call. The lunatics are already here.
And Trump has stated that all these people will be sent to jail.
Basically, he is now waging war with the American state and if he were to win, he will be taking his revenge.
Who should be in jail, the whole US state, or Trump?
What does that mean?
They politicized the justice system. Biden’s DOJ went after him. Attorney Generals campaigned on going after him and they cooked up frivolous cases. They locked up at least two of his advisors.
Isn't that just a matter of law enforcement going after the law breakers? Getting "the state to go after him", seems like nothing other than pointing out to the law, where the law may have been broken. Isn't that basically what Trump did with Clinton?
It would be but Biden possessed stolen documents for decades and nothing happened. If you watch the appeals to the New York civil case the appeals judges noted it was the first time this has ever happened, and it’s not looking good for the prosecution. Bragg’s case was a completely novel legal theory, with a judge whose daughter works for the Biden/Harris campaign. And they’re on record campaigning to get Trump. So where is the outrage?
How is that relevant?
I take a less apocalyptic view. I survived Covid when Trump was talking about quack cures and the power of bleach. One has to only listen to him speak for ten minutes now to learn that he is less than the ignorant person he was back then.
So, it would really suck if he were elected. It is the people around him who would use that for their advantage that is the more present danger. He is the El Cid riding the horse into battle after passing away.
I don't want to make light of the peril of another Trump administration. I am only saying that the most dangerous parts go well beyond a particular person and their intentions.
Trump's efforts to steal the election, and his obstruction of justice (and other aggravating issues) in his classified documents case, were hardly frivolous. When a public figure blatantly breaks the law in plain sight, I see nothing wrong with campaigning on prosecuting the crimes. I'll also point out there's no evidence Biden had any involvement in investigations of Trump, by contrast - during his Presidency, Trump tried to push the DOJ into going after people.
If a Trump DOJ goes after Democrats, I'd be fine if it was based on investigating crimes. However, Trump (and many GOP pundits) propose investigating PEOPLE to look for crimes - and that's indisputably improper.
It might be, but it could take a long time to re-appear. Whereas if Trump looses he's not going to run again and many of those who backed him will at least loose momentum.
Whereas, if Trump wins, he has apprentices in his slipstream who have been preparing to exploit the moment. Particularly Vance:
[quote=Jennifer Rubin, WaPo;https://wapo.st/3YmgbuI]Mainstream news outlets now feature stories about felon and former president Donald Trump’s “strikingly erratic, coarse and often confusing” rambling speeches, “cognitive decline,” and bizarre behavior. This evidence of mental breakdown, coupled with his event cancellations due to reports of “exhaustion” (reports his campaign has denied), give voters every reason to think that Trump could not complete a second term or would be “out of it.” Either way, his vice-presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the most disliked man ever to run for vice president, would be running the show.
In essence, the most unqualified man ever to run for vice president — without a lick of executive public experience, just two years in the Senate, author of not a single piece of significant legislation, lacking any experience with foreign leaders — would be promoted. We would have a real life encounter with Peter’s Principle in the most important job on the planet. And considering the opposition from most of the “adults” from the first term, he might be relying on likely Trump Cabinet officials and advisers such as Kash Patel, Stephen K. Bannon, Richard Grenell, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Vance is far more ideological than Trump, who blows with the wind on everything from a national abortion ban to Social Security. And Vance is every bit as enmeshed in the fever world of conspiracies — from the antisemitic obsession with George Soros as the mastermind behind Democratic causes to the “great replacement theory” to election denial — with ties to other conspiratorialists. He is a better spoken, more erudite conspiracy monger.
Moreover, few doubt that Vance, who has extensive ties to Project 2025, would likely be raring to implement the wholesale remaking of the federal government. If Trump might be distracted or convinced the plan would make him unpopular, an ideologue such as like Vance might well be more committed to implementing its crackpot ideas, such as politicizing the Federal Reserve, replacing 50,000 civil service experts with MAGA loyalists, conducting a mass roundup and expulsion of undocumented immigrants, abolition of the Education Department, and shredding the prohibition on establishment of religion.[/quote]
Vance is a protogé of Peter Theil, who says that democracy and freedom are incompatible. Trump has said he'll put Elon Musk in charge of Federal spending.
Make no mistake: Democracy is on the ballot. This is not Democratic Party hyperbole. If Trump were not to loose, the USA will be managed by rich oligarchs.
Not really, since the US hasn't been a democracy for quite some time. You have to travel to Europe for that; although even there it is in decline in many countries.
US democracy has been eroding for a long time now. But the people don't really care until the sledgehammer of reality hits them in the face.
Autocrats gonna autocrat, lobbyists will lobby, billionaires gonna billionaire.
The problem is always boiling down to the people ignoring society eroding into a worse state. I'm sick and tired of constantly hearing about the "bad politicians", the corruption and corporate affairs. Because the people are actually the ones to blame. Democracy requires the people to take care of it, to nurture it and heal it when it's down. A population who just ignore that, who don't care to educate themselves, who let themselves be shuffled around like stupid sheep and do deeds ordered by whoever's in power, regardless of how despicable the act is... deserves the broken society that eventually ends up on their door step.
If democrats are so sure that Trump and modern republicans have been infiltrated by fascists and that democracy is threatened, that the constitution is threatened. Then what exactly are they doing about it?
Democracy cannot win against brainwashing despots. People are less rational than they think and will be herded by those who knows how to manipulate.
Democracy cannot win against the manipulators, because it relies on honesty and truth, which is easy to get rid of with the right technology and rhetoric.
I've said this before, the US does not have any protection for its democracy. It's been a patchwork of convoluted bureaucracy for so long that no one knows how to install protections from despots and corruption.
Even when someone like Trump do things that in any other previous political era would lead to almost political and societal ostracism, it just makes him stronger. And the system just ends up unable to get rid of him for the sake of keeping democracy healthy and away from demagogical actors.
The US democracy needs to get away from this celebrity politics. It needs to focus on competence over personality. That the majority of the US population is so focused on the personality traits of a president should be all the warning signs that's needed to conclude that the US isn't a real democracy, it's a damn television show. It's reality TV, not politics.
And people in the world actually dies because of it. By the actions of presidents who are unfit. By actions that are obscured by this focus on personality over policy.
I'm starting to believe that what the US need, what the population really needs... is a sledge hammer to the face. A total collapse of the nation in which the true horrors of not caring for the health of democracy comes into view. Where the people crash right into that reality.
Because when a system is so broken that it cannot protect against potential despots, all it can do is collapse.
A broken building that is held up by pins where people just move the pins around to wherever the house starts to lean towards. It doesn't matter how many new pins are introduced, it will eventually collapse if the structure isn't replaced and improved.
Trump is an opportunist, and the opportunity he takes advantage of is the disconnect between detailed policy and political rhetoric. Candidates can't win an election by presenting detailed policies; they need to dumb it down into slogans and soundbites. So the vast majority makes their decision on these soundbites, not by carefully examining the pros/cons of competing detailed policy positions. In many cases with Trump, he just has the soundbites that appeal to many - with little or no details.
If Trump is elected, I expect he will endeavor to do everything he promises. And there will be both positive and negative consequences. This will be a learning opportunity for the American public.
I agree in practice or course, but what we're seeing right now is a convoluted system that cannot heal itself. It doesn't matter if you introduce, in lack of a better term, "better people" into this system, the bad actor can take advantage of the problems in the system to take control of the system.
The protective measures that are meant to safeguard the system from hostile takeover do not work, otherwise we would have seen Trump be blocked from running for presidency. There's enough evidence that he is unsuited for the job and the protection he gets are corrupted to the point of protection being more present for him than for the system itself.
One single person in politics should never be more protected than the system of democracy. The idea behind democracy is power from the people, but if the system represents that lineage of power and one single individual gets more protection than the system, democracy is fundamentally dead.
So, education does not matter anymore as the bad actor would always be able to manipulate past it. And if the risk is that all it takes is one bad actor to take power in order to change the system further in his/her personal favor, then education is too slow to function against such events.
Quoting Relativist
But there are plenty of functioning democracies in the world in which a single bad actor cannot screw up the nation regardless of manipulation.
On top of that, this is what does not work about democracy when it's centered around personality. The way to improve democracy is to move away from making it about personality traits. That's not democracy in my opinion, but a demagogy.
A form of state that does not represent the people or that have manipulated the people before hearing their will.
What good is a democracy if you have programmed the people into a certain opinion? It's as easy as any other form of marketing. There's a reason why marketing agencies pour money into commercials for products, because it actually works. And since it works, why not use the same methods, why not create a whole landscape simulacra that produces a consensus ideal about what a nation is and then use that as the foundation to steer the population into a the political corner that benefits your political ideas in order for them to vote for you.
Most democracies function by these principles, and so it's important to know this in order to install as many guardrails as possible to mitigate it. This is what the most healthy democracies in the world have done, and what the US entirely lacks. But it's also a fundamental problem with the concept of democracy.
In essence, how can a democracy be about actual choice when the illusion of choice is the preferable method of strategy for the people in power? In the worst case, it just becomes another form of autocracy, plutocracy or feudalism within an illusion of a free and democratic society.
Quoting Relativist
The same thing was being thrown around in 2016 and then again during Jan 6th. But the population does not learn, they do not care and they keep being shuffled around like the sheep they are. Until people prove to be better and more thoughtful than easily manipulated zombies, they will be easily manipulated zombies and they will never see a learning opportunity even if it slammed a sledge hammer in their face.
The system is so fundamentally broken that it needs to collapse so that all can examine the individual pieces, throw away the bad and rebuild with the working parts. It's too much of a patch work at the moment, it needs a reset and a new better protected democratic system needs to be built by philosophers and thinkers who knows the shit, not emotional narcissistic clowns and uneducated and manipulated sheep.
If our society collapsed, I doubt the population would be any better at examining and judging the individual pieces than they are at choosing leaders today. I'd expect that the situation would be more likely than ever to search for simple solutions to the complex problems.
Quoting Relativist
:up: :up:
In the meantime, I am calling it for the democrats in a not quite landslide, based on early voting and anecdotal evidence of registered republicans voting democrat.
There is much anti-American sentiment, on the streets and on this forum. I don't buy that 'it's all f***ed anyway, no point in either party, they're all equally bad.' The anti-democratic forces feed on that sentiment.
Quoting Christoffer
They're fighting like hell. They're trying desperately to do everything possible to prevent it.
Quoting Christoffer
Which is why I said in an earlier post that I think he really is actually evil. He's become like a window through which a great number of social evils are manifesting. I don't know if you heard the racist crap that was being spouted at his NY convention the other night, but he's creating a permission structure, an 'Overton window', to enable millions of people to indulge in their darkest instincts. One of the contributors on the old forum said it best: Trump is the manifestation of the American Id.
It's very clear: this election is hope vs hate.
Let's hope.
Post WWII the world pretty much gathered around trying to figure out a better way forward. While it can be argued to death what worked and what didn't, there were good things that came out of having a true philosophical debate out of the rubble of the war. It spawned such an extreme introspection into how things could turn so bad that much of the progress we've seen since that can be attributed to this absolute horror lurking in the back of everyone's mind.
Facing actually bad consequences for mishandling democracy is a wake up call to the sleepwalkers who just shrug at warning signs. People slowly become desensitized to it all and that's a wide open door for fascism to take hold.
The irony is that the very point people have tried to make out of WWII is to be vigil in the face of fascism, but we're collectively eroding away our ability to spot it.
And the usual counter argument to this is that, "oh what happens if a Trump win doesn't lead to actual fascism?". But there's no reason whatsoever to balance on that knives edge. There's no reason to allow society to even come close to the notion of that becoming true. It's the publics mission to force society towards a better future for all, because that's essentially what history has been moving towards for thousands of years.
Over the course of history we've seen the rise of absolute terrors, but there's little spoken about the time after such horrors. How society discourse aimed to change for it to not happen again. And while this could be a cycle over and over, if we look at the holistic history as a whole, eventually it has started to form a bettering of society. But it all requires people to recognize the bad and work for the better.
When people stop being able to differentiate we either get lucky or things collapse to form a new cycle of building a better place.
The US collapsing will not become some Mad Max scenario. I would say that it doesn't even have to be something like the Civil War movie; it could be a total collapse of how politics are run, leading to millions marching for change, to unrest and justice being demanded. But through that turmoil, the bad actors will show their faces and the people who once sleepwalked through it all would finally take up the responsibility and be part of trying to fix things.
History repeats itself for a reason, in the right circumstances, and the right amount of work, a cycle can be avoided.
So far, I see none of that behavior, all I see is apathy and good people ignoring what's necessary to change the status quo. And no, the "necessary" is not some call to violence, it's a call to restructure the politics, update the constitution to reflect the modern world and 200 years of progress in moral philosophy and separate church and state for real. Leave behind the manifest destiny cult behavior and form an actual parliament with better representative democracy. There's enough template examples in the world to build from.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't either, but when there's only one functioning party and candidate to choose from, it's important to ask the question if there's actually a democracy left? Why not ditch the bipartisan way in favor of an actual parliament in which there are actual representatives for the people? With the republicans having transformed themselves into an actual cult, where's the possibility for democracy?
It's either go with democrats or risk fascism at the hands of a cult.
Quoting Wayfarer
Why is it even possible in the first place? There's no guardrails whatsoever to guard against the corruption and incompetence of Trump and his kin. There's no actual separation of power, there's no actual separated entities that can evaluate and block such risks. When Trump goes on a lying rampage, when his followers and senators say things that are actual fascist statements, they should be removed from power. This is the very point of protecting democracy.
If you tolerate the intolerable, the tolerating society will erode.
How is it so hard to draw the line? Are people so morally illiterate to not be able to judge if Trump is suitable as a presidential candidate or not?
People are so bad at understanding how to balance free speech in a free society, with protecting that society from bad actors.
You cannot fight against a manipulator, you cannot fight against someone who turns truth into whatever he waves it to be... it's the damn lesson learned from WWII that should have been in the back of everyone's head. Regardless of the consequences of a Trump win, it's this manipulation of truth that shouldn't happen in the first place. Such people should be blocked from political careers. It's not silencing them, they can spew whatever hate and bullshit they want, but they can't be given the keys to the nation if they're actively eroding truth and law to a point where democracy implodes.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't want to hope, I want democracy to have fail safes against that which can destroy democracy so that this dichotomy does not happen. The people, the majority of people, are unfortunately too uneducated or too stupid to realize the importance of keeping democracy healthy... every day. People just view democracy as one time election and then they don't care about it until the next one four years later.
Society shouldn't end up in a position like this, it speaks to a fundamental problem with how politics are handled.
Stop just voting for hope and start working for a better system. It doesn't matter if hope wins this time if society erodes even further into the next election.
At a certain point in the future, if the system isn't fixed into a more healthy state, there will be someone who takes things too far.
Part of the Civil War movie warns about this. It's not a warning of what happens if Trump wins or trying to paint some picture of Trump like that, but it's a warning about what eventually happens if this erosion of truth and a stable democracy tips over the knives edge.
The polarisation in the US is on part with how it was before the civil war. Having hope the next four years will not fix things, it will just postpone the eventual further until the people actually wakes up and start a movement to improve the fundamental political system and remove corruption and bad actors from its halls.
If you mean, why is it possible that Donald Trump has come to dominate American politics, f***ed if I know. It makes zero sense.
A free nation will always have bad actors popping up, fractions of society trying to install some fascist ideologies etc.
But enabling such a person to reach so high as into presidency in a nation in which the leader has almost an autocratic power; speaks to a systemic problem of how politics are handled.
Looking at the whole system, looking at the lack of actual guardrails... I think it makes a lot of sense.
The problem isn't Trump, it's a badly patched system that enables Trump to happen. The freedom of a nation does not get lost by guarding against such people, it protects it.
I don't agree with that. Trump is someone who is an absolute expert at exploiting democratic systems and also financial systems for his own advantage. If there is a fault, it's that a satisfactory anti-Trump hasn't emerged - someone who is also charismatic, bombastic, and telegenic, but who has at least a core of common decency which has long died inside DJT.
Anyway, it ain't over. I think I'll hold fire until one week from today, when the outcome might be apparent.
Like I said, it's Hope versus Hate.
Let's hope.
You can't find someone who's both equipped to do what's necessary to fix problems in a nation (which most often than not angers people affected negatively when installing changes) and one who fundamentally ignites a cult like behavior in gullible people.
Most people are easily tricked, easily manipulated. A decent person who is charismatic will always have to balance their personality with what's necessary for the good of the nation; but a manipulator can always have their cult followers stay, regardless of behavior. They are essentially protected by the delusions while the "good" person is always scrutinized.
All of this is part of the systemic problem, since one of the pillars of this problem is the fanatical focus the US population has on personality of the president over the competence as a leader.
Trump is a symptom, not the cause. And there will be more symptoms in the future.
But on top of that, when a bipartisan system becomes only one valid choice, that in itself is not a good sign for the future either.
Why are the US public so obtuse about improving the political system? This is part of the fanatical belief the US being the best nation in the world. Forming a delusion that because of that, it also has the best political system. And then pouring all personal voting effort into something that essentially functions like a sham democracy seen as there's little to no choice to be represented.
Remove the presidential power as it is now, install a proper representative democracy with a parliament that includes more parties and reduce the extreme lobbying culture, especially criminalization of lobbying money, seen as it can easily be corrupted into a form bribery, giving more people to the rich than to the people.
There are so many ways to improve a political system, but all I can see is a patchwork trying to calm everyone into a bureaucratic system that obscures the cogs.
We're seeing the exact same thing happen in my home country, however we aren't as melodramatic about it.
It's that people absolutely despise the Bluegeoisie and the destruction they've wrought on society.
They destroy livelihoods and lives, destroy bonds between family and friends, destroy any and every institution they govern.
They're tone policing, cry-bullying, joy-killing, emotionally incontinent hacks, whose attempts at imposing their "Progressive" theocracy onto the rest of us has created a society in which we're more lonely, loveless, depressed and stupid than ever, and in which our youth are more lost and hopeless than ever.
All this, while maintaining 100% confidence in their intellectual and moral supremacy over everyone else.
The support for Trump extends far beyond the man himself—it's that people want to see a peevish, arrogant, and nakedly contemptuous pseudo-aristocracy punished for its abuses, and re-electing the Orange Man is clearly THE most effective way to do it.
Except the driving forces underneath is far more spread out than just Trump. And the inability to guard against these people being granted so much power risks destabilizing the entire system. Populists in other nations, like here in Sweden, are part of a parliament structure in which if they took things too far it would just prompt previously unheard of collaborations between parties in order to just snuff out their stupid ideas. It's close to impossible to push their populist ideas into reality because the parliament actually represents the democratic voice of the people. Enough people stand up against their bullshit and so enough politicians do so as well.
But in the US there's an undercurrent of white supremacy Christian fundamentalism that is infecting the halls of power more and more over time. And the people and other political figures are becoming more and more desensitized to it, slowly moving pushing the limits of what's tolerated in politics.
This is why I say that Trump is just a symptom; he's become a front figure and "mascot" of the movement. But surrounding him, supporting him and working their way into more power, are the evangelical fundamentalists together with pure capitalists, who take advantage of the uneducated masses to a point it's forming an actual cult. It's not voters anymore that are just voting within political ideas, it's a fundamentalist cult brewing underneath the capitol.
It's the kind of thing that is a joke... until it isn't.
And this is their false narrative, perpetuated by pseudo-intellectuals online. It's primarily just white men who're angry that their patriarchal power has been diminished, so they construct this conspiracy narrative that all this progress is some intentional plan by some organized "enemy" on the left.
No, it's society slowly adjusting to rid itself of past injustices and some people who were favored by the old ways can't cope with this modern life. So they lash out in any direction that resembles a representation of this societal progress, slowly turning themselves into white supremacist, racist, transphobic, homophobic extremists who cluster around evangelist influencers, techno-kings and tech bros who look like them and think like them.
It's the same making of extreme ideologies as in any other time in history. Take the part of the population that are angry and showing resentment about progress and be the beacon of hope for them and using their anger to radicalize them into a cult following. With enough of them it is possible to take control and some of them will follow you into death.
This plague of Curtis Yarvin's (see above) and similar people's ideas are pure extremist ideologies. And not recognizing it and how it affects US politics is dangerous.
That's the Bannon message in a nutshell. The joke will be on those people when their fortunes decline further through the expansion of monied interests at their expense. I wonder if the pain inflicted upon some of their neighbors will be a sufficient return on their investment.
The Libertarians of past generations have given way to billionaires swapping spit with a group who promises authoritative solutions to political problems. As Carlson said at a recent rally, Daddy is coming home to spank the bad little girl.
I thought you were describing trump. Woops.
It always amuses me that the person these people chose to save them from the aristocrats is a perfect example of a spoiled child aristocrat.
You find it difficult to answer this question? If so, you're not paying attention. Hint: they're not morally illiterate.
Yes, indeed. Watching them debase themselves beneath his mere presence is a persistent joy, but their behavior indicates the beginnings of a reactionary movement the likes of which we have never seen. Hurt and wounded, but always confident, Anti-Trumpism will not give up power so easily.
Give me liberal tears!
And there is the gnashing of their teeth and the lamentations of their women to hope for.
A thread of humiliation weaves the bromance into a single hair shirt.
In this, the blessedly final week of the 2024 presidential campaign, that rally was only the latest s--t stain in a decade-long political career rooted in scapegoating and fear-mongering. After a decade of stoking fear and hatred, we have now reached Peak MAGA.
What started in the tacky atrium of Trump Tower with a rant about Spanish-speaking immigrants ends with a lame joke by a s--tty comic about Spanish-speaking Americans, with another speaker calling Donald Trump’s political opponent “the antichrist.” We’re ten years into the Trump Era, a decade marked by racist scandal upon sex scandal upon financial scandal upon criminal scandal.
To say that we’re numb to it all would be an understatement. Another woman came forward last week to allege sexual abuse by Trump (with a cameo by Jeffrey Epstein) this week and it barely got covered. She is the 27th woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault. Nobody cared. We expect these Trump scandals. Worse, too many Americans crave them.
When he or his surrogates attack Puerto Ricans or Muslims or Black people or legal Haitian immigrants or people from “s--thole countries;” when Trump sits down for dinner with a Holocaust denier; when he refuses to disavow David Duke’s support or when he elevates the bats--t and antisemitic QAnon movement; when he attacks trans people; when he spends day after day spreading lie after lie, he scrapes away, layer by layer, whatever used to pass for American civility until we are left here, a raw and unnerved people looking at our fellow Americans with suspicion and fear.
He did this.
In 2015, Trump’s initial candidacy was dismissed as the vanity project of a reality television star. That wasn’t an incorrect assessment, but it miscalculated Americans’ appetite for inauthenticity and vulgarity. It wasn’t that Trump was a reality star whose schtick translated to real America, it’s that real America turned out to be more of a reality show than we were willing to admit. The cruelty, interpersonal conflicts, and erratic personalities that fuel our addiction to bad TV has now become central to an entire half of our electorate.
The Madison Square Rally rally this week wasn’t an outlier, only a very special episode of The Trump Show.
It’s been ten f---ing years of this. If, ten years ago, as Trump mulled his candidacy, somebody had sat down to write a satire of what a successful Trump campaign would look like, it would have looked very much like the coverage of the actual event. Consider the following paragraph from the actual New York Times’ coverage: “David Rem, a childhood friend of Mr. Trump, called Ms. Harris ‘the devil.’ Grant Cardone, a businessman, declared that the sitting Vice President had ‘pimp handlers.’ Sid Rosenberg denounced Hillary Clinton as a ‘sick son of a bitch’ for linking the Trump rally and a pro-Nazi event at the same arena decades ago.”
That’s not even mentioning the fact that Hulk Hogan tried, and for a time failed, to rip off his shirt, the only Black speaker walking out to the song Dixie, and that the rally started with Tony Hinchcliffe calling Puerto Rico a floating island of garbage.
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t read like a bad episode of Veep? (Actually, that sounds like an awesome episode of Veep but only because Veep is making fun of f---ing idiocy!)
I don’t know how many felony convictions the collected speakers had between them, but it was a lot. Why? Because sometimes the crooks win. Sometimes, the worst among us convince the rest of us suckers and losers that we’d be better off with them running the show. When people compare Trumpism to Nazism, it isn’t because we anybody thinks Trump is “literal Hitler” as his supporters like to say.
It’s because Trumpism displays the same hatred and buffoonery of the early Nazis with their bloviating, self-aggrandizing speeches and their cadre of big, dumb goons swinging fists in the streets. It’s because we recognize the same ugly impulses that compelled what was, at first, a minority of Germans to sacrifice their character and morality. It’s because we recognize the fear that caused good Germans to keep their mouths shut and the cold calculations that made powerful German industrialists look the other way at Nazi abuses, and which led them to ultimately collaborate.
It’s because we know that dehumanizing language about people eventually leads to the state dehumanizing people. Can’t happen here? May I refer to you to Trump’s plan to round up millions of people from their homes and put them in detention camps? May I refer you to the fact that a recent poll found that half of all Americans, including a quarter of Democrats, support such a mass deportation? What does that look like, exactly, when the National Guard goes house-to-house in neighborhoods across the country? I’ll tell you what it looks like. It looks like Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.
When I sat down to write this column, I thought I’d try to keep it light. But you know what? This s--t is scary. It’s scary because we’re a week away from the close of this election, but I don’t think there’s an American out there who believes that this election will end quietly.
Drop-off ballot boxes are already exploding. Poll workers are being attacked. After one voter was told she couldn’t wear her MAGA gear into the polling station, she tore off her shirt, pushed the poll worker, and told the worker to “suck her c---.” JD Vance later tweeted about the woman, “what a patriot.”
That’s where we are. That’s who we’ve become over the last ten years. So yeah, it doesn’t matter to me what you want to call Trump’s rally or Trump’s movement. The name doesn’t matter so much as the human rot that feeds it. For decades, we’ve been wondering how much more divisive American politics can become.
Now we know. Hopefully next week’s election pulls us back from the brink. But what if it doesn’t? What if Trump wins? Conversely, what if he loses? What feels like the last straw often turns out to be just another straw. How many more straws before he’s broken America’s back? [/quote]
And that distrust is fueled by selfrighteous pricks decrying they are deplorables, garbage or aren't voting in their self-interest, thereby really only affirming that they don't trust "the other side" and therefore aren't to be trusted by "the other side". The best way to win someone's trust, after all, has always been to call the other side "dumb shits". :roll:
Someone ought to tell Diaper Don that even God won't be able save him the next time from Dick Cheney. :sweat:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle/index.html
How ironic, when Trump names the richest man in the world, Leon Musk, as a special secretary to audit government expenses. Hidden within the proposed "distrust for rich people" there is a secret admiration and envy, which defies reason.
Trump has leveraged the perception that US society is "failing" by permitting things like same-sex marriage, sensitivity to LGBTQ concerns, and ostensibly permitting non-white immigrant to enter the country illegally, "poison our blood", commit crimes, and take jobs.
[Quote[Trump is a symptom of the righteous distrust common people have of the political elites and rich people. [/quote]
So they support a rich person because he voices the same irrational concerns they have. Political elites are a problem because most people don't have the capacity or inclination to make well-informed voting decisions.
[Quote]Distrust informed by their moral intuition that something simply isn't right and most things are unfair. [/quote]
Moral intuitions that are often rooted in ignorance and prejudice.
[Quote]This will not go away unless the US government repairs and regains trust by - I don't know - actually improving the material conditions of all its citizens instead of those that are already rich enough to lobby for favours.[/quote]
How ironic. Encouraging racism, Christian nationalism, undermining rule of law, and embracing a demagogue isn't likely to "repair" the US government.
[Quote]And that distrust is fueled by selfrighteous pricks decrying they are deplorables, garbage or aren't voting in their self-interest, thereby really only affirming that they don't trust "the other side" and therefore aren't to be trusted by "the other side".[/quote]
Amplifying inappropriately worded comments to incite outrage in one's followers doesn't contribute to good voting choices. Truly demonizing "the other side" is more pervasive among the Trump cult.
[Quote]The best way to win someone's trust, after all, has always been to call the other side "dumb shits".[/quote]
And yet, that's exactly what Trump does- and his followers find it appealing. "Are you an Democrat or an American?" was posted on the Trump campaign website, and repeated by many on social media. A person on my neighborhood's facebook page said we need Trump because the Democrats want to "sexualize children". “These are horrible people,” said Trump at a North Carolina rally, referring to Democrats. “Oops, we should get along with everybody. They’re horrible people. Some people you just can’t get along with.”
Hello Michael, if that is even your real name. It is clear that you DO NOT understand America. Please DO NOT comment on matters you do not understand. The REAL President, DONALD J TRUMP is making the microphone stand GREAT AGAIN. You are currently spreading FAKE NEWS by immigrating your lies across our borders.
Yay! Let's go take over a government building!
"We need a leader not a creepy tweeter."
"Uncle Sam stay outta my clam."
"Roe, Roe, Roe your vote."
"No sex with men until Roe comes back."
"Grab him by the ballot."
"Sometimes you gotta flush twice."
I don't think Trump is viewing himself as a fascist, I think fascism is the result of his views.
Trump’s opponents never accepted the 2016 election, therefor they had fascists tendencies, like Hitler. Trump joked he was going to be a dictator, therefor he’s going to be a dictator. This is the level of reasoning over in clown world.
You are mistaken. Hillary Clinton conceded defeat and never attempted to overturn the election. To some degree, she was being a sore loser when she labeled Trump's election "illegitimate", but she at least had a rational basis for her claim: Russia helping Trump, and Comey hurting her chances. These things actually occurred, although it's impossible to know their impact.
By contrast, Trump's claim that he was cheated is based entirely on falsehoods - falsehoods that he actively drummed into his supporters. Trump lied about fraud, lied about what people said to him about fraud, and he pressured others to lie - in an active attempt to overturn the legitimate election. So to equate the two is absurd.
.
Please just stop. Your constant attempts to rewrite things into Trump's favor borders on plain desinformation. I'm amazed that you haven't been banned yet because of this constant bs spamming, but I guess it's the lounge so anything kind of goes. But just so you know, outside of this, I'm not engaging with your posts. So you know you're wasting time with replying to me.
Understandable. No one would want any criticism of routine nonsense.
[s]If you look back on the comments, there is much litigation of the past but very little hope for a future. He could be making fun of trump or serving him.
That is why he is still around.[/s]
Edit to add: Too speculative and ad hominem.
Any contradicting proves me right.
YOU WILL GO TO PRISON, DIAPER DON – your sentencing in NYC is scheduled for 26 November. More state indictments pending. Federal trials will resume next Spring. Appeals of both civil judgments in NY will fail also by Spring 2025. No doubt your knuckle-dragging, gun-happy cult of MAGA morons (wannabe "brown shirts") will fuck around and find out (I suspect "Dark Brandon" – fortified by SCOTUS' wingnut "presidential immunity" – will not show much mercy if it comes to that). Karma. :fire:
Wishful thinking? TBD.
DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government.
-full text of the indictment
By comparison, the NY conviction is minor. The fraud he committed is almost on par with treason.
Even if seven years ago Trump was already the President, so it's not the beginning of Trump talk.
Trump II will likely be in some ways different from Trump I.
How? That's the interesting question.
Ready for Trump 2.0.?
@NOS4A2, how do you feel right now after defending him for four straight years?
We don't know what that means. It could either be four years of non-stop clowning, with policies that just create chaos and a big pile to clean up for democrats in 2028.
Or he'll do by his word and play dictator. If so, I wonder how long it will take until politicians, even within his own party, will start to try and remove him. I mean, democrats can't do shit now, both the house and senate are there for him. And since the justice system have ruled a president can do whatever the fuck he wants, he can basically do what he wants.
In that case it will be interesting to see how long it will take before the more normal voters who voted for him will regret their vote... just like voters of Brexit now regret their vote.
Will it be when they realize that his tariffs will fuel inflation even more? When the cost of living skyrockets because more goods than they think are imported rather than domestic? And that the industry of building up industries in the US will not only force people off their lands to make space, take time to build up and still produce goods that are much more expensive than imported goods ever was?
And what will all of that do to the national dept? With the even further risk of the nation defaulting? Will he do a little dance on stage, fellate the mic and tell everyone that it is the "best default in history, not gonna lie, it is simply the best!"
Most people voted for Trump because of the economy. That's the level of stupidity here. And his voters are probably gonna feel the consequences the most.
What happens when enough people feel betrayed and let down by someone who promised them utopia? When the sand castle crumbles and he continues to dance on the ruins?
When people speak of the possibility of assassination. It is a highly likely possibility now. If there were attempts before the election, just imagine where we're going. And I don't think it will be anyone on the political left.
It will be a lone man on the right, who blindly believed in Trump but when he didn't fix the economy as he said he would, when he didn't make America great again and this man lost his marriage, his job to Musk's robots or extreme costs of production and all medical help is gone to treat his newly found tumor. He'll take the last bit of money he has left and buy an AR15 at a supermarket, with discounted armor piercing bullets and find a comfortable spot to die in, somewhere with a good line of sight.
The sociological mechanics and psychology of people that regret their vote can be dramatic. But Trump will only manage to hold onto these four years by not changing too much and mostly just clown around. If he starts to make drastic changes to the US, I don't see how else this will go.
I have a hard time seeing the people accepting changes that very well uproots the foundation of the US. It's either clowning around for four years, an assassination or a civil war. Those are the three paths. The fourth would be managing to fuck foreign policy so much that it ignites a larger war... or maybe that's exactly what's needed to teach the gullible voters how stupid they are? When their children are drafted into death by a clown.
Damn. I was very wrong. :zip:
I’m feeling pretty good about it. I overestimated the effects a corrupt press has on public opinion and figured Harris would win, or they’d kill him, so was pleasantly surprised to learn otherwise.
Via inept SS?
If the great orator would have actual leadership qualities, that could be the outcome. But this is Trump, you have to remember. The likely outcome is that the administration will have meager results in advancing it's policies simply because of Trump himself. The last year of the previous administration is in my view telling about what Trump II administration will be. First of all, Trump will likely appoint yes-men and then get unsatisfied with their inability to get things done. Hence the Trump administration can continue to be a place where people go in and out. I assume Trump has lost his love affair with appointing military personnel into positions.
Project 2025 clearly has things that Trump wants (or Republicans in general want) to do, yet here again things will be difficult for Trump. Perhaps he can indeed finish the Border wall. But doing away with federal departments or reorganizing the FBI isn't likely going to happen. Besides, being back in the limelight is the real thing for Trump, he actually isn't ideologically motivated or committed to a real fight with the bureaucracy. Just as last time, declaring to "drain the swamp" is enough for him.
Where Trump will focus is on his relationship with the media and at all the "pressing issues" that and next crisis that lands at his table tomorrow and the day after that. This usually consumes every President, but likely will consume all of Trump's focus ...if there's something to focus on else than his own image.
And perhaps the media simply won't give him the attention that he desires. The simple reason is that we have already been here, we know what Trump is like and what a Trump administration is like. Hence there isn't going to be this outcry and especially not the kind of outrage that we saw the first time Trump was in office. Did the mass deportations start at the first day of the first Trump administration? Nope. Will they start now? Nope, how could they?
Quoting AmadeusD
Depends how you define fine. With every president since George Washington, things have been fine, I guess. And I guess we likely won't have a nuclear war between China and the US, so guess everything is fine then... in four years.
This policy?
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1854164649433858119
[quote=Matt Walsh]Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda. Lol[/quote]
This time around he's surrounded not by yes-men, but by people of similar or worse ideologies. And the reason things didn't get done last time around was that the rest of the government could block his worst policies. This time, the house and senate are aligned with Trump and he's already been blessed by the supreme court that a president can do whatever he wants without legal repercussions.
Trump was weakened last time because he didn't have the same support around him as he does now. And he were going into a new election trying to appeal to voters he had lost. So he toned down his worst behavior.
What do you think will happen now that he does not have a new term after these four years? When he's aiming to replace the permanent staff in the white house (which requires policy change)?
He has nothing to lose and also almost no one standing in his way, as well as a hold on the supreme court that's going to back him up if he crosses the line.
It's nowhere near how it was the last time he was in office and I don't think people have really and fully understood this.
I'd wish that he's just gonna clown around and be embarrassing, but I fear he's become far more of a proper fascist these recent years as the world overall has adopted similar tendencies.
Just as people underestimated this election result, I don't think it's a good idea to just adopt a new set of coping mechanisms and arguments in which we ignore the possible consequences of these four upcoming years.
Quoting ssu
That won't happen... at all. American media is a market driven reality TV trash pile. It needs a reform into actual news. The problem with media, but primarily how media is in the US, is that they're desperately trying to compete with YouTube, social media and other online outlets. In doing so they've doubled down on the emotional, opinion driven bullshit and abandoned much of the investigative and critical force that were on the side of the people. They are only critical from an ideological perspective or market driven perspective, while trying to entertain in order to keep the attention of people.
What we need is organized, neutral and fact oriented media on YouTube. And while many have a presence there, I'm talking about big media channels that are respected and trusted by verifiable means. Something that fundamentally competes against traditional media, not in attention, but in quality that gains viewers long term.
But we also need to see the Democrats reform themselves. Get rid of the Clinton ties, put actual progressive politics into the forefront in order to exist FOR something and not just be the unmoving centrist "whateverist" that tries to win the votes of everyone.
If you try to please everyone you will please no one.
The Democrats need to be more left in their economics. They need to fight for free health care, need to be progressive in human rights, to help the middle class workers and don't ignore the homeless and opioid epidemic by just ignoring it. They need to be the party that help and enrich the majority of people and pushing back against the billionaire elits.
And they need to dare lose on those terms. Because this catering to the right wing voters to gain votes only seem to have gained around 5%. Compare that to how much voters on the left that they've lost due to abandoning more left-leaning policies.
The problem with Biden wasn't his age or anything, it's that he's an outspoken centrist. He rejects the more progressive left, he wanted to get into office in order "for the progressives not to destroy the democratic party".
But that's a fools errand.
There's nothing in the center but mediocrity. You don't have to be a political extremist to move society in a direction, you just need to have some direction.
If Trump and the republicans have fallen so far to the right they're basically becoming right wing fascists or christo-fascists, then the democrats can't solve that by also moving more to the right, they need to step more to the left. At least one step to the left of centrists.
When listening to someone like Bernie-Sanders, it's exactly the kind of left politics that the democrats need. The problem is that people are so politically illiterate that all they do is regurgitating influencer rhetoric against the kind of socialism he proposes, and in so labeling him as some kind of extremist. He's more in-line with the right wing politics in Scandinavia than anywhere near any communist socialist extremists. Any time that he speaks to actual people about their real world problems, it's like they get confused because of how rational his arguments and ideas are for actual working people.
On top of that, the democrats are so fucking bad at marketing. They're basically rich people trying to appeal to workers.
The democrats need to rid themselves of charlatans of left politics and actually have someone with more left leaning politics. There's a lot of people who want that kind of pushback that actually counters republicans... not just trying to get their voters.
That just erodes truth more into the post-truth environment that makes people unable to know what is true and facts. We've already seen what catering to populist rhetoric to counter populists is doing to society... giving birth to more populists.
Fighting fire with fire needs to stop. There has to be a movement that rejects post-truth ideologies.
"They go low, we go high" just ain't working. The problem is that Democrats haven't been fighting fire with fire.
Populism is fine, just so long as it's good policies.
I reject this on the basis that it's short sighted for short term effects. Because in the long term it's eroding society. Going low does not mean just catering to post-truth narratives and populism, going low can be political strategies in the halls of power that sabotage right wing policies.
But going "low" can also mean speaking the damn truth, not twisting and turning to try and cater to everyone. But straight up call out the consequences of right wing politics. Tell the people straight what the consequences are and what the democrats will do to stop it. It's not really "low", but it's saying the hard truth straight in a way that's not trying to compromise itself to death.
The democrats have nothing but meaningless fluff in their speeches and communication to the people. There's nothing to hang onto. Like, stop bullshitting and just say straight "we're gonna make healthcare free for all! Into the best healthcare in the world" and dare to actually make that into policy.
Why is the choice to go actual dirty the first strategy when failing to fight back against the dirty? Maybe they should try to actually go higher rather than just talk like they do.
They're not going higher, they never really did.
A bit of pragmatism over principle shouldn't be ignored.
That kind of policy. And it is policy, even if it is of the vaguest kind. The democrats didn't say any of that, they didn't compete on those grounds, nor did they effectively undermine Trump's simplistic message.
Oh, you got there first. Yes I suspect this is exactly right.
The reason more and more respond to populism is due to the consequences of the rising post-truth environment. By aligning with what further enforces it, we're only digging that grave further.
We're not getting anywhere by using the tools that created this mess in the first place. We're only going to create more fact-resistant people who have no clue how to find out what's actually going on and the disdain for politics and people in power will only increase until there's nothing left.
It's absolutely the wrong path to lower yourself to their level. We need to get back to valuing truth, facts, science, research, proper journalism and rational reasoning over got damn reality television.
Can't you see what the actual consequences are for what you're proposing? How it's just further polarizing and feeding into the problems that is the foundation for the global rise of populist extremists?
You speak of pragmatism, but this is like saying that because they are extremists, we should be extremists. To be blunt, it's childish logic. And missing that upholding and elevating truth and facts back to its higher valued position as a foundation of society isn't a principles... it's defending the core of a functioning society. It's the foundations and pillars of a free society.
Your argument is unfortunately part of the problem. Keep lowering the bar until all we have are populists on each side, nothing gets done and people are left in a hell in which no one is able to find a trustworthy source of information for any actual truth.
Sorry, but in my opinion, that is an appalling scenario and I don't feel like people are really thinking things through enough when reacting to the rise of people like Trump.
You don't have to be a damn populist yourself to fight back against populism and fascism, you need to shout the truth as it is, in a raging fire! No one is doing this! And that's the problem. Everyone is catering to the manipulation of the stupid, everyone tries to trick people into a certain vote. Just tell the damn truth and make policies that actually help people and stop being afraid of the fascist monsters.
Just do the damn work instead of empty fluff talk, that's the democrats needed to fight the right.
What you are promoting is basically equivalent of carpet bombing the whole society just to win. Winning isn't enough, there need to be something left that wins.
He took on both parties, destroyed them both, and ended many despicable political dynasties. But most of all the behavior of his opposition pushed me to support him. One has to oppose an evil movement like that. Some of the policies were an added bonus.
Do not forget that in 2016 Trump already had Republicans in power in both houses,
Trump had the backing already of the congress and he still squashed it away, basically. We are talking about Trump here, remember, attention span of a poodle, except when it's about himself. And what do you mean worse? I urge not to fall to Democrat propaganda, but truly look at just what would be that far worse.
Quoting Christoffer
A premature lame duck period starting sometime in 2025. Or you think that Trump is interested in something else than himself, like his successor and GOP winning in 2028? Hah!
Quoting Christoffer
Trump isn't a man with a mission. Trump can be vengeful, but he hasn't got a mission. Just look at it: in the first administration, the four years, he was incapable of building that big beautiful wall. He even stumbled in the financing of that contraption. How do you assume he'll transform the US into a fascist state? It's really nonsense.
Quoting Christoffer
People aren't underestimating this election result. In fact, there's no question about the elections results.
Quoting Christoffer
Isn't Trump moving in some direction?
Quoting Christoffer
Have they? And what is christo-fascism? I haven't heard that term. Is everything right-wing fascism now? I think it would be good to give some concrete examples here and not loose terms. Just like Harris in my view wasn't favoring socialism.
Quoting Christoffer
For an European, Bernie Sanders sounds like a typical mainstream centrist social-democrat. The kind of politician that once in power is then accused of selling the ideology to and not left leaning enough. Well, modern social-democrats don't try to erase capitalism, but just "correct it's excesses", just like Bernie tries to do.
This is just the typical American polarization at work. Bernie or similar guys are totally electable. Bernie Sanders isn't some Marxist. But he will surely portrayed as the worst kind of maoist or whatever, just like Trump will be called a fascist. But that's just American politics.
Quoting Christoffer
The old people ruling the two parties are basically bad at marketing. Trump as a great orator and a populist just seized one party, which basically saved the whole system as now people genuinely think that they can have change through the two-party system and simply don't understand that they can easily simply form a new party and win both parties. Because remember, Trump wasn't the candidate that the old GOP wanted. Please don't give a lecture on the legislative hurdles and the stranglehold that the two parties have over the system. When there really a will, there's a way.
It is difficult to experience and perceive all of that when I don't live in the USA. Do you imply that their opponents play dirty to poisoning the people? I thought the main point of voting for Trump was economic features, but I wasn't aware that the attitude of Democrats was also a reason.
It's a good idea.
But it would go against monied interests, so it can't happen. At least not through Cable News.
His opponents come from all parties, so it isn’t really about parties.
I remember in 2016 they were chasing down Trump supporters and beating them, attacking them, or otherwise harassing them with impunity. It wasn’t just the routine bigotry you’ll read from people on here, but it was pervasive movement throughout the United States. It has captured the big institutions, the press, academia, government. There is a moral panic occurring and I naturally side with the victims of it, and it looks like the tides are turning.
It’s called “churnalism”. The press in other countries parrot the press from the United States. This way they can save costs on doing their own journalism. Understandably, most people do not have the time to look for the truth so the accept the skewed view.
That's really interesting thanks. I can understand that appeal. Do you see both major parties as a kind of pro status-quo, pro establishment interest, and Trump as a figure who can smash it up (to an extent)?
Are you strongly distinguishing Trump from the Republican party, or at least how the republican party was before Trump?
Yes to both questions. The GOP of Bush and the neoconservatives is largely over, with many of them now voting Democrat. I hope the Democrats can have the same evolution but voters can’t even have the same candidate everyone voted for in the primary.
I don't think this is what is actually going on, at least it's not the complete picture (although I find it highly pertinent to explore why some people think this way).
Rather, I find most people operate by the priciples of socioeconomic hierarchy. That is, they listen only to those they consider higher than themselves. Most people are not convinced by arguments, but by the other person's status (as they interpret it).
Saying, for example, "Who do you think you are that you think you're even allowed to talk to me, when I make ten times as much as you do??!!" sums up this principle very well.
It's a pragmatic cognitive heuristic that safeguards a person's internal consistency in terms of the thusly selected input from others that they allow into their lives.
Philosophers should know better than to try to reach people through arguments.
Most people respond to (perceived) status, not to arguments. Respect for power is paramount.
(This is true even in academia. Just imagine a student majoring in philosophy daring to disagree on a claim made by her professor in a lecture. This amounts to risking failing the exam.)
"Yeah! Hate wins! Lies, division and dishonesty carry the day. Don't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, Baker?"
It's not Trump's fault that you're a maladapted idealist.
Brouhaha!
I'm not sure how what you say connects to what I said there? What I'm saying is that the way to defeat populism and post-truth degrading of the importance of facts is to return back the status of truth and facts as the highest value and something to care for, not to misuse. Post-truth ideologies use bad faith arguments to reduce facts and truth down to imaginary relativities, making any statement that is actually based on facts into equal to a statement based on nothing but a made up foundation or misunderstanding of a source.
This isn't about reaching people, it's about dismantling an ideology or behavior that is the driving force behind the inability of people to gather around truth and facts about the world. Without that, society has nothing to build on and we erode any form of ability to have justice, health, economy, security or knowledge overall.
One example of this is how some would respond to a factual statement with "facts are just something that enough people agreed upon", not as a definition, but as an argument for why we shouldn't trust a fact. And this type of reasoning is done without any form of nuance with respect to evaluating the initial facts first or understand that consensus-formed conclusions made by experts in a field still is the most optimal way for how we humans form a body of knowledge and what we define as a scientific fact used to further build knowledge.
It's used as blanket statements, mostly by people deep into echo chambers, to dismiss any factually based reasoning. In essence, it is a constantly repeating weapon to shoot down anything that is a threat to their made up delusions about the world.
This has become the kind of behavior that feeds the post-truth society. In which experts are lowered to the same level as amateurs and no one either listens to actual facts, or has any ability to collaborate with other in the pursuit of actual truth. It's a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and an inability to see through lies of charismatic people.
When Trump blames the bad economy on Biden, that's a false statement that ignores the global reasons for inflation and the work Biden's government has put in to mitigate it. But the bulk of his voters (not the evangelical christo-fascists, but the seemingly normal voters) voted because of the economy, because they wanted Trump to fix "the economy that Biden destroyed". It doesn't matter if experts point out that this is a faulty narrative, it doesn't matter if they try to inform; the people do not value expert's input anymore because they have, through the constant erosion of definitions, lost their ability to spot when something is true, something is an actual fact, or how to check if something is.
It's basically a lynching of the concept of truth, facts, rational reasoning and scientific methods, all in favor of the masses sense of individualism forming an arrogance by making their ego feel like the protagonist who knows better than everyone else, rejecting any ideas that do not fit their world view by bad faith grinding down the defining elements of knowledge into absolute noise.
This has to stop.
How do you propose to "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" without reaching people?
You can write a book where you "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" all you want, but if people don't read your book or don't heed it, how have you accomplished anything?
Ok, now I get what you were asking. And it's the problem. If anything, it's a problem in society that I think should get more attention.
One strategy is marketing.
The only problem is that the reach of marketing as an educational form for the masses is very expensive as it needs funding that will never have any money-based ROI. We can argue that the ROI is rather that society will function better, but even the governments might not have the interest in it since much of their current policies and communication is now dependent on post-truth rhetoric while facts are only so good as those who can promote their own party.
Such marketing is sometimes done by organisations that work to mitigate and inform about disinformation and misinformation. But their reach is so limited that they drown in the current attention economy. So it would need billions in funding to reach large and wide and it needs to keep going for years in order to become part of societal norms.
Another is laws and regulations.
Stronger enforcements on social media platforms to mitigate spread of disinformation and misinformation. To mark not only disinformation, but also statements and info that are factual. It's also possible to criminalize participation in the spread of disinformation and misinformation; meaning, virally shared clips will charge everyone who spreads it, not just the initial source. If a 100 000 people spread it, they can be charged a fine. This would incentivize to better check what it is you are sharing and make sure viral clips, especially marked as factual or official, gets promoted. We can also enforce algorithms to not promote conflict language, as this has been used for algorithms as conflict language drives engagement. Promote level-headed discussions over conflict, even if it doesn't drive engagement as much; as well as promote people who generally has a better ability to form proper arguments (AI can analyze and form such an algorithm easily today).
That's just what I can think of, but there are so many laws and regulations that can be put into place that promote both verified information and better civil discussions, which helps form a better attitude and behavior around the concept of discussions that are civil and fact based. Flipping the current status quo of the worst shit being put at the top of the page and the better people and arguments being almost invisible.
Just think about this forum, there's no algorithm that promote certain language over others. Imagine if mostly the people who're referenced in the "Bannings" thread were the posts that dominated the front page and how that would affect the general language of others and how they treat arguments. It might be that we don't even need algorithms for promoting good behavior, ban promoting algorithms altogether and we will still get a better atmosphere on social media.
Another strategy is also a simple reform to education.
While schools under a good educational systems generally have critical thinking and media literacy built into parts of all parts of education, there may be a need to include critical thinking, media literacy and epistemology as a fundamental and large part of education overall. Education hasn't really kept up the pace with the rise of post-truth behavior, and so we need a much larger focus on forming a good protection against manipulation, propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, while forming an automatic response to statements that steers the person to fact check more often and not accept things at face value or just because the speaker is charismatic.
Failure of in education has also been attributed to why so many fall for leaders like Trump. But I want to take it further and improve even for those who get a good education. It needs to be even more focused on understanding all of this than just having fractions of such information spread out within existing curriculums.
---
I could go on, but the problem isn't that there is a lack of ideas, strategies or work that can be put into figuring things out, it's that there's not much push on figuring this out on a large scale, even thought this problem is on a global scale.
People are stuck within the post-truth behaviors, which means even the discussions on how to do this falls within similar bad faith arguments and ends up in irrelevant dismantling definitions among non-experts with the power to decide what to implement or not, and things stall and ends up not happening.
It kind of falls on those who can do this out of the will alone. Those who can start a non-profit to help work with this. But much of the funding for world scale changes is in the ten digits. No one will care until things collapse and people are forced to rebuild.
But we still need to do something.
I agree with most of what you said, except (what I perceive to be) the undercurrent of hopefulness.
Politicians have tended to elected by their electioneering practices. They don't get elected by proposing well thought out policies. They get elected by dumbing it down - distilling it to sound-bites that are directionally congruent with policy choices, while spun to be appealing. So (for most), the voting choice is based on the superficial. The problem: this has created the opportunity for a man to run entirely on the superficial - honing the message to make it more appealing.
The proper solution would be for the population to delve more deeply, to try to understand the impact of what is said - to demand more detailed policy positions, and also to understand that even the best policies will also have some negative consequences. The problem is, this isn't going to happen. People don't take the time, or they lack the skills, to understand. We will perpetually be at risk of being victimized by demagogues.
What you describe is our current post-truth environment. Above your post I've mentioned a few strategies to mitigate it.
The thing that is important to remember is that politicians and demagogues are only as powerful as the people let them. Even in states of high authoritarianism. What post-truth is doing is slowly eroding society into being more subservient to populists and demagogues, so fighting against post-truth is the way to heal back society into being more able and willing to put leaders under more scrutiny.
Movements can be run to fill the gaps that leaders don't take responsibility for. The key is for the people who haven't yet fallen into post-truth mentalities to organize and collaborate and install mitigation strategies against further erosion of knowledge.
Simply, get creative and organize, instead of waiting for someone to swoop in as some savior, there won't be one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/07/trump-susie-wiles-chief-of-staff
Here is the truth. Automation has destroyed the power base of the working class. Mass production and mass consumption is no longer necessary to produce a surplus to fund the lifestyle of the wealthy. Climate change is getting expensive and undermining the security of the majority. This cost falls especially on the poor who tend to be underinsured. These things are going to get worse not better, and no government or prospective government can solve the problems. War, pestilence and famine are coming and everyone is going to suffer and many are going to die. Even to ameliorate this as much as possible is going to cost us all great sacrifice of wealth, comfort and freedom.
You are not going to elect me, or anyone else standing on this platform, therefore your politicians all lie to you.
And the bigger the lie, the more attractive it is.
And Trump's narrative already has one truth that people can confirm from their own experience - that things are not on the up, but on the down.
A person close to me just brought up how they fear for themselves, being trans, as they questioned how hospitable the country will now be towards them given the rhetoric Trump spouts.
Probably not very. It is cited as a factor in the following detailed analysis from the New York Times (gift link).
Let’s Not Lose Sight of Who Trump Is
[quote=Frances Fukayama]I really think that the importance of the transgender issue was underappreciated by the Democrats. They simply thought it was the latest civil rights issue when the actual policy was really crazy and offensive to working class voters.[/quote]
As I said: Quoting Christoffer
If the people succumbs to such terrors and suffering that things are on the brink of collapse... then collapse, and overthrow the government. My point is that there's a limit as to how much a government can wield its power against the people, at some point, the people fights back. Either it starts earlier, demonstrations and movements that put pressure on the government. I mean there's MILLIONS of people who could march on the streets. With enough bad stuff happening, what's the loss?
Yeah, the loss could be state violence, but that would only lead to a pushback with other means.
Must I remind that this happens in many regions and times in history? The apathetic and lazy will only be so as long as the status quo doesn't change. If the situation change so much it removes the security and wellbeing of the people, then what's the government gonna do against millions of citizens taking action against such policy?
And since the actual majority who voted on Trump seems to do it without buying into his fascist tendencies, they too will not accept what he does. When looking at it from this perspective, only the christo-fascists and christian fundamentalists are loyal to him. And they are a minority.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdailywire/status/1854999583790911770?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdailywire/status/1855001530769781109?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Even as Jack Smith took steps to wind down his Jan. 6 election interference case against Trump, Elon Musk said the special counsel “cannot go unpunished.” ...
...A Trump adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail the thinking of the president-elect and his team, said Trump and his team would react extremely poorly if Smith tries to do anything else publicly. The next Justice Department will look “critically” at what Smith’s team did over the past couple of years to “make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” the person said.[/quote]
The Retribution of the Regime begins. I wonder where they will locate their Gulag Archipalago? Although I suppose when they give amnesty to all the January 6th rioters it will free up some jail space.
And note who is quoted. I wonder if Musk will be DJT's Beria.
Didn't they already have their own gulag since 2002?
Oh yeah, now you mention it...maybe he'll want to send Jack Smith there. But first, he'll have to work out what to charge him with. Telling the truth might be it. Nobody can do that, especially if it contradicts or risks embarrasing Dear Leader.
That is true, but are you suggesting that history teaches that tyrants kings emperors dictators and oppressive regimes in general never prevail for a long time? That is obviously not the case; rather the contrary, such regimes predominate in human history, and justice, democracy, and freedom are rare and fragile.
But what i am pointing out is that the Democrat narrative is if anything more mendacious than the Trump narrative. There is a real crisis: democrats are simply denying it completely, while Trump acknowledges it, identifies a false cause and cure, and proposes to go back to the good old days.
What history teaches is that when prosperity is in decline, "the people" will support someone who identifies the problem and provides an easy answer - and especially if the problem is identified as a group of people who can be gotten rid of -immigrants, foreigners, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, barbarians, communists etc etc.
The problem for "the people" is that there are so many people that are not "the people" but "the others". And whether "the others" are the SS or the Jews is a matter of perspective. The rule is that 'we' are always the good guys, and 'they' are the problem.
But you can bet whatever crises there are, are only going to get worse under The Regime.
Because neither are honest. But the forces of nature require depopulation and the tightening of belts around stomachs and necks. That will happen under any regime, and most of all under a 'do nothing' regime.
Thanks, that's interesting. I'm interested in your perception of Bernie Sanders. He comes across as strongly anti-establishment to me. Is that your perception?
Very good article with a range of views on where we are and where we might be going.
Based on the results of the election, the people support the incoming MAGA government. If and when they become dissatisfied and want a change things will be very different. One key to understanding Trump is that he projects his intentions on the opposition. Next time around free and fare elections will be something he will attempt to prevent from happening if the people turn against him. He will have moved to do what other autocrats have done and silence information and political opinion sources that do not support him. His control of the courts will be stronger. Congress will not act as a counterweight. Government agencies will have been purged of civil servants who do not show sufficient loyalty to him. Corporations and the mega-wealthy will do his bidding as long as it increases their wealth.
In short, autocrats do whatever they can to assure that the people remain powerless. No situation is permanent, but by the time the Trump regime is overthrown things may have become very dire.
He seems to be a job-holder, to me, someone who does politics for the salary.
There is joke in there about big government.
The hatred and fear of FEMA runs deep in the mind of the conspiracy theorist.
I assume these were orders after a hurricane evacuation had been given and people had been told to evacuate.
Remember that for the Trumpist the worst enemy is the US government. So someone coming from the government, especially from the despised FEMA that has in plans "concentration camps" for the conservative Americans, yeah, that sounds like quite logical advice for FEMA personnel.
:100: And let's not forget that Trump has been completely transparent about it all along.
[quote=Wall Street Journal]The Federal Emergency Management Agency terminated an employee who the agency said told her survivor assistance team to avoid homes with yard signs supporting President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign.
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell said Saturday the employee’s conduct was reprehensible.
“This is a clear violation of FEMA’s core values and principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation,” Criswell said. “This type of behavior and action will not be tolerated at FEMA and we will hold people accountable if they violate these standards of conduct. [/quote]
If government personnel are discriminating against you because of something it shouldn’t discriminate against, then yes, the government is the enemy. It’s oppression. You’ll find that generally speaking the government is a common enemy of oppressed people, no conspiracy theory required.
No doubt he does because the majority of "poorly educated" (+ reality tv, WWE & social media-brain addled) US voters love "Trump". :eyes: :mask:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/1855441295998640559?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
And the fact that you use the word "enemy" and oppression makes it totally clear that some government officials can be careful when having to approach you. If I get bad/improper service from government officials I'll complain through the effective channels, but not declare them an enemy. Enemy is a definition for war and too easily used by Americans describing their fellow people.
Oh I forgot, you live in Canada.
Yeah but you have Stockholm syndrome. You like being stolen from and told what to do by a bunch of pencil-necks, the younger the better.
EU may consider replacing Russian LNG imports with those from US, von der Leyen says
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-may-consider-replacing-russian-lng-imports-with-those-us-von-der-leyen-says-2024-11-08/
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1855665922477842439?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
You think so?
What can I say. Being happy that my taxes have substantially gotten lower from earlier times. As a young student I remember being taxed 72,5% and even the tax official didn't understand why it was so high (the max at that time). Luckily I was still living with my parents at that time. Now it's gone down, well below 50%. And then I got a free education to an university degree and don't have to pay for my children's education. My health care costs are low, even if I have had health problems on the way. The fact is that when people really get services for their taxes that they otherwise would have to pay, they are OK with it. Even the Republicans have pushed improvements to Medicare and such stuff and the majority of Republicans favour such entitlement programs as social security and Medicare, so don't get your ideological views to forget reality.
And they say I'm living in the happiest country in the World. Guess that makes everyone else's country suck for them a lot more.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1856097181205172267?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Greg Palast, Investigative Journalist, https://www.gregpalast.com/
https://www.watchvigilantesinc.com/
[tweet] https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1856151469419794642?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politico/status/1856512562382180588?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Speaking to an Australian crowd, Niall Ferguson makes a well thought argument on what the Trump administration policies will be like. The acceptance of there being really the "Axis of evil", an anti-US coalition, and not as just mere wordplay as during the times of Dubya Bush, is going to be a crucial part in making Trump's foreign policy or what it's going to have to deal with. This discussed contrasted to Mearsheimer's views makes it worth listening to.
Jack Smith Plans to Step Down as Special Counsel Before Trump Takes Office
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel.html
[quote=CNN]President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida to serve as his attorney general.
“Few issues in America are more important than ending the partisan Weaponization of our Justice System,” Trump wrote Wednesday in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Matt will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans’ badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department.”
Gaetz said in a post on X that it would “be an honor to serve” in the role.
The congressman remains under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for sexual misconduct, with the bipartisan committee saying in a rare statement in June that some of the allegations against Gaetz “merit continued review.”
Being probed are allegations that Gaetz may have “engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct,” the committee said at the time.[/quote]
I would say the reputation of Gaetz in Congress, even amongst Republicans, is 'notorious sleazebag', although 'weasel' and 'snake' might also be appropriate epiphets.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1856798431605657969?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
You’re just not up to speed, Tim.
There was a quote, link, and everything, describing which prosecutor and which charges I was writing about. Maybe the foam bubbling out of your face was hindering its legibility.
Wasn't he the one who paid that 17 year old for sex?
So did many people. A US District Court ruled as much. It’s old news. I’m not going to fill in the mouse-holes you have left in your brain.
You didn’t ask to clarify. You fumed at the mere sight of an opposing opinion and demanded me to write in a way of your liking, as any spoiled censor would do. I love arguing about these things, Tim, but not with someone who has no basic manners. Instead, you get what you give.
Members of the Trump cult live in an alternate reality. The only statement that has one toe in reality is the claim that Smith (and all previous special counsels) can't legally be appointed.
The "toe in reality": a single circuit court judge (Aileen Canon) ruled that AG's do not have the authority to appoint special counsels. The context this ignores: SCOTUS has previously ruled that AG's do have the authority, and appellate courts in other circuits have upheld this. Canon has previously made erroneous judgements in the case that were overturned on appeal. This is is also likely to be overturned. We could discuss the legal issues, but I doubt you'd consider them, since you invariably look no further than the rationalization for some pro-Trump ruling.
The evidence is overwhelming that Trump obstructed justice in the documents case, and that he conspired to illegally overturn the 2020 election. There is no exculpatory evidence. This is all true irrespective of the legality of the special counsel regulations, and irrespective of whether or not the morally bankrupt criminal will ever be held legally accountable.
Needless to say, the glaringly obvious facts that crimes were committed is proof positive that Smith's investigations and indictments were appropriate.
Regardless, it's already obvious that one of DJT's major aims is to extract vengeance on the Department of Justice for prosecuting cases against him. There's an entire emerging counter-narrative that these prosecutions constituted 'weaponisation of the justice system', the premise being that they were unjust prosecutions brought for improper political purposes. But as always, Trump projects all of his most nefarious actions onto his opponents, and is intent on launching improper prosecutions against anyone he can, on no grounds other than vengeance Which is why he wants to appoint a completely unscrupulous lackey, Matt Gaetz, who's suitability is beyond ridiculous.
Oh, and news just in, he wants to make the ridiculous Robert Kennedy secretary for health. I mean, honestly, it's still two months out from inauguration, and already the whole debacle is becoming a s***show. And we've got four years of it to go. :fear:
And I implore everyone in this thread to stop feeding the MAGA troll. Only encourages it.
I believe the appeal has been rescinded as Jack Smith is resigning so we won't get a decision on the matter. It's moot.
The same Christopher Wray he appointed?
As always, comrade, I keep on laughing to keep from crying. I'm not a left-wingnut accelerationist but ... we're so fucked. :cry: :sweat:
On the other hand, we’ll make it through it. The damage to the environment is the worst part, because we’re out of time already and see the damages all around us, season after season. But the rest — trashing civil service, deportations, just general stupidity — will still happen and probably be worse than last time. The small progress Biden made with FTC, SEC, and NLRB will be reversed— so more monopolies, union destruction, and corruption on Wall Street.
But we’ll survive it, and hopefully come back stronger and better organized.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
And into the china shop, walks the bull.
:monkey:
Although that's probably a little unfair to the horse.....
One of the benefits of facing a deluge of anti-Trump propaganda is that one is forced to know what Trump haters believe. This helps eliminate the one-sided story and a great deal of confirmation bias.
Your own one-sided story has to weave a precarious thread. The appeals to authority no longer work when the authority doesn't rule in a way you like, so you have to discredit an authority in some cases while glorifying them in others. Without mentioning how unprecedented the case is or that the DOJ admitted to messing up the evidence, you mention Judge Cannon was once vacated on appeal for requesting a special master, so I guess all her rulings are suspect. But there is no such criticism of Jack Smith, who was once rebuked 8-0 by the supreme court for an unjust conviction of a politician. It appears that everything Smith does is above board, not because he is right or has a history of being right, but because his target is Trump. Everything Cannon does is suspect, not because she is wrong, but because her ruling favored the defense.
So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work when all you will do is repeat the accusations and the arguments of prosecution, while remaining wholly ignorant or at least reticent of the defense.
Why would The Clown possibly choose RFK Jr as head of Health?
I kept ending up at spite + show of power, but that's not very charitable.
If I were to categorize candidates as, say -- red, to-be-determined/maybe, green -- then RFK Jr would start out red for that position, and greens aren't that hard to find in the US.
You jump to the conclusion that I am simply parroting the prosecution. Understandable, since you simply regurgitate the unsupportable "witchhunt" claims of Trump and his propoganda machine.
I've actually considered the evidence, and I referenced some of it. Trump unequivocally lost the 2020 election, but he spread the falsehood that it was stolen.
He lied about what people said to him. Examples: Rusty Bowers and Brad Raffensberger.
He attempted to get the acting AG and deputy AG to lie: “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen". He refused, and Trump nearly replaced him with a sycophants that would do what he wanted.
He tried to pressure Pence into illegally rejecting electoral votes.
He pressured Raffensberger (among others) to overturn the election. When you previously claimed Trump was just asking for an investigation, I asked you to provide quotes of Trump's that supported your claim. You gave me nothing.
Trump was told by 2 AGs, White House Counsel, and 2 independent research organizations there wasn't sufficient fraud to overturn the election. He retold the lie about the State Farm allegation soon after Barr told him it was "bullshit", and repeated this lie on 1/6.
There can be no positive interpretation of Trump's spreading the falsehoods. Given his history of fraud (including, but not limited to,
Trump U, Trump foundation, tax fraud), and other obvious lies (e.g. denying knowledge of Cohen's payments to Stormy), the best explanation is that he knowingly lied. The alternative is that he's either irrational or exceedingly stupid. I've brought this up to you before, and you've never replied to it. So which is it? What positive explanation can you put forth?
I haven't even touched on his multiple instances of. obstruction of justice. Mueller vol ume 2 describes the evidence for his obstruction of his investigation. Barr's dropping the case doesn't mean the crimes didn't occur. Go ahead and defend the legality of what Trump did regarding Manafort - after you read the report. (Restain yourself from excusing Trump's criminality based on him being pissed off about the Russia investigation; obstruction of justice does not become acceptable on the basis of righteous indignation).
He clearly obstructed justice when he defied a lawful subpoena for classified documents. He hid documents from his lawyer. Rather than put forward a real defense, he lied to the public about the search, labelling it a "raid" and falsely claimed agents were authorized to kill him. Those two lies aren't crimes, but they are examples of his approach: commit crimes while inflating his cult members with propoganda.
You've alleged Smith's prosecution was "political" - but there's no evidence of it. Crimes were committed, crimes were investigated, and 4 grand juries agreed. Unprecedented? Sure. We've never before had a criminal as President.
What exculpatory evidence has Trump put forth? Nothing. He just says everyone else lied, and he repeays the lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Of course, he has some level of immunity - but immunity doesn't equate to innocence.
Now make your case. Point to evidence that supports your allegations. If you don't, it will be glaringly obvious which one of us is depending solely on "propoganda".
I've seen the theory that it's a loyalty check, but also a way to create cover for other appointments. The Senate can reject Gaetz and show they have "some backbone," and then bow on everything else with some credibility.
Given just how hated Gaetz is by his own party, I wouldn't be shocked if this one actually fails, although it might very well go through. If he is withdrawn, maybe Giuliani can go in!
Quoting Relativist
Never! Who would ever do such a thing?
How delusional are these people? Which Criminal Organizations they are talking about? Which Weaponized Government? Might not be speaking of the DoD. Repeal the Patriot Act or what? Very unlikely.
As I estimate, Trump and the Trump yes-men will create a huge clusterfuck of government inability. Yes, the Trump voters just like that, but in the end nothing will happen. Trump will just have a temper tantrum because nothing has happened. He will fire people as long as there is loyal Trumpists willing to take the position.
Universally the only department that can successfully make for example large cuts is the military as the organization is trained to take orders from above. No other government service or department actually works that way. Typically, and I'll use my country Finland here as an example (as this really is an universal response), if the government wants to cut the budgets of municipalities or provincial government, the first response is always to shut down public libraries. Why? Because Finns just love libraries even to day! In short, government bureaucracy will fight any administration by simply making it hell for the ordinary citizens in order for the citizens in response to get angry at the administration.
Heck, it's just four years.
You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016.
He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime.
Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing.
Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution. Why would they do that? Why won’t you mention this?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/
As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes.
All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, all of whom have either failed in their prosecution or have been found to be corrupt. Still, the one-sided story prevails.
I think the case can be made, not that anyone will listen to it, that Trump's major motivation is hatred and vengeance of those that prosecuted him - which is, basically, the Government! Trump hates the Government, he hates an independent judiciary and departmental secretaries who (as he sees it) ignore his wishes. So his major focus is on destroying the Government. Trump is 'the enemy within' that he kept ranting about pre-election. And he's been given a mandate to do it.
"The bureaucracy will fight back." Yep. So what? The bureaucracy needs to be trimmed. Of course it will fight back. The national debt is not even a partisan issue, it's an economic issue.
Quoting NOS4A2
It was unquestionably illegal, and even John Eastman (who was pushing for it) acknowledged that the Supreme Court would rule it illegal if it came to them. The changes to the electoral count act simply added language to make it explicit, thus preventing a future lawyer like Eastman from pushing it. (Eastman was disbarred for his role, and is under indictment. Trump is likely to pardon him from the federal crimes, but that won't erase the fact that he committed crimes).
Quoting NOS4A2
Barr chose to protect Trump from prosecution. That doesn't imply Trump didn't commit the acts. As I said, read Mueller volume 2 - the evidence is strong. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors agreed the evidence was more than enough for an indictment. Would he be convicted if there were a trial? We can only judge based on the available evidence, and there is zero exculpatory evidence - so there is no basis to assume otherwise. But criminal prosecution is off the table, so it's moot. That doesn't make his acts moot. They reflect on his low character, and flouting the law ; it demonstrates he's unfit to serve as President..
Quoting NOS4A2
The Supreme Court, in US v Nixon accepted the appointment of special counsels, and such appointments have been made for decades. Canon's novel ruling treating SCOTUS language on this as dicta (non-binding). It's likely her ruling would be overturned by SCOTUS if it were to get to them. It's not disputed that an AG can hire staff and delegate investigative and prosecutorial authority. Had Garland hired Smith at 10:00AM, and then at 10:01AM appointed him to his investigative/prosecutorial role, there would have been no basis to claim it unconstitutional. It's absurd to think such a sequence is necessary. But this is all beside the point, because it has zero bearing on the merits of the case (from a legal standpoint) and certainly no bearing on the criminality of the acts Trump committed - again, it shows his character and tendency to flout the law.
Quoting NOS4A2
The article says,
"Special counsel Jack Smith's office may not have fully reviewed thousands of pages of records turned over by former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik before seeking an indictment of former President Donald Trump Tuesday, says Kerik's attorney, Tim Parlatore....A source close to Kerik's legal team said at the time that they believed the records, which include sworn affidavits from people raising concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential contest, show there was a genuine effort to investigate claims of voter fraud in the last election."
This is an allegation, not exculpatory evidence. The "evidence" (such as it is) was received, not refused, and it is merely alleged (by someone who has no way to know) that it was not reviewed. Given that it contains affidavits, why should we think it relevant? Numerous affidavits were submitted in swing states by people making allegations that were rooted in bias an prejudice, not facts (per court rulings). It's undisputed that there was an to investigate claims of voter fraud, but Trump clearly was looking only for an affirmative answer. DOJ didn't give him the answer he wanted, nor did the various state election officials. So he hired two independent companies to look for fraud (see this) but neither of them gave him the answer he wanted. If he was simply after the truth, he would have made this public. We didn't learn about this until the Jan 6 committee discovered and revealed it.
Quoting NOS4A2
I did. I have never claimed the one statement ("I want you to find 1170 votes...") necessarily implied a crime. Rather, I'm refuting the claim you made that Trump was merely calling to encourage them to investigate. Nowhere in the transcript does Trump say this. He was pressuring them to change the result, and ignoring the fact that Georgia officials had already conducted investigations, and DOJ staff had also reviewed it. So your claim suggests you are the one who didn't read it, and you also seem ignorant of the broader context.
Quoting NOS4A2
You read my posts as carelessly as you read the Raffensberger transcript. I've repeatedly challenged you to read Mueller volume 2 and make a case for Trump being innocent of obstruction with regard to Manafort. You refuse.
You've provided no positive spin on Trump's hiding documents from his lawyer who was charged with returning documents demanded in the subpoena. You provided no positive spin on Trump lying about the specific allegations against Dominion and the Fulton County.
You've avoided commenting on the fact that Trump repeatedly, and aggressively spread the falsehood that the election was stolen. You've evaded my question about whether you account for this effort as lies, irrationality, or stupidity.
Relativist, I am sure I am not alone in applauding your efforts to bring truth to light, but NOS is a true Trump believer for whom facts and truth only matter to the extent that they can be used selectively in an attempt to defend him. To this end lies and falsehoods serve him just as well and usually even better. Like Trump he relies on the childish argumentative strategy of "I know you are but what am I?" accusing others of what he is accused of.
Out of respect I read all you’ve wrote but for future reference don’t bother. I already understand your characterization of the events, not only because you’ve told me, but because many people believe the same thing. It is a one-sided story. Everyone is already aware of it.
However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place, or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.
Every time this info is added to the one-sided story it paints a clearer picture, and all of it looks absolutely evil and corrupt.
So don’t waste your energies on old news that no one is buying. We’ve got four more years and there will be lots to talk about!
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1858527097330827575?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
My Rage Against Trump Supporters Is Killing Me
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/18/my-rage-against-trump-supporters-is-killing-me/
Said the frog in the water slowly coming to a boil: "Come on in the water is warm".
You don't seem to understand the metaphor. The pot is not yet boiling. At this point it may seem welcomingly warm.
The pot is the USA. It is not about you, its about us.
Whatever the case, grannies cramping themselves into an aneurysm is just sad on multiple levels. How many years on Earth does one need to understand the politicians' trick?
Tzeentch, you are clueless.
Quoting Tzeentch
What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?
If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads.
How come? :chin:
Quoting Fooloso4
The politician's trick is to get people emotionally invested and riled up, so they turn off their brains.
In case you didn't catch it, I'm responding to what posted about adults malding on social media about the election.
I think it's a sign of the unhealthy amounts of rage that were fostered by the Democratic Party, but obviously the Republicans have their own versions of it.
Quoting NOS4A2
You evaded the point I made: volume 2 unequivocally shows that Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation. No refutation is possible. You claim "everyone lied", which is false. The Mueller investigation was impeccable. You change the subject because you aren't willing to deal with the fact of Trump's crimes.
There were errors made in Crossfire Hurricane (not in the Mueller investigation). The biggest errors were the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants. The net result: Page (and only Page) was treated unjustly. But it had no material effect on the investigation, and didn't reflect on the merits. The FBI never got any information through their surveilance of him that influenced the course of the investigation. Obviously, you use the FISA errors as an excuse to ignore the crimes by the Trump team.
It's established fact that Russia worked to get Trump elected, and that one or more people in the campaign knew Russia was helping (and failed to report this contact as required by law) that Manafort gave polling data to Russia, and Russia told him what they wanted Trump to do. This means the law was broken by one or more people in the campaign. You ignore this.
Durham alleged there was "confirmation bias", but never suggested an investigation was unwarranted.
[Quote]But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place[/quote]
You're making a desperate attempt to rationalize ignoring Trump's crimes. You're wrong: Durham agreed that an investigation was warranted. He merely opined that it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation.It's a minor difference. FBI would still have uncovered the same set of facts, and a full investigation would have been opened eventually - because crimes had definitely been committed.
[Quote]...or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.[/quote]
Errors were made, but only one process crime was identified in Crossfire Hurricane. The "Clinton plan" was an invention of the Russians (I detailed this the last time you and I discussed it. As usual, you stop replying to an issue when backed into a corner).
It's actually pretty hilarious that a guy who so frequently complains of the influence of propoganda is so strongly influenced by the Trump propoganda. Truth doesn't really seem to matter to you.
Mueller was appointed specifically because he fired Comey- absolutely giving the appearance that Trump was obstructing the investigation. Durham had only praise for Mueller.
It is curious why an innocent man would impede a lawful investigation. We'll never know why, but it's unequivocally established that Trump engaged in multiple instances of obstruction. You choose to hide from this truth; you refuse to face the harsh facts that Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation, and did so again in the classified documents case - another of his crimes you choose to ignore.
You alleged Smith's investigations were corrupt. You provided no evidence to support that claim. Trump was indicted for fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, to overturn the 2020 election. The evidence is strong, so of course you ignore it.
[B]I've asked you repeatedly to how you account for Trump pushing the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen. As I've said, it seems the only possible explanations are that 1) he knew he lost, but lied; 2) he's irrational; 3) he's stupid.
Pick one, or come up with another explanation. [/b]
You voted to put a morally bankrupt criminal into the White House and to let him escape accountability. Own it.
If he succeeds in getting his hush-money conviction overturned by presidential fiat, and also makes good on his promise to pardon most or all of those convicted for January 6th crimes, then he will establish this as a fact. And now he's also armed with the Supreme Court decision that any official acts (or 'whatever Trump wants') will be immune from prosecution.
The mueller investigation took over crossfire hurricane. They took jurisdiction over the investigation. They employed people who were involved in crossfire hurricane. The report doesn’t mention any of the failures, omissions, the disparate treatment of the two campaigns, and the bias the subsequent investigations uncovered. That might have been pertinent info, you’d think.
I’m glad Trump fired comey. It was a made up story, an incompetent investigation, and Comey lied to the president, his boss, that he wasn’t under investigation. Both subsequent investigators rebuked him.
The only victims are those they targeted and the millions of Americans they defrauded with your conspiracy theory for years on end. You don’t care about nor mention any of this, but we all know why.
Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. You can’t just keep sweeping this stuff under the carpet, especially when we all know what’s under there. You let yourself be duped by a corrupt political investigation because it affected people you didn’t like. Worse, President Trump is the most investigated person in human history and you still have nothing on him.
I'm not aware that I omitted any relevant facts that I haven't dealt with in prior discussions with you. On the other hand, you're repeating claims I've previously refuted, and have failed to address the crimes by Trump that I brought up: obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation (I specifically pointed to Manafort) obstruction of justice regarding the lawful search warrant for classified docs, and election fraud. I've asked you at least 4 times to Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what? Make the case for your choice. I also asked you to back up your claim, that in his call to Raffensberger, Trump was simply asking for fraud claims to be investigated. Find quotes of Trump that show this.
After (finally) responding to those crimes, go ahead and bring up some facts you are accusing me of lying about "by omission". My guess is that I've previously addressed everything you might bring up (I'm skeptical you actually read my responses).
Talk about the obsession of having more sales taxes and making things more costly to the consumer. I thought Americans didn't like inflation.
Feels like with Trump, assuming he can deliver, the US is up for something as wonderful as the British experienced with their Brexit. I remember how excited the Trumpist were about Brexit. Oh how they made their Island nation independent and great again, with having all the freedom in the World to make prosperous deals in the World without the bureaucratic evil EU.
But perhaps this is in the realm of things like the obsession to pay the most for health care anywhere for a mediocre health care system, something I cannot wrap my mind around.
Let's not insult health care workers. The care is fine just not accessible because too many people are uninsured.
AND the insurance companies make a profit in everything. That also puts the price up.
Now some might argue that Trumps 10% tariffs on everybody else and 60% tariffs on China is just the negotiating tactic for the start as to wake up other states to notice that Trump is back in town.
But I don't get it how this would work for China. It's a totalitarian state. If Trump poses these difficulties, it's not a difficulty for the Chinese communists, because they're not elected out if the economy hits hard times. And they just can blame it as the imperialist aggression of the US. They (the Chinese) have to have noticed that Trump is a hostile partner when it comes to trade issues. Hence they just have a perfect culprit for all the economies problems with Trump. And then likely there emerges just huge trade around by third countries. Likely Trump's crownies will get exceptions, perhaps Elon can say something about stuff that hurts Tesla to Trump while he's rearranging everything better for himself and his companies in DOGE.
Perhaps they have little idea what they actually were voting for.
Already, true to form, the headlines are being dominated by ethical scandals and cover-ups sorrounding Trump's picks. A Fox News anchor to run the Pentagon, and a man credibly accused of trafficking underage minors for sex to run Justice Department. And it's two months before the actual Presidency even begins.
Because they don't know how inflation works. They don't know these things, and since they don't know any of it, they're gullible enough to listen to someone speak in a charismatic way and be emotionally charged with passion for something they only think is good because their leader said so.
If he stood there and promoted eating shit is healthy for you I would guarantee some people would do it just because he said so. People are generally absolute morons because it takes effort to not be one, and lazy people won't put in the effort. While education helps some, a lot of people are generally just incapable of overcoming their idiotic state of being. It's too ingrained by other morons around them as an epidemic echo chamber of bad influences.
They don't understand economic policies and their effects. They blame Biden for the inflation of the past few years (not the global supply chain problems that COVID produced), simply because he was in office, so it follows that this can't happen with their hero in office.
Trump is in a peculiar position as nominating these morons sends a signal to his Maga crowd that he's fighting back against the "deep state", but it will only lead to these positioned people screwing up and show that what Trump is doing is fundamentally incompetent and that everyone is a clown that ruins everything. But if he backs out of it, he's gonna show himself being weak and that the "deep state" is winning, and for a narcissistic fascist like Trump, showing weakness is loss.
So what will the clown do? :chin:
Blame everyone but himself.
Not a single word from Trump detractors who are no doubt busy doing god’s work psychoanalyzing their folk devil.
https://archive.ph/3HK6F
Oh well, it seemed to have worked. Innocent or guilty, The Machine will chew them up and spit them out.
What scandal will they manufacture?
Yes, war seems to be ramping up, contrary to Trump's claim that if elected he'd have the war stopped before even taking office, because he knows Putin so well. It appears like Trump's close ties to Russia will be significantly strained this term, by this clash of personalities, as each of these individuals attempts to prove oneself to be the most powerful man in the world. This time around though, Trump will acknowledge no debt owed to Russia for his position. The dog unleased will turn on the master, and the table is set for disaster.
[quote=Bob Dylan]While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in
But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him[/quote]
I think it's called "spite".
Biden ramped it up for no other reason than politics. No press conference, no nothing. Given the chicken-little approach of anti-trumpism, I fear it’s a sinister ploy to knee-cap the incoming administration for political reasons.
We’ll have to see what Trump does. In any case, whatever they do, it will be an order of magnitude greater in transparency.
What a surprise. Aren't all wars about politics?
Quoting NOS4A2
Don't hold your breath on that one. Remember, he said he'd stop the war before taking office. Is it transparent what he is doing now?
Spite?
I think that Americans were quite unhappy with inflation, that actually was caused by deliberate policies starting with Trump, but effectively finished by Biden. Everything else was given as a reason, except the massive transfer of money to the consumer thanks to the Pandemic.
Brexit actually gives a perfect example of how voters react to bad populist policies. Brexit was said to give frictionless trade and new deals around the world. End rampant immigration. The UK would be finally in charge itself. Above all, it was anti-elitist! Spite, as @unenlightened remarked. And from outside of the country looking at it, it went something like this:
1) First enthusiasm: People won the elites, hooray! Finally somebody is doing something good.
2) Then silence but still waiting for the positive effect: Give some time for it to work!
3) Then denial: Actually, we have gotten something good. It's not so bad.
4) Then amnesia: Look at how awful everything is now. Labor's fault.
I'd bet that if Trump really goes through with kicking out millions from the country, issuing huge [s]sales taxes[/s], sorry, tariffs, prices will go up. Even Elon Musk, who has a brain, understands that it will cause hurt. Well, even if Trump isn't running for re-election, we know his persona.
And let's remember that a populist movement can simply believe that all the bad things have happened because of the evil a) deepstate, b) woke people or c) nasty foreigners. If a political movement transforms to a cult, it doesn't matter if the economy totally collapses. They can blame somebody else. In fact, Trump then can take the punchlines from Maduro, if everything goes to hell in a handbasket:
While the Venezuelan economy, well:
Of course Venezuela is different. But the policy choices there were populist and horrible. As I said, the impact of millions kicked out of the labor force and out of being consumers, then having trade wars with everybody can be nasty. What is the outcome of +10% tariffs for Haiti? Haiti exports over 80% of all of the meager stuff it produces to the US. Even if the society is on the verge of collapse, will this help? How will then this all show on the US border, especially if (when) other poor Latin American countries have bad economic difficulties?
Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war.
How? I think Biden has backed up Ukraine since the start. He actually made the intel reports public that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. I remember how Biden was ridiculed even in this forum by people who didn't believe that Russia would attack Ukraine. Because why would rational Russia invade Ukraine?
Besides, the Democrat administration knows quite well that Trump would have only threatened to give the weapons system for Ukraine if Russia doesn't budge at all (and let's face it, the ATACMS isn't at all a game changer), hence Ukraine would have been in a weaker position in the peace talks.
What stands as credible critique towards Biden is the idea of giving aid to Ukraine that it wouldn't lose (collapse), but not to win (meaning it gets a victory like Poland got from the Soviets in the 1920's). I'm not sure if this was really what the administration had in mind, but sometimes the micromanagement of what weapon system is given and instructions how to use it makes many feel that this is the underlying if not spoken objective.
And if you are so afraid of WW3, why the fuck then all the hostile talk against China then?
If you want to be a weak dick, then be a weak dick. Then people will understand that you're deterrence doesn't actually mean so much. But simply staying calm shows that you have trust in your the deterrence and that you see through the empty threats of Putin.
Biden has until now resisted Ukraine’s pleas to ease the limits on the use of U.S. ATACMs missiles, and then shifts to allowing their use during the presidential transition in which his regime and party lost. Why would he do that, you think?
Some claim it is because North Korean troops entered the engagement, others mention it is to “Trump-proof” United States Ukraine policy. In any case, it’s a political move, and it looks like a cynical ploy to stifle the incoming administration, or worse.
Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war through political conniving. It’s no strange wonder that Biden has been involved in that theatre since before it all started to kick off.
I think the option of making "Trump proof" would be close. But again, this is how Biden has worked. First M1 Abrams tanks weren't an option. Too complex! Then few M1 Abrams tanks are given. Then MLRS/HIMARS weren't an option. Then they were. Then NATO states want to give F-16 aircraft. Biden rejects this. Too complex! Then after a long time, Biden accepts these transfers.
This is basically how the White House ran the Vietnam war. Just to give an example, the White House forbid to attack at some time the airbases that North Vietnamese had their few MiG aircraft. Why? Because, the idea went, if the bases were attacked, then North Vietnam might withdraw the to China, where they could be attacked and the threat of China getting involved would increase. Now it should be obvious that the short range MiGs would have a lousy time trying to intercept US fighter bombers from China, hence it would be a great turn for the Americans that the MiGs would be in China. And naturally they didn't a rats ass about what the impact on the crews were on this kind of micromanagement.
This is the absurdity when politicians are let to micromanage warfighting. Yet when you ask the President to answer something, he definitely will then answer these kind of question and then you simply are trapped in the situation where politician just decide on everything and they don't look at the war from the warfighting stance, but from their own political view. Then war becomes "sending messages", not fighting to win the war and defeating the enemy.
This scene from "Thirteen Days" depicts this problem well, even if it perhaps isn't historically accurate. Yet what in the scene McNamara describes as a "new language" between Khrushchev and JFK might have a point here, it really isn't the same issue during the Vietnam war. Yet the tendency for micromanagement of everything continued there too.
Quoting NOS4A2
Lol. If the US argues that China is a military threat, when it pivots to Asia, opens new bases, brings in new weapon systems like medium range artillery missiles into Phillipines, then that actually is quite hostile from the Chinese point of view. And you don't think 60% tariffs isn't hostile?
Of course, China's claims on the South China Sea are dubious and it put pressure on states like the Phillippines, but it hasn't gone to war with it's neighbors like Russia. Yet if it's peace through strength, then that's quite similar to the reasons for NATO enlargement.
I don't know about micromanaging, but for politicians to command the military is only proper.
"War is a continuation of politics by other means," as Clausewitz said.
When fighting and winning the war becomes a goal of its own (as is often the type of tunnel vision military leadership suffers from), it is a recipe for disaster.
You end up with geniuses like MacArthur who wanted to nuke China because he was unable to accept the Korean War was going to end in a stalemate.
Gradual escalation is more predictable and unlikely to lead to erratic behaviour from the other side, so safer. It's a tactic in and of itself.
For politicians to put down the objectives for the war is proper, to decide to go to war. But politicians shouldn't then become generals themselves and decide what to do. Totalitarian states are perfect examples of where their political leader can have made things worse when not listening to their generals. But when you look at the way Vietnam war was micromanaged by the White House and compare it to WW2, there's a huge difference.
Quoting Tzeentch
And when winning isn't the real objective, then people can believe that the sole objective is just to feed money to the military industrial complex. And hence the turn to defeatism, where no war is ever worth fighting, which also means that there is absolutely no deterrence to keep the peace.
The erratic behaviour for Russia was to believe that they could have a Blitzkrieg victory over Ukraine because the occupation of Crimea had been so easy and bloodless. Yet from that point on, it hasn't been so erratic. After that Putin has been at least partly successful of hindering the support given to Ukraine by saber rattling. If the US would have given all the weapons it has now given from the start, the situation likely would be different.
Russia's nuclear deterrent has done it's job, NATO and the US aren't directly involved in the fighting. Without the nuclear deterrence I'm sure that NATO countries would have declared a "No Fly Zone" over Ukraine. It would have been the likeliest direct intervention that NATO would have done, just like in the Libyan Civil War. I assume that and the military aid would be it. I see no appetite for NATO countries to send their forces in and in NATO countries like Poland wouldn't go their own way.
The idea that Russia would start a nuclear war with NATO because of NATO countries giving military aid to Ukraine is crazy. We went through a Cold War and arming your opponent never was a reason for WW3. But somehow Putin's threats have worked.
With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/
Sure they will. They had years to do it. What’s another four?
Regardless of this fact, I heard that the statute of limitations may expire before the 4 years is up.
I would not be surprised if Trump pardons himself at some point during his term.
I would be surprised if he doesn't rename it something like "exonerating himself" Pardoning oneself sounds a bit like an admission of guilt.
No, Jack Smith's immunity filing in the case of The United States v. Donald J. Trump, if nothing else, becomes an important historical document for future historians.
It preserves the words and the deeds of Trump in trying to overturn a legal election.
I have read the entire 165-page filing (it's easily found online), and recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the depth and danger of Trump's corruption and lies.
A historical nothing-burger put out by an unlawful counsel before an election. It’s a good reminder of the DOJ’s election interference.
Jack Smith said he wanted American people to have the benefit of his evidence for the election. Well, the jury decided, and no one cared about any of it.
I agree. An historical perspective will counteract the current hype-partisanship and denialism.
.
*Symptomatic: Despite my asking you at least 5 times, you have avoided explaining how you account for Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: is he liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what?
An actual jury is forced to review all the evidence. Few (if any) Trump voters actually considered the evidence against Trump. NOS4A2 is a good example of this: he avoids considering the evidence against Trump, and just regurgitates what the criminal himself says about the prosecutions.
He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime.
What crime did Trump commit again?
You're reaching. One lone district judge claimed an AG cannot appoint a special counsel, a judge who's pro-Trump rulings have been overturned on appeal on multiple occasions. Appellate Courts (in OTHER districts) have ruled that AGs indeed have the authority. AGs have been appointing special counsels for decades, so Garland was clearly not acting in a rogue manner.
What's even more significant is that this is a red herring: it has no bearing on the evidence of Trump's guilt, or the appropriateness of indicting Trump for his crimes. If it were to reach SCOTUS, they agreed with Canon, and the case were to be reinstated - it could be re-litigated with other DOJ attorneys.
I did not "lie", but I accept that I misunderstood what you were saying. Now that I've cleared that up, please clear up your view of Trump's spreading of the falsehoods about the 2020 election.
Thanks for proving my point that Trumpists are unaware of the facts. In the unlikely event you are interested in exploring the facts, here's good starting points:
2020 Election case
Documents case
Sexual Assault case
.
She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism.
I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism. Besides, all of it pales in comparison to the massive fraud perpetrated against the American people (and indeed, the world) in the 2016 election and beyond.
Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore.
The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.
Regardless, whether or not SCOTUS would overturn the statutes is a red herring; it has zero bearing on Trump's guilt or of the ability of DOJ to prosecute with staff already employed. The AG has the authority to hire people, so he could easily get around Canon's issue if he chose to do so (I mentioned this before, but -as usual- you ignored it).
Quoting NOS4A2
So...you don't care if Trump engaged in fraud. I didn't think you did, but wanted you to admit it. You used to care a bit, when you denied that Trump lied (knowingly told a falsehood). Now that I backed you into a corner, you don't care at all (ROFLMAO!)
Your prior allegations against Biden and former national security officials, suggest a double standard: it only matters when it's the "other side". (IOW, you're a hypocrite). I would hope that most Americans would actually care.
[Quote]The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism.[/quote]
The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.
Quoting NOS4A2
The repository includes court filings by the prosecution, the defence, and court rulings.
The most straightforward is the sexual assault case. I pointed you at the jury's ruling. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation against the woman he assaulted.
The most significant case is Trump's fraud case- his attempt to illegally overturn the election. You said you didn't care, so what's the point of pursuing that?
I've previously brought up Trump's obstruction of justice in both Mueller and in the documents case. Refer back to those discussions, particularly where you stopped responding when you exhausted your excuses.
You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. As usual you skirt around the arguments and simply repeat your conclusions, or at least the conclusions you’re taught to repeat.
There is no law against contesting an election.
What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault?
Two different issues. One is Trump's criminal, unconstitutional actions. The other is what people voted for or against.
Repeating Canon's ruling a million times doesn't make it either authoritative or binding, or relevant to his guilt. You love to obsess on red herrings.
Quoting NOS4A2
He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.
Quoting NOS4A2
The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife. Trump also lied when he publicly denied ever having met Carroll.
On the Access Hollywood recording, Trump bragged that as a celebrity - he could get away with grabbing women by "the pussy". He doubled down on this during his deposition. This is among the reasons to believe Trump has no moral compunction against doing what he was accused of.
What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you.
The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal. That’s it.
Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.
Quoting NOS4A2
ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.
On what grounds do you give credibility to Trump's denial? You know he lies all the time; and nearly every criminal claims they're innocent.
No, the most important crime was sexual assault, which is criminal. The fact that the statute of limitations had expired doesn't erase the fact that he committed the crime. It's true that the guilt finding was based on the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The implication: at minimum, this establishes that it's more likely than not that he committed the crime.
Why does it matter that it's appealed? The facts speak for themselves, irrespective of whether or not Carroll will receive a payout from Trump.
:mask:
You’re sure he’s committed a crime but cannot name a criminal act.
I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. It appears you’re not even aware of this, among others, once again deflecting to something unrelated. Neither was Carrol, apparently, because she lied and said she did not receive outside funding. Once it was revealed that she did in fact receive outside funding, her lawyer claimed she forgot. In other words, she could not remember that someone else was funding her lawsuit, but in your mind is credible enough to accuse someone of an event from 30 years ago—as far as we know because she can’t even remember the year it happened—long past the statute of limitations for your so-called crime.
The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise.
You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.
Quoting NOS4A2
You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.
And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:
“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."
“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."
This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right.
I don’t care what you think because it’s uninformed and one-sided. You have zero facts while claiming his alleged assault was a fact. This is your “reasonable epistemology”: accept any accusations of the political opponents of Donald Trump. Do away with the statute of limitations so you can punish people for allegations from a quarter of a century ago, where any and all evidence against the allegations have been lost. Your understanding of law and epistemology is to get rid of legal statutes so you can get the verdict you like.
You're just repeating a line of attack by Trump's defense during the trial. This line of defense depends on the unsupported assumptions that both 1) the email was referring to the sexual assault allegation; and 2) The allegation is false.
Martin testified that the 2017 email was unrelated to the sexual assault allegation. Even if she lied about this, it doesn't imply the allegation was false. That the allegation was true was supported by a second confidante ,(Birnbach).
I previously failed to mention that two other women also testified that they had been assaulted by Trump.
If you want to appear credible, try to show that you're examining a fuller context than simply repeating a defense allegation. That reeks of confirmation bias. Try to show that you're making a judgement based on the totality of evidence.
Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None.
Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings.
I don’t care what I appear like to anti-Trjmpists, especially because you have no evidence for what you claim is a fact.
Trump's attorney tried a trick: he introduced Martin's text messages into the evidence, but when he cross-examined her, he didn't ask her to explain what she meant by "hasn't really happened". Instead, he pulled this rabbit out of his hat on closing, asserting this "proved" the 3 women conspired on a lie about Trump.
In the prosecution's rebuttal, they explained that Martin was referring to the fact that the passage of the LAW had not happened. Here's a summary of what occurred.
Quoting NOS4A2
Recordings of Trump, and the allegations by other of his victims, are relevant in establishing his character.
"Proven"? The standard of proof it's a preponderance of evidence. It sounds like you will refuse to believe Trump did anything wrong unless is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Such an attitude just shows how devoted you Trumpists are to the morally bankrupt criminal.
They make excuses that Martin was referring to this or that, and Carroll simply forgot about her outside funding, that they were not scheming to get Trump despite using the word “scheme”.
“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say.
Why didn't Trump's attorney ask Martin about the comment when she was on the stand? It was tactical. He's a smart lawyer- he wanted to use his negative characterization in his closing without giving her the chance to explain it. Surely you can see that. It's what a good defense attorney should do.
Carroll's lawyers were smart too; they would have discussed this text with her in advance- so they were in position to know the answer.
Still, lawyers' statements aren't testimony, so all they give us are two competing interpretations of the texts. You didn't acknowledge this fact. Instead you latched onto the defense interpretation because it fit your pre-conceived view that Trump was innocent.
Quoting NOS4A2
I put myself in the shoes of a juror, examining the evidence (testimony is evidence, btw) and it's clear that the preponderance of evidence is in Carroll's favor. My conclusion is the same as the jurors. You are the outlier. You have given no indication you've weighed the evidence- you just parrot the defense case, and complain about the absence of DNA or video evidence- which is dumb. The case should be decided on the evidence presented at trial, not the absence of evidence you'd like to see.
[I]Of course[/i], his character and pattern of behavior is relevant. Why wouldn't it be? That's why trial defenses often put character witnesses on the stand. No one could possibly testify that Trump is too virtuous to commit the alleged act. But you apparently think he is.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1863014774520357085?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Trump’s words and deeds in trying to overturn the 2020 election constitute a criminal scheme.
On August 1, 2023, a grand jury of everyday Americans, convened by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), returned an indictment criminally charging former President Donald Trump with four crimes related to 2020 presidential election interference. The indictment centers on Trump and his co-conspirators’ attempt to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 presidential election, and to interfere with millions of Americans’ right to vote and have that vote counted.
https://statesunited.org/resources/doj-charges-trump/
I pointed you to a 165-page court filing that laid out all the evidence against Trump. And if you have not read it, you are not in a position to criticize it.
Also, Trump has been clear about his plans to concentrate power in the Executive Branch, and will not tolerate any refusal to carry out his orders, whether or not they are legal. Under Trump, we can expect the rule of law to be under assault, and the courts to be very busy.
Trump’s illegality has already begun with his insistence on the Senate bypassing the normal confirmation process to install his loyalists, even though the Constitution says appointees must be confirmed with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”
But, even beyond that, whether or not something is a crime cannot be the sole criterion to determine if something is wrong or immoral.
Trump is not a man of principle. He exploits the biases, bigotry, and fears of his base for one purpose only: to gain more power for himself. He has them voting against their own interests to further his own. Surely, this is immoral.
An example of the way he manipulates his base can be found in the tweet below that he made last summer (posted three times).
I would be interested in hearing your opinion of its morality, in light of the fact it was made with reference to his attempt to overturn a legal election so he could stay in power.
Jul 20th 2024 - 10:12:25 PM EST, Jul 20th 2024 - 8:44:02 PM EST, Jun 25th 2024 - 3:09:00 PM EST
Every time the Radical Left Democrats, Marxists, Communists, and Fascists indict me, I consider it a GREAT BADGE OF HONOR. I’m being indicted for YOU. Never forget—our enemies want to take away MY FREEDOM because I will never let them take away YOUR FREEDOM. They want to silence ME because I will never let them silence YOU. In the end, they’re not after me, they’re after you—and I’m just standing in their way!
Smith’s October suprise”. I do not need to read a dismissed case from an unlawful special counsel who puts out a motion in violation of DOJ’s own rules in order to criticize it. It is exactly as every investigation into Trump has ever been hitherto, little more than a list of word and thought-crimes imagined in the head of a fevered anti-Trump prosecutor, all while presuming to know Trump’s thoughts, desires, and feelings in an assumption of guilt. It’s clear they didn’t like what the president said and believed, or that he didn’t comply lock step with their own judgements, so they thread a one-sided story without the benefit of any defense in order to influence an election. As such it can serve as nothing more than opposition research, a conspiracy theory, like every investigation before it. That’s all it will ever be.
To me it is neither wrong nor immoral to contest or dispute an election if one believes it was stolen. I believe it is both right and good to want to get to the bottom of it.
As for the Truth post, it’s a great one. The fevered, conspiratorial, and reactionary forces weaponizing the justice system and the media warrant precisely such an insult. Their actions warrant far more than a Truth post, in my opinion, and I hope they get their comeuppance.
And this just tell what's it going to be like. Trump wants to go after people he doesn't like and minions like Kash Patel will go after them ...and figure out on the way how, as Kash himself states.
The issue with these conspiracy theorists and people around Trump that talk about the "Deep State" is that they don't give a fuck about strengthening the democratic institutions against a "Deep State", they simply want to run it, embrace it and expand it for the service of Trump. Total devotion to Trump is the key.
If he would be given the FBI, the end result would be that FBI likely would be less functioning and worse performing institution. True reforms are done by people who are devoted in improving an institution, not having their only objective to serve the whims of the President and having likely a personal vendetta against the department they will be running.
But of course, for one @NOS4A2, it's the best pick. Because of course the US doesn't need an FBI. Should it be demolished?
You can tell people are scared of getting exposed by Patel. The best part is the writer for that rag cannot even name something Kash has done wrong, just that deep-state stoolies like Barr and Haspel were scared of him. Good.
It’s just not true that Patel has no plan, because he wrote a whole book describing it. I can list for you some of his ideas for reform if you like, at least so you don’t continue through life spreading deep-state misinformation.
For the FBI in particular, his plans consist of the following.
For all such agencies:
There’s much more, and I can expound on them if you like. Then we can discuss the merits and demerits of these ideas should you be interested.
But keeping you ignorant, blind and loyal is how these people control you, ssu. Venture outside the bubble now and again.
I don't care a Goddamn fuck what Patel "exposes". It's not the director of the FBI that's job is to "expose" people. It's his job to lead a 37 000 person organization. How could some Patel make differences, really? He hasn't lead any kind of organization, has basically worked three years in the Trump administration and is a simple Floridian lawyer who has a personal grudge against the FBI. He is total political appointee. He'll just cripple the effectiveness of the department and sink it's morale.
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh yes, he did!!!! :rofl:
Ohhh... King Trump is confronted by the evil woke Deep State. And HILLARY!!! (And seems like Kash Patel himself is in the book as the friendly magician helping king Trump) :lol:
And really @NOS4A2, you think that this yes-man of Trump really wants to "reassert self government"? What you said is simply that he's going to bog down the department by a needless moving of the department somewhere else (which will cost much and disrupt ordinary work) and then go against people that he or Trump deems to part of "the Deep State", corrupt law enforcement personnel, in retaliation of prior inquiries on Trump.
And that's fucking it. Really, if you believe that it's something else than retaliation against those who made the inquiries of Trump, and need of "aggressive congressional oversight", that's really naive. Trump doesn't give a fuck about "aggressive congressional oversight". Isn't Kash actually going after those politicians who should "aggressive congressional oversight" in January 6th.
Quoting Fooloso4Then it was the McCarthy hearings against the US armed forces that ended McCarthyism. For those who don't know, it's very telling what happened to McCarthy and Roy Cohn, as they imploded on live television. Would that happen today, no?
Yet now the idea of going against "the Deep State" is simply absurd. Yet this is the line that Trump goes on again and again: that the real enemy is inside the US, not China and, heaven forbid, not Russia. It is absurd and illogical as Trump is the head of the executive branch. And he should be the law and order President. Of course this is easy for Trump: anyone who is loyal to him is a "warrior" and anyone that opposes or simply doesn't go with all of what he wants is part of the "Deep State".
Biden is currently the head of the executive branch but here in the US we know he's not running the show. Who is? Beats me. But certainly not Biden who has spent much of his time on vacation and barely seems coherent at times. What I can tell you is that intelligence agencies have access to massive amounts of data and that men are not angels. I'm convinced that one of the forces behind Trump's victory is that so many Americans just weren't sure whose been running the government for the past few years.
If Trump was asked : "Have you no sense of decency?" he would just smirk and say: "I have the most decency, the best decency. They say no one has more decency than me." It is, of course his complete lack of decency and his shamelessness that shields him from even being bothered by the accusation.
Dismissing Patel because of his lack of experience is silly because his experience includes serving as a U.S. National Security Council official, senior advisor to the acting Director of National Intelligence, and chief of staff to the acting United States secretary of defense.
Besides, all of your experienced directors like McCabe and Comey have been proven by investigations to be wildly incompetent, biased, and unable to abide by a strict fidelity to the law. The organizations and investigations they ran displayed “gross incompetence and negligence”.
The author of the Atlantic article, too, tried to make fun of him for writing a children’s book, implying he ought to have used government as a springboard to jobs at Raytheon and Boeing. I’d rather a man who wrote a children’s book to have control of these decrepit agencies than any number of the career, unelected bureaucrats using their office to further their own financial future.
At any rate, I’ll do as I always do and save your predictions for when they undoubtedly miss the mark.
Oh, Biden is running the show at least to pardon his son. Yes, he is inept and corrupt. But that doesn't change things for the next administration. Why should it also be inept and corrupt?
You see, it's not the idea of a FBI director to be a purely political position. You do have the political appointment to supervise the FBI, the Attorney General. That's the "democratic oversight", usually. Just as in my country, there's a minister for Justice. But it would be questionable if a President of Finland would start putting his minions to be the head of the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (which is something equivalent to the FBI). That the guy wouldn't be a policeman and someone with intel work background would raise immediately eyebrows in our democracy.
Above all, it was Trump himself that appointed the current FBI director when he fired Comey. This is simply a power grab: Trump wants a loyal yes-man to the position to act as his personal investigative bureau. And if you look at what Kash Patel did in the White House, that's what you are getting.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, many things have changed. You see, back then people respected the system, even McCarthy. But for people who see the United States government itself as the enemy, why would they care? The ENEMY is the United States government. You fight your enemy in any way possible.
Quoting NOS4A2Yes, at least Fox News makes him to be well suited for the job. He also sells Trump shirts, btw.
So he was a NSC staffer there, but I think his breakthrough, if I remember correctly, was writing or assisting on writing the Nunes memo. Interestingly it was Carter Page that made me first surprised, because Page was the first American ever to say that Ukraine was an artificial state (and hence talked the Kremlin line). Then Patel was active in Ukraine when Trump was looking ways to get Biden. So basically he's a minion that Trump wants to have around.
Quoting NOS4A2
So what failure did Trump do with the current FBI director, that he himself appointed? Comey or McCabe aren't replaced here, but Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee.
What is his wild incompetency? That he didn't deliver an "October Surprise" like Comey did with reopening the Hillary Clinton investigation and didn't go after Biden, his boss, with similar investigations? Not MAGA enough for you?
This is just bullshit. You really think you are rooting for someone like Patel to "drain the swamp", go against the Deep State? Nothing like that is happening here. Everything is just partisan politics and a power grab disguised in "fighting the Deep State". But people fall for it, just like they have fallen over every time to think that Republicans will make the Government smaller. Trump made it very clear what kind of a FBI director he really wants: a loyal Herbert Hoover that will go after Trump's own enemies.
(And correction, Kash has written at least three books about King Donald)
Quoting ssu
... to the silent cheers of a few that don't have the US' best interest at heart.
All their "deep state" "swamp" enemies ... crap sells, especially to a certain demographic, again to the silent cheers of...
Well, maybe they can turn the cheers into discouragement or indifference, we'll see.
Joe Biden pardons his son, despite claiming many times he never would. Every time he uttered “no one is above the law” was a lie. What a legacy.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1796665674535711051?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
It's basically quite logical. When you see your own government as the enemy, then you will parrot similar narratives as those countries truly hostile at you. And people don't understand just how detrimental this is when these kind of people really get into power.
When you aren't singling out the corrupt actors, just like Biden and his lies about not pardoning his son, but paint with a large brush over entire departments and institutions, the damage will be serious. Conspiracy theorist don't go after individuals, but think there's a larger organization behind everything. First and foremost, conspiracy theorists don't believe that their own government has done anything positive. Hence there's no understanding about the reality, that the alliances and the Pax Americana has actually benefited the US hugely.
John Bolton, who has become embarrasingly sensible post-Trump. says he is Trump's Lavretia Beria. The one consolation is that Beria was executed by firing squad.
His confirmations hearing will be the acid test for whether the democracy will survive.
Yet one has to remember, that the FBI hasn't been manned from the start out of revolutionary serial killers as the Cheka / NKVD was. The organization Berija lead, just as the KGB, saw itself as the forefront figthers of the revolution. Whatever we can think about the Hoover years, the FBI, just as the US judicial system, isn't the tool of the President. FBI agents think of themselves as policemen, not servants to a revolutionary cause, who have to take care of the ugly hard work. Just as the US military sees itself as defending the Republic, not as the tool of the President.
What do you think that FBI agents will think about a director that thinks they themselves, the people he ought to lead, are the gangsters and the enemy to the American that have to be purged? This is the real issue here: this will just make the FBI weaker and ineffective. Someone like Kash Patel will enthusiastically try to fulfill every whim and vagary that Trump tells him to do. You think that will work?
And if Trump wants to deport every thirty third person living in America, guess who are then put to do this job? Already Trump has talked about using the Army, but likely all security agencies will be put into this effort, which Trump has control over. It's about many millions of people who should be deported. You think someone like Kash Patel would complain that this isn't what the FBI should do? That it isn't one the top priorities of the FBI? Heck, for a Trump minion like Patel, the mission statement of the FBI, to "protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States" is simply a carte blance for doing anything that Trump wants. His real actions in the previous Trump administration show what a sycophant he is, so it's whimsical to believe that his mission is to fight the Deep State. Previously he was part of the infant "Deep State" of Trump himself!
No, it simply won't work. Trump is no Hitler, no Stalin. Without Stalin, there's no Berija. The great populist orator lacks the essential leadership abilities that are needed to overthrow democracy in the US. And hence Patel will be just this laughing stock and afterwards Americans will ask just what happened to the FBI.
Even if that best case scenario comes to pass, he will be able to do a great deal of damage along the way. He threatened to release all the national security documents Trump illegally possessed, claiming that it would expose the "deep state" conspiracy against Trump (the same conspiracy that Durham investigaged, but found no evidence of). He claimed he could do this because Trump had made a blanket declassification of all the documents before leaving office. Even if it were true that Trump had done this, doing so would have violated the Espionage Act (which involves any documents pertinent to nation defense, irrespective of classification). So, Patel was either planning to break the law, or he's ignorant of it. Either possibility implies he's no qualified to have a position of authority in the DOJ. The risk is high that he'll put national security at risk if he's FBI director.
The stupidest argument is that he is a “loyalist”, which implies an executive branch employee should be an insubordinate to his boss like Alexander Vindman and James Comey and Mark Milley. That’s not how a chain of command works in any functioning democracy, I’m afraid. The president is supposed to be the highest representative of the people, and if his staff are disloyal to him they are disloyal to the people.
It’s an absurd assessment. “Nothing like that is happening here”? Of course not, they’re not even in power yet.
Your unmitigated fears are not based on much, ssu. Again, your experienced directors have been proven incompetent, and numerous investigations and whistleblowers has proven the FBI in need of serious reform. What defenders of these institutions keep falling for is that these agencies are above reform, above the law, in no need of systemic change. That has proven to be false.
Again you fail to answer what wrong Christopher Wray has done. Perhaps the reason is that Wray got the highest DOJ reward for public service in 2005, which obviously makes him part of the Deep State. Trump said Wray was "a man with impeccable credentials" when he picked Wray. The Wray's tenure I guess would basically last until 2027.
Quoting NOS4A2
That the Trump team won't deliver, but just create a mess is for me the most probable outcome just by comparing how things went during the last years of the previous Trump administration. Likely what they can be successful is simply moving the FBI out of Washington DC, which isn't something like "destroying the Deep State". If you think that is an "unmitigated fear", then you are funny in your blind faith in Trump.
But it's the typical way that Americans totally devote to one side or the other and in doing so, totally throw out any critical thinking they have and simply become supporters of their side. I saw this happening first when Obama got to be President: when Bush was around, those liberals and Democrats were Oh so against the excesses of the War on Terror, against the Patriot Act, against GITMO, yet once Obama came into power and things continued totally the same, they were totally silent. Patriot Act wasn't repealed, GITMO is still open, and the War on Terror actually continues in places like Iraq. Even today, even if it's said that the US troops would withdraw from Iraq in 2025. Upholding human rights or the values of the Constitution only when it's convenient simply shows that people really don't care about those values, they are just issues that are used as means to get to the goal of having power. Anybody with some understanding of philosophy would notice how hollow this is.
And now the Republicans are against the Deep State, against big Government and will be in a similar denial as they always have been when the GOP won't deliver them the smaller government they have promised now for many decades. And the likely outcome is that the Intelligence/Security complex will get far more mercurial, less controlled by Congressional oversight and more "Deep State" like during the Trump administration. The exact opposite what these people promoting it to be. Just like the idea of a smaller government last time.
No wonder he couldn’t get everything done that he wanted to. It’s difficult to run a country with the ceaseless disruptions from all branches of government and the fourth estate. His own DOJ believed in a conspiracy theory that embroiled the government in insubordination, from top to bottom, for years. The impeachments, the insubordination, the riots, a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, hindered and stifled the efforts of the executive branch throughout his entire administration. So I forgive any and all failures.
It was Patel’s work on the so-called Nunes memo that broke the scandal wide open, and was later confirmed by the Inspector General’s report and the Durham investigation. The DOJ, along with Ray, claimed the release of the memo to be “reckless”. It turns out it was right all along; the FBI was reckless, incompetent, grossly negligent. They failed to uphold their one mission, to maintain a strict fidelity of the law, and it’s clear they just didn’t want anyone to find out the truth.
No @NOS4A2, just stop and think about this one for a while: It's impossible for ANY President to perform at the same time of 1) tackling all the crises that land on the desk of the POTUS daily, 2) of doing the obligatory functions of the executive, 3) leading foreign policy, 4) leading trade and economic policy (and the trade wars), 5) leading all other policies and 6) implement radical reforms. And then is the work of getting all the contributions to the next elections.
The system is far too much any single person can handle, and that's the key point! It cannot be handled by one single person. In other countries you have a division of a President and a Prime Minister where the President isn't a ceremonial position, like in France. If there's a political crisis, the prime minister goes and in comes a new one, while the President stays. Now Project 2025 wants Trump to have more power. Come on, it's not going to work. Trump isn't a team leader and he just picks up the strangest people to surround him, but as long as their totally loyal and will do everthing he says, he's happy. Until nothing gets done and things just implode.
Quoting NOS4A2
Will you also forgive him for all the failures he will do in the future too?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, and that's the kind of lawyer Kash Patel is and that's why he is Trump's pick. Doing lawyer stuff as an aide for Nunez etc. Yet Kash hasn't lead anything larger than a small team of lawyers and tried to find the "mole" inside the White House. Oh but you think Kash Patel will do fine by leading an organization of 37 000 policemen? Oh, any lawyer can do that, right? After all that rhetoric of going against the real gangsters inside the FBI.
Quoting NOS4A2
Nope. Comey simply couldn't handle Trump. Comey assumed he could avoid the political infighting in Washington DC, but he didn't, he failed miserably in it and created a mess himself. Starting from giving that "October Surprise" to Trump with restarting the probe on Hillary Clinton. Yet as Trump is so strange when it comes to his absolute love of Putin, that it just confused them (and actually, everybody). Even goddam Kash Patel said admitted in an interview that the FBI has to investigations are normal in the intel field. But then the Dems wanted to go further with the Russia link, just as they did all the time cried about what happened on the January 6th.
No, Comey's stupidity comes from not understanding what kind of person Trump is. When Trump asked him for loyalty, he would simply have said to be loyal to the President of the US and then veer the discussion to something like Trump likes, like how kick-ass FBI agents the bureau has and Trump should come to see them, it would be a perfect photo op for the Prez. Nope, he was so worried about the legal ramifications about the President asking for loyalty that was in shock about it. Even if it happened later, Comey should have taken example from the Secret Service: when Trump wanted to go to Capitol Hill on January 6th, the Secret Service just drove him back to the White House where he then watched everything happen from the television.
Actually Mike Pompeo as CIA director could handle Trump far better. He simply refused the position of the Director if he would have had to anything with what Trump saw as the witch hunt against the President. Hence Pompeo could run CIA perfectly easy and so well, that Trump picked him to be the secretary of state. Yeah, it was simply that simple.
Or rely on the consent of the US Congress, likely. I can imagine drones hitting houses that may perhaps have organized crime members or simply unlucky innocent Mexicans. And then put the Trump stooges in control of this, it surely will work brilliantly. :vomit:
Nothing new under the sun. Yet a case example how the US gets sucked into quagmires then later blamed on the "Deep State" and the military industrial complex.
What else would be a better idea than bombing Mexico and having special forces running around the country without the knowledge of the Mexican Government? Or right, having also a trade war with them at the same time!
Hopes this doesn't come to be a reality. That it is just one of those fantasies that an incoming administration eager to do everything thinks about doing before the hard reality sets in.
If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like Trump. His deluded haters just won’t give him a chance. I mean, this is a great opportunity for them: if he does horribly it will tarnish and discredit MAGA into the future.
I do indeed think he’ll do fine. There is no indication he’ll do otherwise except with the weird fortune-telling that goes on with appointments like these. He’s uniquely qualified. Many directors are lawyers. Hell, Rod Rosenstein, Gina Haspel, and Christopher Wray all work for the same incestuous lawfirm. Few of them were prosecutors, defenders, and intelligence officials.
His stupidity was Trump’s fault!!! Of course it was. Everything is Trump’s fault in anti-Trumpism. Just yesterday some press were saying Biden flip-flopped on Hunter’s pardon because of Trump. My guess is we’ll be studying this phenomenon well into the future.
Look, the administration could do horribly, and if that happens it will be obvious, but I’m not going to listen to the most deluded predictions from the press or otherwise.
Have you ever looked at how the Trump works and how the Trump team has worked? Have really followed how his prior tariffs/trade wars went in reality?
It's basically quite similar as to what the last year of the Trump administration was like, when Trump wasn't looking for the best, but looking for the most loyal.
And btw just look at that story above. Note the part where "a senior Trump transition member told Rolling Stone" and "Three sources familiar with those conversations told Rolling Stone". Yep, that's a Trump administration alright. Leaks like a faucet and is quite incapable of doing anything about it as one leaker will be the Television staring POTUS himself. I mean, the administration hasn't even started, and similar way how the Trump admin worked already can be seen. :razz:
Well, at least you have total transparency with a Trump administration. Having read a lot about the Trump administration, listened to interviews and so on, it's exactly the same story that everybody is talking. Everybody tells the same story. And when you listen to Trump, you notice exactly that person.
But of course you can have your rosy tinted glasses on and simply accuse everybody else of TDS.
Quoting NOS4A2
If he's selected, then we'll see after few years.
Trumpian "conservatives" sound like the sixties counterculture. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the sixties movement was progressive, but Trumpism is regressive.
Yet a counterculture cannot be the prevailing culture. If it's the dominant culture, then it's not anymore a counterculture. A counterculture needs some culture that it opposes. Otherwise it's meaningless or simply or becomes to be self-loathing. Think about it, could we have a "counter-culture" that opposes feudalism? It's silly, because this isn't a feudal society anymore. We then just have to invent that it's "feudal" in some way that simply isn't what feudalism means in history.
Hence when the US president claims to be "anti-establishment", it's simply illogical and absurd. How can he be that? When the "anti-establishment" people wield the power in the executive branch, in the legislative branch and some could argue also in the judicial branch and in the media, how can it not be the establishment itself? Populism simply has to create then this fictional entity that is the "Deep State" that they are fighting, which typically are any political opponents that they have. This is the structural problem that populism, or anti-elitism, has: when it achieves it's goal of getting into power, it loses it's original credibility and has to create fictional entities that it opposes. It can say it's defending the democratic institutions when it isn't. And when populism rallies around a "strong leader", it becomes just as hollow as the democracy of Marxism-Leninism, because a "strong leader" creates the new elite around himself.
This populism as a "counterculture" has other very detrimental effects. When the enemy is literally viewed to be your own government itself, this leads to then the anti-establishment populist to be very acceptable to the disinformation of the real enemies of the state, hostile foreign actors. They too promote the idea of your government being the origin of all evil. And hence this counterculture will relish the disinformation that hostile outside actors spread.
Thus to give an example, I think it's an error to accuse of a person like Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian agent. The simply reason is that when you portray your own state as the enemy, you will, unavoidably, reurgitate the disinformation that enemies of the US spread. Hence Gabbard could spread the disinformation of US sponsored bioweapon labs in Ukraine. She walked that back, but I remember how this disinformation spread like wildfire. With the anti-establishment attitude, you will start to "understand" the actors that are against your country.
That’s your problem: you imagine. You read a story like this then immediately predict the future with some degree of anti-Trump confidence. But the one-sided story they served you leads you to believe this is the only option they’re considering. You did not give a link to the article, so I am unable to read further, but the administration is clearly looking to tackle a problem that until now seemed insoluble. Instead of predicting some dire future, maybe use your imagination to help them out, come up with different ideas that aren’t as weak and ineffectual as every other administration that hasn’t been able to do squat.
I’ve only ever accused people of being trapped in something like a moral panic. I do not believe they’re deranged, even if their behaviors may exhibit otherwise. They are responding to an exaggeration or distortion of a threat via mass media. Your story about the meeting, for example, quotes maybe two sentences, and from this small inkling of information you go on to imagine innocents being droned in their houses. That’s all it takes.
Oh, so you "know" this to be the case. Based on what? Mental lapses that we all see on video? We also see videos of him speaking rationally, and demonstrating a command of the facts.
I absolutely believe Biden has had some cognitive decline, but there's no rational basis to jump to the conclusion he's incapacitated to the degree that shadowy figures are actually exercising control.
I'm curious if you buy into other conspiracy theories, because support for them is similar to support for the "dementia Joe" narrative that the GOP pushes for political gain.
This explains the totality of Trump's support.
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol:
:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
https://www.axios.com/2019/02/03/donald-trump-private-schedules-leak-executive-time
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/11/11/how-often-has-president-trump-played-golf-since-he-took-office-infographic/
Biden White House Is Discussing Preemptive Pardons for Those in Trump’s Crosshairs
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/04/biden-white-house-pardons-00192610
: Yeah. In some ways at least, it can go further than conspiracy theorists and such, when (otherwise seemingly well-meaning) intellectuals have no concept of what battles to fight (and when), and stoke the same fires, (again) to the silent cheers of other/larger adversaries. That's not to say they shouldn't (or shouldn't be allowed to), but "careful what you (appear to) wish for" remains applicable.
Patel won't be able to do jack shit by himself. He needs a cadre of Federal employees willing to do his bidding, particularly if investigations are initiated in the top-down fashion of William Barr.
That is where the proposal to end background checks by the Trump team kicks in. If one fills the ranks with people outside the meritocracy of working experience, then anybody can run any part of government. The last vestige of professional conduct will join the other extinct species.
It’s an apt metaphor, in my book.
FBI directors are given a ten year tenure for a reason: that they wouldn't be political appointees that are replaced as the administration changes. It's very telling here that @NOS4A2, for whom Kash Patel is a good pick, gives no reason why the present FBI director that Trump has appointed has to be fired.
If that doesn't matter, why then wait for supreme court judges to die, why not simply replace those who Trump doesn't like, who aren't loyal enough for Trump? Trump has already shown that he doesn't care a rats ass about the separation of powers in a democracy. At least the Trump team is totally transparent here: they want Kash Patel to be the FBI director that they can go after the opponents of Trump (including the media) and to have an FBI director that is totally loyal to POTUS Trump. This has been the already the real job of Kash Patel in the previous Trump administration. It was Kash Patel who tried to find the anonymous Trump official who wrote the famous "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" article. Did Kash Patel find Miles Taylor, who wrote the piece? Of course not, but his loyal devotion of being an unwavering sycophant to Trump is now awarded.
And if Patel, author of Trump children books, get's the job, then there's the obvious "And then what"-question. Just think how the outsidersthat Kash Patel picks to do the work inside the FBI will be looked inside the bureau. Even the "Whizkids" of McNamara were likely seen in a more positive view by the military than the "Patelists" in the FBI creating havoc in the bureau, which is the sole intention in the end.
* * *
Lastly, Trump's second term will follow similar roads as the last year of Trump in the previous administration. By manning his administration place with sycophant loyalists, that not necessarily have other credentials than being loyal Trumpists, will simply fail. Basically the start of the Trump administration will be a combo of "Brexit" and "Trussonomics" with steroids.
Trying to deport every thirty third inhabitant from the US will create huge supply-chain problems, far more than just when UK decided to kick out few hundred thousand Polish immigrants. Then have at the same time trade wars with other countries. Then cut trillions from the Government budget, which likely means to go for Medicare and Medicaid and raising the pension age many years simply won't pass. There simply isn't trillions being wasted, only perhaps just some hundreds of millions wasted. Great to get that into order, but it won't mean anything in the bigger picture.
I, too, worry about 'sycophant loyalists'. The point I was making about the supporting staff is that there is a paradoxical blowback from hiring profoundly ignorant people. They have nothing to say when informed people in their organization tell them something is not real or possible. Compare that predicament with making a deal with the likes of Bill Barr. He understood the DOJ inside and out. He had developed ties over years to get particular results from particular people.
If Patel gets his job at the FBI, he will be entering a structure and a culture of which he has had negative experience. Past directors came up through decades of work and oversight of complex investigations. The only way for him to gain control in that situation is if he replaces enough of his office with MAGA zombies. But even that move will collide with the sphere of actual agents. Making something dysfunctional may serve some people's interest. But it is not an advance of power per se.
The same dynamic is in play with all the other federal agencies.
The idea that Trump is playing some 4D Chess is only the wishful thinking of the Trump cult, just like is the idea of his other superb capabilities. A great populist orator he his, no doubt about that. But otherwise.
Just like Trump sees himself:
So with the trade wars and the deportations, it's going to be a Brexit-like experience for Americans.
Up until the point where it becomes a liability:
When prices continue because of tariffs.
When the US can't sell goods overseas because other nations will impose tariffs in response.
When there is a shortage of workers because of deportations.
When the effects of climate change can no longer be ignored
.
With the Republicans, the fear of Trump is actually a fear about the MAGA crowd and the voters in the next election. How will that go if inflation picks up and the economy goes south? This might alienate especially the part of the voters who voted for a better economy, but aren't in the MAGA cult.
We've learnt from the UK experience of Brexit that just like the Brexiteers were in denial about the negative consequences of the Brexit deal, likely so will be the MAGA crowd if the economy tanks thanks to Trump's actions. First of all, the economy is so complex and understanding of economics so little, that obvious reasons can be hidden from plain sight. Just think of the huge transfer of cash to the population during Covid and then the obvious effect of inflation next year. People still say that the reason was Ukraine war and everything else than money transfers to the public. Deportations and trade wars won't have an instant effect (assuming Wall Street doesn't panic), they economic effects take half a year to a year to be seen and then the public discourse has moved on.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1866927227922678047?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Oh hello.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politico/status/1866914942080766128?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
That honor is bestowed on the person who has wielded the greatest influence "for good or for ill."
Analysis: Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-surge.html
Undocumented labor is one of the ways the government undermines the power of labor in the US. Tariffs plus deportation would lay the groundwork for an economic revolution.
This "economic revolution" can only have negative effects during the foreseeable future, as domestic laborers will need to be paid more to pick crops, and other "menial" jobs (homebuilding, custodial work, lawn care). Also, the cost of imported products will rise, due to the tarriffs.
There are additional downsides to Trump's "Operation Wetback 2.0". Every person who is deported is one less consumer in the U.S., so it will generally reduce demand for products (lower GDP). It will also result in less social security and income taxes being paid (undocumented workers pay into social security, but never get to collect).
Further adding to the misery will be the effect of retaliatory tarriffs on US exports. If Trump follows through on his threats to violate the USMCA, it will make other countries less apt to negotiate deals with us.
On the bright side, if we stay the course, and accept the suffering, it will all settle out in 10-20 years.
"Whatever the number in a second Trump term,the recent immigration surge has probably ended. Mr. Biden’s crackdown since the summer has caused net migration to drop sharply, and Mr. Trump has promised even tougher border policies when he takes office. Many would-be immigrants will be less likely to try to enter the country, knowing that their chances of success are lower."
It was politically costly for Biden to wait so long to do something about the surge, but it's not clear that we really need to do anything more draconian that what Biden put in place.
It sure would be nice if laws were changed, so that all the immigration issues could be dealt with on a more permanent basis. Expect legal challenges to executive orders (there's already lawsuits against Biden's anti-asylum policy).
Understand your thinking here, but no. It's not going to go like that.
There is a concentrated effort against trade unions and the labor movement, and this will surely continue during the Trump years. Just look at the billionaires that are the backers of Trump.
Even when the inflation starts again because of Trump's trade wars and deportations, remember the very old lie about what is the reason why inflation happens? It's because labour unions and workers have demanded and gotten too high salary increases, In a wonderful way the cart is put in front of the ox and said it makes the two to move.
The lie works all the time. It's the reason that is taught in school books for inflation. Not things like the Central Bank printing too much money. That is only told in history books, because this time it's different.
This is the problem with Trump's theory of economic change which is that it completely ignores the role of big business in getting us where we are. It's not just the dirty immigrants who make stuff cheaper. And as far as I can tell these businesses are gonna be given way more influence in this upcoming administration than any previous administration I've seen, even under Trump's last government. The billionaires who benefitted the most from this neoliberal era are not gonna save us from neoliberalism.
It's still true that free trade and undocumented labor are two ways American labor is undermined. If either of those was reversed, it would lead to changes in the American economy in favor of labor. Don't let Trumpitis make you blind to the facts.
The central problem is the ever-increasing degree of income disparity between those at the top and everyone else. Moving from the visions of free trade gurus will not address that problem if the global wealth structure is secure. Trump needs that for his grifts. Thus his popularity amongst the very wealthy.
Migration has many causes, overpopulation, war, even bad weather. As climate change ramps up, so does the surge of migrants. The US will need to accept even more. Canada has so much wide open space, it can take even more than the US.
"... so much wide open space..." has what to do with taking " even more migrants than the US"?
Housing infrastructure, social attitudes, job/business opportunities might be a better measure of capacity to take in migrants.
No argument about your general idea, Though treat migrants as a resource that needs extra care and thought in its handling compared to inanimate resources.
sad smile
I just assumed "treat migrants with care" is a principle we all take for granted. Since the capacity to do this requires that we give up a handful of precious cash, then it might be a problem if the billionaires of the world frown on this principle.
This is the problem? Trump is just hot air of populism, basically anti-elitism, that the present elites are evil and screwing the ordinary people and he will solve everything. That's the Trump line. Anything else is just opportunistic tweets that Trump thinks his base will like. Otherwise it's simply the same old GOP agenda now fitted in the new "Project 2025" mold from the Heritage Foundation, which likely is the real "theory of economic change". A continuation of the agenda the Heritage Foundation has pushed for decades just now put into the Trumpist mold of talking about the deep state. Above all, the Heritage Foundation is for big business. Of course they are against a corporations that have given money to the democrats, but otherwise it still is for big business, the guys who support them.
Quoting frank
I agree. Yet trade wars and less trade won't make us more prosperous. Or just you. If you think that less goods with higher prices makes your life better, then let's follow the trade policies of the 1930's. And those undocumented workers? Well, would you like to go and pick berries in California for a living? And on what salary? But you can close the border. We closed our border to Russia. Places that my family could shop for quality stuff at the border went bankrupt and the little municipality is really struggling because the border is closed, but that was a price I guess we had to pay (and I'm Ok with that, because Putin is a murderous thug).
But back to trade. The issue is not about trade itself, it's about the income distribution, who gets the wealth. That's the real issue here. Is it few billionaires who reap the profits or a billion people with billionaires not being so abundantly rich? I think a far better way would simply be to demand universal workers rights, which would not only increase the costs of the corporations using sweat shops, but also force improving the prosperity of workers abroad. Now high tariffs will simply will be circumvented with some middlemen gaining the income and many having it worse. How a sales tax is worshipped as a blessing is beyond my understanding. But please think that the American industries are so fragile and non-existent, that you need these trade barriers to defend your own manufacturing. Africa as a continent is a great example where this thinking leads to.
Naturally the Simpson's again had an insight to this:
We can just go back to 1987. That actually would help American labor. I understand why you aren't concerned with that. You're a world away.
He has the appearance of a populist because calls out the elites when it comes to things like censorship (particularly censorship of him) or when they go after his crimes, but when it comes to his economic grievances he's gonna blame the immigrants, the government, and other countries. They are stealing your jobs, they are bringing in crime and drugs, and they're taking your money. Inflation is caused by too much wasteful government spending and it's spending on other countries that don't deserve it or "woke" programs that help people who aren't you.
The government of Canada recently decided to freeze its disastrous immigration policies because it can’t keep up with the effects. The cost of living is unsustainable. Getting healthcare means an 8-hour wait in ER. Senior tax-payers are barely scraping by on their meagre state pensions amid rising costs. Everything is taxed to shit. Migrants might fare better fixing their own countries.
I don't think this addresses the problems I mentioned. Things like war and climate change result in loss of housing, and loss of inhabitable land in some areas of the world, conditions which are impossible for the people to fix. An eight hour wait at the emergency room, instead of getting immediate medical attention after leaving the comfort of your home, is nothing compared to not having a place to call home.
The problems you mention doesn’t entail a flight to the Americas and being trafficked through the Darién Gap to the United States and Canada.
Well, I don't think that many immigrants are headed out in the wilderness (or build residences etc), be it in the US or Canada. :) Typical destinations are metropolitan centers or larger to medium urban areas. They need a foothold before they can start living and doing stuff.
"...treat migrants with care..." mmm! Scarce evidence of that. Everybody has migrant origins, even first nations' people came from elsewhere, something convenient to forget, at times.
Not arguing with you. Just tidying up, a little bit. Of course,your being ironic also may be an interpretation.
A smile of no expectations
I suppose one's attitude toward migrants depends, somewhat, on the attitude of the migrants. If the migrants arrive with the attitude of conquer and rule... Then again, the attitude of the migrants may depend, somewhat on the attitude of the occupants. If the attitude of the occupants is Keep off!...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/fani-willis-donald-trump-georgia/index.html
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was repeatedly warned not to use word ‘rape’ by producer — but said it anyway: sources
https://nypost.com/2024/12/18/media/abc-parent-disney-didnt-think-it-would-beat-trump-in-court-report/
Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.
Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.
It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself.
Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt.
From the article you linked:
[I]The court added: “We cannot conclude that the record also supports the imposition of the extreme sanction of dismissal of the indictment.”[/i]
A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.
Quoting NOS4A2
You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:
[I]
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” [/i]
ABC needn't have caved to the lawsuit. They likely settled to try and ingratiate themselves to Trump, who has voted to go after his enemies- and threatened strip the FCC license from networks that say bad things (AKA "the truth") about him. As a free speech absolutist, you should be appalled at the power Trump is wielding to stifle speech - but I expect free speech is secondary when it comes to your idol.
What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt.
I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form.
“Did Ms.Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll?
No”
Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation. This is a corrupt case from top to bottom.
Has a judge or jury judged Willis as corrupt? The appellate court merely judged there was an "appearance of impropriety", and removed her because this could affect public confidence. Nothing about this has any bearing on the merits of the case. The only bearing this might have on another prosecutor is knowledge that the job would entail having a target on their back from members of the Trump cult and defense team.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?
It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.
[Quote]Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation. [/quote]
You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.
I think the decision was made by or with ABC's parent company, Disney. They are concerned with Trump's escalating weaponization of the legal system while pretending that he is the victim. His strategy is always two-fold - legal determination backed by appeal after appeal and public opinion. The merits of the case was not Disney's main concern. They were more concerned with the process of discovery and what dirt could be found or manufactured against Disney's wide ranging assets and how this might affect their public image. As Trump knows well, whatever the truth may be, the harm comes from the accusations.
.
That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. He coached the witness. He scolded the defense. He tried to say her claim was “substantively true” when it was not. Did the jury believe the plaintiffs claims of rape or no? The answer is no, and no amount of gymnastics is going to change that.
How did she prove it? You tell me and we’ll see who is ignoring reality.
This is supposed to be evidence of corruption!? Such evidence is admissible, per
Federal Rule of evidence 415:
[I]In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation. [/i]
In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”
You obviously make no attempt at objectivity, and instead just parrot whatever the defense says, and treat it as evidence of corruption.
It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?
The access Hollywood tape is not evidence he committed sexual assault.
Classic contextomy. You quote that he moved on Nancy O’Dell “like a bitch” but leave out the clause immediately after “but I couldn’t get there.” Of course, Nancy O’Dell didn’t describe any assault during the encounter. This is because taking someone furniture shopping is not sexual assault in the real world.
You quote “grab” and “star”, and fill in the blanks in-between, but leave out “they let you do it”. There is no evidence of assault in the tape at all. The summary from the court is stupid.
You make no attempts at objectivity, just fallacy, propaganda, and projection.
What evidence do you have that Trump assaulted Carroll? DNA? Video? Admission of guilt? It’s bizarre that you can believe someone committed a crime without evidence. Unable to ignore the facts about your folk devil?
We got now the first event of how the Trump administration will work as Musk showed his power in the incoming Trumpster-fire administration.
So Elon Musk didn't actually like the bill going for government funding because it put restrictions on US investments in China. Elon has a Tesla gigafactory in China and is even thinking of investing more in the country more hence he didn't like his investments to be in peril. What do you know, these limitations that would hinder Musk were dropped and a new bill got through. So evidently Musk got what he wanted.
Of course it's far cheaper to manufacture things in China than in the US, so I guess Elon is as smart as Trump praises him to be.
(Tesla's Gigafactory in Shanghai)
But of course this detail won't matter for the Trump lovers who are so happy to be in their fantasy of that Trump or the richest man in the World think about the ordinary citizen.
Grab them by the pussy and see if they let him force himself on them, while the peanut gallery enjoys vicariously.
These predictions are fun. Great fodder. I’m just curious.. have you ever been right?
Joe Biden commutes sentences of 37 out of 40 federal death row inmates
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/23/joe-biden-death-row-inmate-sentences-commuted-clemency
... seems to belong in this thread.
NOS, this already happened as the bill passed. So it isn't a predicition. It's a fact. Elon did get that part of the bill removed.
Very telling how much you even bother to read others comments.
And about my predicitions?
I started a thread Putin's Breakthrough in Political Ideology: the new Komintern eight years ago, I wrote then in 2016:
This is "Finlandization" that you could hear during the Cold War a Finnish Communist Party minority member rant, not a NATO country politician: being critical of the US, saying that NATO isn't a defense alliance and declaring that Russia's interests have to be respected.
If you are clueless what game the Kremlin is playing and how Russia functions, then you will be as clueless as you were in the cusp of the Ukraine war when you declared (on page 13) that you don't know who to believe (when the argument was that the US was saying that Russia will invade and Russia denied that). At least then me and @jorndoe among others did see the writing on the wall before that the war was unavoidable before the actual war started. The "Putin undersranders" were still promoting the Putin's lie that Russia wasn't going to attack and that the US was telling a lie.
(And I might be too optimistic about the Trump administration, but the how it's partly behaving worries me a lot. But as an optimist, I hope for the best.)
Anyway, Merry Christmas, @NOS4A2 and others, and hope also to discuss matters with you the next year too. :sparkle:
Short-term they will attempt to work as if the US is a joint business venture. People who do not understand how running a nation works might think this is a good thing, but the US cannot take advantage of the protections it offers to corporations that both Trump's and Musk's businesses depend on. Citizens are not workers who can be laid off and disregarded. The country is not for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.
Long-term it seems likely that the relationship between Trump and Musk will fracture. For both of them shared power means shared recognition and neither wants to play second fiddle. Then there is the question of who the "shareholders" aka Congress will back. Trump's power lies with his popularity, but Musk's with his technological prowess. And while the social media platform X dwarfs Trump's Truth Social, the more decisive power lies with Musk's SpaceX, for which Trump has nothing even remotely comparable.
Thanks for the refresher. Though I would add that Zelensky himself was “promoting the Putin's lie that Russia wasn't going to attack”.
No, I generally read you with great interest, and you stated you have the first event of how the Trump administration will work. That’s not a fact. That’s a prediction of a future Trump administration. We can include in that your predictions of a failing FBI and a Brxit-like economy. Should you be right I’ll be sure to praise your foresight. But it’s interesting to me because predictions of future threats and disasters is one of the processes of moral panic theory. And regarding Trump you make quite a lot of predictions.
We’re all clueless in regards to the future, and anyone who pretends to know it is ridiculous. I don’t find you ridiculous, unlike others, so it is especially jarring when I read it from you.
Enjoy your holidays, ssu; stay free.
Indeed he did. To calm the situation. But then again, he didn't flee as the Biden offered him. Extremely crucial point that people like Biden have difficulties to understand.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's true. Yet from history and the present you can always make extrapolation, even in the future black swans like the sudden Yellowstone Supervolcano eruption in March of 2025 will put the administration totally on a different track we assumed it would be going.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't intend it to be that way. After all, we have already seen a Trump administration. The end didn't come, there was no self-coup, democracy survived. That tells a lot. A Trump administration is much more actually like the Clinton administration, a crazy place inside, scandals and impeachments and the usual Trump stuff, and then actually some things are done (which even survive to the next administration).
And I'm not doom and gloom about the war in Ukraine. Trump still can surprise even me. It's also a possibility, even if it looks remote, that just like Assad, Putin secure hold of his country will collapse.
But that the megarich control/have a huge influence over US policy? Ooooh, that is really not going to go away anytime soon!!! I'll make a bet on that with you anytime.
Quoting NOS4A2
As I said, we are all clueless about the Yellowstone Supervolcano eruption next March, because we assume to have far in advance some warning that a huge volcano that erupted last time 640 000 years ago and had a major eruption 2,1 million years ago. A reactivation of a volcano can happen in months or even weeks. So can that reactivation and eruption happen in one week or so? Who knows, we weren't around the last time.
Will USA collapse as Hollywood portrays these events? Nah. We just experienced a pandemic and it didn't go the way that people had estimated.
Case in point, the latest u-turn of the stable genius: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/28/trump-musk-h1b-visas
It will be interesting to see if a similar change of message will happen with agricultural labor.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/abc/status/1875222992151859667?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
In fact, when Elon naturally won't part from his businesses when working for the government (of course not!) it's going to be interesting to see just how much power a DOGE will really have. And if it's "trillions" of waste that is put away, I wonder just how appreciated most favorite immigrant will really be among the Trump base.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/tesla-cybertruck-driver-matthew-livelsberger-had-no-animosity-towards-trump-suffered-from-ptsd-fbi/articleshow/116933571.cms
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, but no, but. Just edit out that "anti-".
The hammer only sees nails.
Oh yeah the Trump guy tries to blow up Trump tower with a cybertruck. The FBI told us so.
One cannot blame Trump because some of his followers are violently inclined and irrational; oh wait, actually one can and should, because that is exactly what his message advocates and encourages. It is not remotely surprising that the violence ends up turned against him, and it has already happened more than once. But yeah the FBI are making up these stories because deep state lizard pedophiles are trying to control our brains.
My source? You’re talking to him. I prefer my own conclusions to the conclusions of others, especially authorities. If I’m wrong I’m wrong, but if you’re wrong it’s because you’re credulous.
You're my source too, but unlike you, I check my sources bit and confront them with contradictory sources. And when their response is to behave like big floppy dick and admit that they just spout whatever they like to imagine to be the case, I draw the appropriate conclusion.
You are an other person, and you are completely incredible.
Yet denial is so sweet for the Maga-people.
I just love how Trump so clearly shows just what he is, even before taken the oath and before starting his administration:
:blush: :heart:
The best thing is how now all the Laura Loomer's (that are silenced in X after trolling free-speach warrior Elon) have to just shut up and suck it up to the infallible God-Emperor Trump. Because the next time they can voice their anger about how things are going in the US is only afterwards when the Democrats take to power. Only then can they say the truth. Now it's the time of faith and waiting... just like when Brexit happened, a wonderful economic revival was just around the corner for free UK. And still, same people believe in Nigel Farage (because he was so wise to go off from politics after the vote had been won).
This all before it has even started, before even the first gut punch against the poorer American from DOGE has not even swung yet. :lol:
Heck, I don't have even my popcorn ready and the show has already started.
It is funny, in a way, because Anti-immigrant Trump supporters fell for the lie that Trump was anti-immigrant just as anti-Trumpers did. Someone like Ann Coulter comes to mind. It’s the same with the racist Trump supporters. They believed the lie just as anti-Trumpers did, then they get disappointed when they find out it isn’t true; or, in the case of anti-Trumpers, they just keep on believing it.
I guess it’s a good thing I don’t value your opinion.
Since the minions will all be connected to the man as a minimum requirement for participation, it will not be like the Team of Rivals ascribed by some to the Lincoln administration.
Far from opposing the evils of government, the system of patronage will blossom during the impending administration.
What are you rambling about?
Opposing H-1B visas wasn't a Trump tweet, it was a policy implemented by Trump.
And btw the only one consistent here on the issue has of course been Elon Musk, not Trump:
So I have no idea just what "lie" you are talking about. This is just a perfect example of Trump U-turns and how he lies about everything. Perhaps building the Wall was a similar lie "that Anti-Immigrant supporters of Trump fell for". Well then, what the hell does he stand for then? For his own enrichment I guess... How is the good for his voters?
After all, opposing H-1b visas was one of the reasons why Trump was so popular in the first place:
And btw, the ordinary Trump lie is that his company used H-1b visas (which ought not to be, according to candidate Trump), but actually H-2b visas, the one's for not so highly educated professionals. :grin:
Since you never cite what you quote, I can’t tell whether you know and are hiding this information or just forget the proper rues of citation, but in any case you don’t mention that he made the proclamation with the idea to protect American jobs during the unprecedented events of Covid-19, not because he opposes a certain immigration program.
You also don't mention that Trump started to change his mind about h1-b's shortly after his comments in the debate you cite, which was nearly a decade ago.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-immigration-h1b-visas-gop-debate-220233
Changing one's mind is probably tantamount to lying in anti-Trump world, but once one fills in the deep, very deep holes in this sort of narrative-building one comes to realize how sloppy it all really is.
I used to say that Trump was so anti-immigrant that he married two of them. But the opposing and/or supporting of certain immigration policies does not mean one is pro or anti-immigrant. Not a strand of chewing gum can connect these premises to that sort of conclusion, yet that's the story that has been told for years.
Putin knows where he is coming from.
Quoting NOS4A2
You seem not to notice that I'm talking about policy implementations that Trump did during his administration, his executive order. Do you understand that? See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-work-visas.html
To try to deny what actual policy Trump implemented / tried to implement is telling of your intellectual dishonesty. Trump tweets and says things so much, that his changing rhetoric isn't that important. Anyway, Elon Musk has been very consistent on this while Trump has not, which is very typical for him.
Quoting NOS4A2
Lol. Well then, I assume then that no politician ever lies, because they just simply change their minds. Just like Putin said he won't invade Ukraine, but then changed his mind, perhaps on February 21st 2022 or so.
And oh, the references of this:
Fixed it for you.
I never denied that he tried to halt people coming into the country during Covid-19, like every other country. You’re just unwilling to admit that he was doing it for covid-19 purposes, which are explicitly laid out in his proclamation. Your bad faith won’t mention that the EU suspended travel to non-Europeans just months earlier, for instance. I guess they were just flip-flopping and lying about that whole freedom of movement thing. You don’t mention that each time he did it his order had an expiry date a few months later.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5077771-supreme-court-trump-sentencing/
https://thehill.com/homenews/5078198-appeals-court-denies-trump-bid-to-block-release-of-smith-jan-6-report/
It's official:
DJT, Convicted Felon-in-Chief
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-sentencing-hush-money-new-york-9f9282bc
Sometime in the next ten days the US DoJ, at the very least, should release the partial (or complete) Special Counsel's Report on DJT's January 6 Insurrection Indictment Case. The US AG should also release the Special Counsel's Report on DJT's Stolen National Security Documents and Obstruction of Justice Indictment Case and then receive an unconditional pardon from POTUS. History is watching, Mr Biden. TBD.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/09/trump-special-counsel-report-federal-appeals-smith/77549818007/
Presidents that preceded him ruined entire countries, aided and abetted war crimes, constructed torture facilities, went to war on false pretenses, etc.
What Trump did doesn't even register on the same scale.
That's about right. Government reduced to entertainment "The Economy" reduced to "The Oligarchs".
Ending in The Last Picture Show.
Imitation meets its maker.
Corruption doesn't matter for people unless it affects them. It all just becomes a fiction, with no difference between "House of Cards" and the real world. People don't actually care until they get a boot on their face and they cry out "how did this happen!?"
So, no one really cares about the report. It's clear that political leaders of the past had much more responsibility to respect democracy and the political system and people cared that they did. But today, the brain rot of the general public have made the people fundamentally stupid to the point that everything they hear in the news is fiction, a reality show, a wrestling match.
I don't have any hopes for the people to gain political intelligence and rationality. They need to get a boot on their face before realizing that rising political corruption and crimes is a dangerous path.
People actually voted for this person. Drugged fools believing in magic.
Quoting 180 Proof
Mr. Smith: "F-U, Douchebag!"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/14/donald-trump-2020-election-conviction-special-counsel-report-jack-smith
:up:
I don't think this is quite right. People really care about money. Many strongly believe in a necessary relationship between money and happiness, so much so that money is often equated with happiness. Having money is being happy.
Money is the opium of the masses. And the happiness which it is equated with is an illusion produced by its presence, the effects of that addiction. Feed the addiction, the illusion persists. Threats to the supply, allow fear and anxiety to permeate the illusion of happiness. DJT well understands the relationship between money and illusion.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the people don't care about the competence and ability of their elected leaders. How their idea about them is a fiction, something "on TV", not real, not really affecting them.
You are right in that they care when policies affect their income and financial situation, but it only leads to a flip between parties in the next election. How the economy actually functions is also just some fiction they see on financial news. And they only see economical problems when something sudden happens, like hyperinflation.
The problem is that people today view reality as fiction. While they might know intellectually that it's reality, they don't treat it as such as their emotional connection to reality is both skewed by media, social media, and online influencers. People have lost the ability to find truth in a sea of lies, and eventually they lose the ability to sift out what is actual truth. It leads to either shutting down their ability to take care of society as a civilisation, or they alienate from society entirely, forming a fictional narrative to "live within".
In this situation, the populists thrive as they can construct whatever narrative they want. They create "TV shows" that people can binge as they're slowly sucked dry of their financials.
It's remarkable how easy it is to program people. To slowly change people over time so that they get used to the new conditions. How a worse financial situation becomes the norm that they then celebrate because their elected leader calls it "good".
Money is only opium when people are told it is. It's the capitalist condition, the neoliberal free market built in the 80s that has constructed this narrative of financial success that is fueling the young today. It doesn't happen "just because money", it happens because people are programmed to like capitalism, to defend capitalists, to defend the status quo. In so doing they aren't just craving money, they crave the ladder to climb, being taught by their parents and society that this ladder is the true meaning of life.
The fundamental truth is that the masses are stupid. Too occupied by their own lives that they don't care about anything else... until that life is threatened. They are unable understand how politics affect their lives, they are too narrow minded to care for policies or how politics work.
They are told what to vote on and what to do in politics, that's it. They're fed a fiction and they opt in for the one they like. Just like having a favorite TV-show or film. It's all constructed fiction.
Previous generations were much more careful about who they voted for. It may be that's because democracy was rather new and people felt a need to care for the society they wanted to have. And with two world wars, they also cared for the possibility of a new one. They did not want someone who's "shaking things up", because they knew what that can lead to. Previous generations were keen on getting corruption out of politics.
But people today don't care about corruption. It's all just fiction anyway. It's the other side that's corrupt, but my side cut corners to give me what I'm told to want.
What I'm tired of hearing is everyone complaining about the people up top. Both in capitalism and political power. As long as a nation isn't a full blown fascist state, the people can organize and make a difference.
The only thing is that they don't care, they're not interested. It's just fiction on TV, it's not real for them. It only becomes real, when it's actually real, when there is a boot on their face because they didn't care to organize against a policy that enabled that boot.
People forget that the only reason why the top 1% have power is because there are people who follow their orders. The top 1% against 99% and those 99% believe in the fiction that there's nothing to be done because the 1% have all the power.
Everyone is just a stupid.
By that time it's too late, cuz the half of the population that's getting paid to put a boot in someone's face are figuring they made the smart move and the ones getting a boot in the face are the dummies. It's too late cuz by then, enough people have been bought.
I'm of the view that due to the American mentality, and the fact of there being more guns in this country than people, fifty years from now central US government authority will either break down and we'll literally return to medieval state-level feudal authority, or the central government will have to go full martial law. I do not see a sensible resolution due to corporate greed (they won't know when to stop; and for global corporations, they'll lose their fat American goose but there are plenty other geese to eat [AI will make it more efficient]).
Lawyer says he would have won his own case had he not dropped it.
Another nothing-burger from the unlawfully-appointed prosecutor. We can add it to his growing list of failed cases.
And besides
Although being ignorant of facts is part of the MO.
The bottom line is, America has elected a President who hates Government. As far as Trump is concerned, the separation of powers and the checks and balances designed by the Constitution are all impediments to his will, and as such, part of the problem that he wants to dissolve. He wants a government of underlings and enablers, and so far the craven Republican Party is bending over backwards to give him exactly that.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-official-trump-envoy-swayed-netanyahu-more-in-one-meeting-than-biden-did-all-year/
Biden won the rigged election. He was inaugurated, after all.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/potus/status/1880271367569895830?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]