I remember when establishment supporters swore he was a treasonous, Russian asset, and now this ... — NOS4A2

Have you repeated this enough to actually believe it? It is likely you do since you admit:

I don’t know nor care about the details. — NOS4A2

Are you aware that when you bury your head in the sand the world does not disappear? There is plenty of evidence that Trump was and is a Russian asset. What evidence? Evidence you do not know and don't care about.

You quote me out of context and then apply that quote to some other subject. It’s the basest propaganda, but it works wonders on someone such as yourself, which is probably why you do it.

I don’t care about the details in this most recent of witch-hunts, but I’ve pored through the details in the Russia case and many others, and the conspiracy theories are just as bunk now as they were then. You can go back to any page in this thread to confirm that.

I’ve pored through the details in the Russia case and many others, and the conspiracy theories are just as bunk now as they were then. — NOS4A2

I am as reassured as I would be if I blind man told me what he did not see.

You can go back to any page in this thread to confirm that. — NOS4A2

One need not go back very far in order to see how you lump things together:

I honestly don’t care because everything to the anti-Trump brigade is a serious matter until one looks closely. Every conspiracy theory regarding Trump, whether it was Russia collusion or his tax returns, have been massively and comically overstated, and as a result has turned justice into nonsense, journalism into a joke, politics into circuses, and the US into clown world.

It’s gotten so bad that one can adopt a contrary belief without any evidence to do so and he’ll be right most of the time. — NOS4A2

Who cares? After years of Russia collusion, Covid propaganda, Ukraine warmongering, January 6th handwringings, and all the deep-state dinner theater news outlets have spoon-fed us these past few years, — NOS4A2

You say "until one looks closely", but you do not look closely. Even with the Mueller report you did not look closely.

Oh dear. You can curate and string together as many of my quotes as you wish and give yourself exactly the story you want to hear. It’s a telling habit. Still, two impeachments, dozens and dozens of investigations, and here you are empty handed with nothing to show for the wasted efforts, tax dollars, and time you’ve spent as a true believer.

Oh dear. You can curate and string together as many of my quotes as you wish and give yourself exactly the story you want to hear. It’s a telling habit. Still, two impeachments, dozens and dozens of investigations, and here you are empty handed with nothing to show for the wasted efforts, tax dollars, and time you’ve spent as a true believer. — NOS4A2

Just putting aside mouth frothing, if there's evidence that he violated the law, he should be prosecuted. I'm sure you agree with that.

It depends on the law because I do not believe in most of them.

It depends on the law because I do not believe in most of them. — NOS4A2

And that's what I figured it was really coming down to with you: you're an anarchist, so you don't support any type of prosecution for anyone.

I’m not an anarchist. I believe in justice and prosecuting someone for non-violent vices such as a campaign finance violations is unjust. Witch hunts are unjust. Persecution is unjust. Fishing expeditions are unjust. Digging through someone’s private affairs to appease the establishment is unjust. The list of injustice is too long to bear for anyone who cares about justice.

There is plenty of evidence that Trump was and is a Russian asset. — Fooloso4

He staffed his administration with anti-Russian and anti-Iranian hawks like Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo and Jeff Sessions, and made noise about upgrading and expanding U.S. nuclear capability, a sharp break from the rhetoric of previous administrations. Just days into his presidency, he phoned Putin and trashed the 2010 New Start nuclear arms control treaty, claiming that he wouldn’t renew it. It would later come out that Trump rejected the Kremlin’s offer of full normalization of relations.

...

April 2017 saw Tillerson visit Moscow for the first time. It was a disaster for renewing the countries’ relationship, with Tillerson and his Russian counterpart sniping at each other at the press conference, largely due to tension over Trump’s airstrike in Syria earlier that month. CNN noted Trump’s honeymoon with the country was markedly shorter than those of previous presidents. — https://inthesetimes.com/article/media-russia-russiagate-trump-putin-rachel-maddow-msnbc

The downing of the Su-22 threatened to bring Washington and Moscow into conflict in the war-torn country. In the aftermath of the incident, Russia announced the end of deconfliction arrangements with U.S. forces and that it had decided to treat future U.S. flights west of the Euphrates River as hostile. — https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/26/trump-is-tripping-over-iran-and-russias-red-lines-in-syria/

President Trump took his agenda promoting what he calls American “energy dominance” on the road at the outset of his second foreign trip, with a pitch for Europe to buy America’s abundant natural gas.

The message offers a direct challenge to Russian President Vladimir Putin — whose country supplies much of Europe with natural gas — https://time.com/4846889/trump-putin-g20-natural-gas/

I can see a lot of anti-Russian policies which emerged from the Trump administration. I'm not so clear on what Trump actually did for Putin.

What policies did this Putin-puppet put in place during his four year tenure in service of his master?

Did you really think he was a one man show? — Isaac

Didn't even imply that. :roll: Did you really think I think so? :brow: I mean, really, honestly?

I don't see any cause to hope. If he goes away he'll be replaced by an identical figurehead with an identical agenda. — Isaac

That is, the majority of voters are dumb and blind and stupid? I suppose, if a majority of humans altogether are idiots (but not you :grin:), then perhaps that spells the (deserved) end of homo sapiens. (Genetic engineering, AI, artificial selection, control, eugenics, aliens, gods, to the rescue?)

I believe in justice and prosecuting someone for non-violent vices such as a campaign finance violations is unjust — NOS4A2

Prosecuting someone for violating campaign finance laws is unjust? Why?

Because they are stupid laws. The US did just fine without them.

Because they are stupid laws — NOS4A2

Why are they stupid? They're supposed to protect doners so you don't give me money to run for alderman only to find that I spent your money on donuts.

That is, the majority of voters are dumb and blind and stupid? — jorndoe

There's the problem right there. Fuck the working class completely, and if they act out, they must be stupid. How dare they! Don't they know how much cleverer we are?

Why are they stupid? They're supposed to protect doners so you don't give me money to run for alderman only to find that I spent your money on donuts.

If you give someone money and they do with it what they want it’s your fault for giving them money.

, voting is acting.

I suppose, if a majority of humans altogether are idiots (but not you :grin:), then perhaps that spells the (deserved) end of homo sapiens. (Genetic engineering, AI, artificial selection, control, eugenics, aliens, gods, to the rescue?)

If you give someone money and they do with it what they want it’s your fault for giving them money. — NOS4A2

Ok. So you don't think Trump should be prosecuted for this particular law because it's unjust. You're suspicious that the charges are politically motivated (by a grand jury). At the same time, you're confident that since he hasn't been convicted of any crimes up until now, he won't be found guilty this time either.

Don't worry about people frothing at the mouth. It doesn't matter.

I’m not confident he will be convicted or not because the entire system is stacked against someone like Trump. I am suspicious of the system and anyone who earns a living from it. The state is only after protecting its own interests and Trump goes against those interests.

voting is acting — jorndoe

So?

Out of interest, and briefly, how do you personally describe a figure like Trump? From your perspective, what kind of President was he and what did he represent?

I’m not confident he will be convicted or not because the entire system is stacked against someone like Trump — NOS4A2

He's done fairly well for himself in spite of that.

I am suspicious of the system and anyone who earns a living from it. — NOS4A2

I assume you aren't talking about mailmen. Politicians are an odd breed. A true politician doesn't have much of a moral compass. She's just looking for prominence. But in a democratic system, the way to gain prominence is to please the people. That means politicians do pay attention to what the people want. A prime example is Biden's present support for tuition reimbursement. He wouldn't be supporting that except that it became apparent that in order to secure the electorate, he would have to move left.

Likewise, Trump's success showed that Republicans need to move toward being a little more anti-Semitic and racist in order to keep their voters. Thus DeSantis freely brings up Soros as a way to attack Democratic NYC. It couldn't be more plainly anti-Semitic, but it's working for him. If it wasn't he would back off of it.

And then you have Trump. He's not a politician. He's not trying to please the people. What do you think he's trying to do?

The state is only after protecting its own interests and Trump goes against those interests. — NOS4A2

The state is something larger than any particular generation. It's not the kind of thing that acts on its own. A state is basically a kind of legal technology. Think of it as a kind of animal that, having evolved, is very successful. That's why you have to go hunting moose near the arctic circle to get away from them. They're incredibly successful at this time.

The establishment is a different thing. It's a generational cohort that has found itself with the power to protect its power. An establishment doesn't usually get super rigid and reactionary unless they think their power is in danger. Our present establishment has no fears. They're not particularly worried about Trump because he can't really do the kind of damage he might like to do.

Trump wouldn't be facing charges now if he hadn't directed his lawyer to violate campaign finance laws and then subsequently publicly distance himself from that lawyer. That pissed Cohen off and he's been trying to get revenge ever since. As people close to Trump explain, Trump has a tendency to create conflict and war for himself. Even if it's not there, he'll create it. It's just his personality.

He was fairly nondescript as far as presidents go, except that he did away with what Arthur Miller described as executive tailoring, which is almost prerequisite in Washington.

In historical terms he is either a folk devil or folk hero depending on where one’s allegiance lie.

For me he is the demagogue I’ve been waiting for, the kind Murray Rothbard defended. His mere presence has lead the establishment, Washington, the 4th estate, the political dynasties, and their stooges on the world stage to overplay their hand, and I don’t think there is any going back.

So you see Trump as a kind of necessary disruptor and as such a harbinger of change? What legacy do you envision?

Change in terms of ideology. I can’t predict the future but my hope is that the spell of statism becomes untenable and people begin to claw back the power the state has stolen from them. But that only begins as soon as we stop thinking in their terms.

except that he did away with what Arthur Miller described as executive tailoring, which is almost prerequisite in Washington. — NOS4A2

If anyone else said this I would assume it was a joke. His ridiculous coiffure, his orange make-up, his years with speech coaches, he is the textbook example of executive tailoring.

In historical terms he is either a folk devil or folk hero depending on where one’s allegiance lie. — NOS4A2

He is a demagogue. On this we agree. But I do not agree with Rothbard when he says:

For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think

Nor can I agree with him when he says:

Demagogues probably first fell into disrepute in the 19th century, when most of them were socialists.

It was common to cite Plato on the dangers of demagogues when Trump was elected.

And this appeal can be made most effectively by the demagogue--the rough, unpolished man of the people, who can present the truth in simple, effective, yes emotional, language.

Trump, with his penchant for gilding toilets and putting his name on everything, would take offense at the idea that he is rough and unpolished, although he does pretend to me a man of the people when he is not bragging about how special he is.

Rothbard's demagogue is a libertarian. Trump is completely without a political or social ideology.

For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think

That's true.

Trump has none of the characteristics described in Miller’s lecture, I’m afraid. More nonsense.

Trump is so refined and polished, according to Fool.

I don’t care whether you agree or not. Try telling us your own beliefs.

There is plenty of evidence that Trump was and is a Russian asset. — Fooloso4

So nothing then.

This 'Russian Asset' is put into power at enormous expense, no small amount of risk... He's in power for four years with almost total authority (220 executive orders) and you can't name a single massively pro-Russian policy he put in place.

Its funny how the term 'conspiracy theory' has become the go to term for a group of people who think an evil foreign power installed a puppet president in the US as part of some, as yet hidden, plot... on the basis of some circumstantial evidence put together by a British spy.

But the idea that a pharmaceutical company, proven in a court of law to have previously committed fraud, might have... you know... committed fraud. Apparently that's so wild a conspiracy theory that only the most deranged mind could maintain it to be true.

The idea that a deadly virus found in Wuhan might have escaped from a lab working on deadly viruses in Wuhan... Apparently the activity of a truly fevered mind.

The notion that politicians and panel members with millions invested in certain industries might have made decisions to favour those industries... Apparently only the most drug-addled flat-earther would believe such a thing.

That the most powerful nation on earth might have, after threatening to end a pipeline project should Russia invade Ukraine, have... well... ended a pipeline project because Russia invaded Ukraine. That's just so implausible that only a tankie such as myself could believe it.

... but the whole 'president-installed-by-foreign-evil-dictator-to-do-secret-bidding-says-spy' is just your run-of-the-mill, bona fide goings on. You'd have to be some kind of 'extremist' no doubt to not believe such a plausible story.

but the whole 'president-installed-by-foreign-evil-dictator-to-do-secret-bidding-says-spy' is just your run-of-the-mill, bona fide goings on. You'd have to be some kind of 'extremist' no doubt to not believe such a plausible story. — Isaac

The conspiracy I heard about wasn't that, but 'Psychopath leader secretly supports election of easily manipulated Narcissist Fantasist as leader of enemy power to undermine from within. Manages to sow enough confusion and dissent to be able to invade neighbouring country unopposed.'


Trump winning was a bonus, but just the campaign served to promote internal conflict. The conspiracy to spread conspiracy theories amongst the enemy has indeed been universally successful and exploits the very principles of freedom to undermine it. But the idea that Trump has the smarts or the principles to be a proper agent of anything but his own fantasy image is ridiculous.

Manages to sow enough confusion and dissent to be able to invade neighbouring country unopposed — unenlightened

Yeah... Only Obama wouldn't send lethal aid to Ukraine, Trump gets in, and the first Javelins go off to help their fight against Russian separatists.

So what's the angle there. Trump helped Russia invade unopposed by... giving Ukraine weapons his predecessor wasn't prepared to give...?

Oh, I know... the Javelins Trump gave were secretly flawed. Yes, they had a special chip inserted which caused them to fly into Poland...

... And then Putin can freely invade Ukraine because some people in American believed an election was stolen and a vaccine didn't work... It's so obvious, when you just say it out loud.

The only, teeny thing I'm still a bit unsure of is why Biden is now spending a billion dollars on lethal aid to help Ukraine defend against the Russian invasion, when we all know that America believing in vaccines, and not doubting the function of polling machines is by far the best defense a foreign country could ask for.