Why Trump is Terrifying

[Pallas]

@Alioth Thralldom is still real and "capitalism" is just a disguise for it ("wage slavery", also I accidentally figured out how you could have serfs if you wanted). That's actually exactly what I'm saying and you're going to have to put up a good argument. If the US military, or any other country's military, barged through your door right now to take your house and kill and torture your family and generally do whatever they wanted, could you do anything to stop it? No? Then why do you think anything belongs to you? Look at anarchist texts. Property = violence. Since you can't keep your property without someone deciding to be nice and let you, you're just living under implicit violence and kidding yourself. You have brand names on your things. It's basically graffiti, or vandalism (= Vandals, a Germanic tribe). Branding = what people do to cattle they own. In the past systems were sustained by force, now it's trickery.

[rat200Turbo]

If you assume the world is maximally violent and there are people hellbent on breaking your door down and taking your property at any moment, then yes... property = violence. Though that's really just embedded in your assumptions about reality but that's ok.

[Pallas]

If you assume the world is maximally violent and there are people hellbent on breaking your door down and taking your property at any moment, then yes... property = violence. Though that's really just embedded in your assumptions about reality but that's ok.

Why would it have to be that way? It's the same relationship to theft as agriculture has to hunting. In agriculture, most of the animals have to be alive and modestly taken care of most of the time, but they're still being harvested for their products and the end result is still slaughter. It has nothing to do with the well-being of the animals. Most modern economies are the same thing, but with people instead of animals.

[rat200Turbo]

Wyrd, without agriculture you wouldn't be able to eat. Would you not eat wild animals?

It's different because I might just let you own something and not try to take it from you. Maybe I even agree with you that you can own one thing and I can own something else. You know, cooperation.

[Pallas]

Wyrd, without agriculture you wouldn't be able to eat. Would you not eat wild animals?

It's different because I might just let you own something and not try to take it from you. Maybe I even agree with you that you can own one thing and I can own something else. You know, cooperation.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Do you want to be a farm animal? You don't have to want to be a farm animal to want to eat them, and you don't even have to want to eat farm animals to want to eat game, but that's another story entirely (and, as I said, pretty off-topic). The invention of agriculture led to the invention of cities, and the invention of cities led to the invention of slavery. Modern humans are like modern farm animals: you live and die in a hospital. If you really owned a house like it was your own little castle, wouldn't you want to have your children born in it and die there instead of a hospital? You don't own it though. The "agreement" is a lie to pacify you. It's like Hobbe's social contract: it not existing explains its supposed results better than it existing does.

[rat200Turbo]

If you don't keep working, you will die of starvation. Get it? It has nothing to do with whether you want to work - you want to live more, don't you? The force compelling you to work is not violence, it is survival. Next

[Pallas]

If you don't keep working, you will die of starvation. Get it? Next

Who's next?

Nice try ignoring my argument since you have nothing to say.

[rat200Turbo]

I am bypassing your argument by getting to the root of it, because your argument is inane, schizobabbling nonsense which I prefer to avoid... But since this didn't register and you're asking for it, we can go over it-

Why would it have to be that way? It's the same relationship to theft as agriculture has to hunting.

No, it's not. For one thing, humans agreeing to own property in a mutually beneficial exchange is not similar to the enslavement of agricultural animals, where it's difficult to see how the animals benefit from the deal - this is simply a false comparison. But, as I already mentioned, they do get to be born and live; and they would not have been born otherwise. You get to live, don't you? Without agriculture, you could not be fed. You could not live - you would never have been born. Humanity, on this planet, maintains its population through agriculture. But this entire analogy is completely irrelevant.

In agriculture, most of the animals have to be alive and modestly taken care of most of the time, but they're still being harvested for their products and the end result is still slaughter.

How on earth could a world without agriculture take care of all the human beings on it? There are almost 7 billion people on the planet. How is everyone going to be "modestly taken care of" with no agriculture? Does this seem besides the point to you? It's a direct response to your statement. Yeah, you have to work. That's part of our condition at this present time. Want to cry about it? It's not gona do you any good - you still have to work. What other choice do you have?

It has nothing to do with the well-being of the animals. Most modern economies are the same thing, but with people instead of animals.

Again, they get to live, don't they? You work to survive. You want to stop working? Go ahead, see how that works out for you. No one is forcing you to participate in this society of ours. You do so willingly.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

As I've just shown you, it has everything to do with what you've just said - infact it is a direct response to what you just said.

The invention of agriculture led to the invention of cities,

No, the growth of human population led to the creation of agriculture and cities. We have to feed ourselves and find ways of being efficient at doing that - otherwise we end up tired, working ourselves too hard... we're inherently lazy. Laziness led to the creation of agriculture.

and the invention of cities led to the invention of slavery.

Cities were not invented, they developed over time through people doing what was most pragmatic to survive, which ultimately meant being as efficient as possible in order to feed all the mouths needing food while not working themselves to death. This drove everything - agriculture, industrialization, modern technology... it's all about efficiency, getting as much work done with as little manpower as possible. You want to put an end to that? You can step off the ship at any time, you're free to go fight for your life in the wild, and maybe even starve death.. don't volunteer me or anyone else.

Modern humans are like modern farm animals: you live and die in a hospital.

So don't go to a fucking hospital when you're sick then. Who's stopping you?

If you really owned a house like it was your own little castle, wouldn't you want to have your children born in it and die there instead of a hospital? .

You're free to not take your kids to the hospital. I for one will be taking my kids to hospitals.

You don't own it though. The "agreement" is a lie to pacify you.

You don't exist in this little bubble you've imagined, inside your castle... your entire way of life is dependent on society. Where does your food come from? The outside world. Society.

It's like Hobbe's social contract: it not existing explains its supposed results better than it existing does

If you don't want the social contract, you are free to leave society. You can do that. Don't go to a hospital. Don't go to the grocery store. Go ahead - grab yourself a spear and run out to some wildlife reserve and try to hunt your way to freedom, no one is stopping you from that.

[Grendel]

@Alioth Thralldom is still real and "capitalism" is just a disguise for it ("wage slavery", also I accidentally figured out how you could have serfs if you wanted). That's actually exactly what I'm saying and you're going to have to put up a good argument. If the US military, or any other country's military, barged through your door right now to take your house and kill and torture your family and generally do whatever they wanted, could you do anything to stop it? No?

Thraldom is the story of mankind and there is no complete escape from it. That is a fundamental law of life. What you are absolutely failing to address is that you can still soften the effects by creating new resources all across the board through technology.

Then why do you think anything belongs to you? Look at anarchist texts. Property = violence. Since you can't keep your property without someone deciding to be nice and let you, you're just living under implicit violence and kidding yourself. You have brand names on your things. It's basically graffiti, or vandalism (= Vandals, a Germanic tribe). Branding = what people do to cattle they own.

Wrong. Resources = violence. The need for a constant supply of energy is the defining problem of all life. There are still resources and a need thereof without property. Feudalism worked on terms with this. Mercantilism as well. Communism ignores this, attempting to establish an egalitarian resource economy before technology can effectively annihilate scarcity, and mass killings and starvation ensue. Capitalism works on terms with the laws of the universe, just in a slightly more egalitarian and innovation-friendly way. You can ignore these laws all you want, but you can't ignore their very real effects on your population, and they will suffer and die if you try.


The whole point of this is that it's better to live under some implicit violence than that which is constant, explicit, and guaranteed to kill you as well. That's what you don't seem to get: Capitalism dilutes these effects more than any other practicable system we've tried.

In the past systems were sustained by force, now it's trickery.

Good. Fuck force. I'd rather be conned by "muh elite," with some chance of being raided, raped, and killed, than live in a world where the latter three are absolutely guaranteed.

You are like one of those people who's tricked themselves into believing their wireless router causes physical pain. It's like you can't choose the lesser evil, you throw out all the achievements of mankind because "hurr durr there's still suffering somewhere." Hell, the whole reason we say science is "exceptional" is because it can acknowledge its own imperfections where other doctrines can't. Taking the bad with the good is something most of us learn in preschool.


If you mean to tell me you're one of those people who'd rather live in a shithole like Sparta because you're "denying your true nature" in the modern world, fuck off and die. Your "true nature" is to write art jargon on online forums despite no one else caring. You could never survive in any society but our own. Unless you're saying you'd rather die than "live a lie." Don't make me gag.

[Singu]

Well, saying that property = violence is correct I think. Property was first gained by kings and queens, whom gained property via violence, conquering and plundering. Then that property was handed down to the aristocrats, the rich. Most people that are rich today have had these properties handed down to them through inheritance.

[rat200Turbo]

Property is everything you own, including your computer keyboard.

[Pallas]

@Alioth Capitalism gets rid of the bad with the good though. You said yourself that its effects are to minimize everything. Yeah, you can keep flinging around this populist nonsense that's the equivalent of "wine snobs can't tell red wine from white wine if you dye it!" all you want. The answer to how to live your life is probably somewhere between being a wanna-be hipster who dies of a heart attack at 42 from ironic but still excessive consumption of fast food with no legacy and no purpose in life, and bringing back Sparta and living an epic life complete with epic suffering and despair and no hope of relief even for a moment and actually being able to believe the Greek maxims about how only the dead can be happy, but I'm not seeing it since life is already pretty much the latter and people are trying desperately to be the former.

[Grendel]

@Alioth Capitalism gets rid of the bad with the good though. You said yourself that its effects are to minimize everything.

No, I said it minimizes suffering, mostly through the promotion of technological innovation. Of course that's the one point I can't emphasize enough that you can conveniently never seem to address. Don't muddle the issue with your holistic shit.

Yeah, you can keep flinging around this populist nonsense that's the equivalent of "wine snobs can't tell red wine from white wine if you dye it!" all you want. The answer to how to live your life is probably somewhere between being a wanna-be hipster who dies of a heart attack at 42 from ironic but still excessive consumption of fast food with no legacy and no purpose in life, and bringing back Sparta and living an epic life complete with epic suffering and despair and no hope of relief even for a moment and actually being able to believe the Greek maxims about how only the dead can be happy, but I'm not seeing it since life is already pretty much the latter and people are trying desperately to be the former.

Isn't the bolded what you want? You seem to either want anarchy, or be promoting nihilism for no good reason at all because you can't offer any logistical alternative to our society with an equivalent quality of life.


If you think I'm drawing a thousand inferences about your thoughts on civilization, it's only because you've ignored the million implications of your own incredibly vague proposition. I am not addressing your arguments because you don't have an argument. Your argument is "I hate capitalism 'cause I live in it, let's go back to anarchy because maybe it feels better." It's funny that someone who's professed to be so critical of "New Age" thinking is basically making the same fallacy as New Age thinkers by trying to escape the "bonds" of civilization while taking for granted how much of your life is entirely dependent on its existence.


What we are calling you out on and you are totally failing to address is the fact that you think you'd survive naked and afraid in the wilderness with a sharpened stick. You, a domesticated human female, widely implicated as having some mental problem, think you'd stand a snowball's chance in hell in anarchy - hell, in any society less developed than our modern one.


Yes, modern society is objectively better than any alternative and the quality of life in the first world is objectively higher than the standard of living of any king in ancient history. These are the facts. Don't believe me, look them up. This is not populist crap, these are things most modern historians agree on. Who knows, maybe the real answer is Democratic Socialism, just not Tribalism or anything similar.


If somehow you aren't implying you want us to live in some anarcho-syndicalist commune, I don't know who you're helping by crying about the state of the world today. Things are better now than they ever were before and probably than they ever will be. Crying that all life is suffering is accomplishing nothing, and frankly it just makes you look like a little bitch when you shit on our systems without showing us the logistics of any alternative. If you have a problem, become a Buddhist nun or something and beat your own fear of pain out of yourself, don't whine to us about it.

[Grendel]

But of course you'll still accuse me of "completely missing the point" even though you deny any possibility of addressing my own points, since you insist on mentioning me instead of using the quote feature that's right there in front of you and that you readily use on any other poster. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes people think you're a troll.

[Bertrand]

maxresdefault.jpg


Wyrd thrives on the indulgence of society's understanding

[rat200Turbo]

You can bitch about the malaise of capitalism, but communism (the only real alternative) is not a cakewalk like you seem to believe it would be... infact you will end up laboring much harder in that system...
Look around the world and throughout history, and you will notice these very simple things:
1: every communist country has a very low standard of living, their population works very hard and serves basically as slave laborers for the capitalist countries, which are the consumers - because they have markets (you become a slave, directly opposite to your purported aims)
2: the communist countries are desperately moving in the direction of capitalism at the present time, having gotten tired of working themselves to death for nothing (just look around the world)
3: dissolution of property has never led to prosperity, this is simply observable and undeniable... though there are many reasons for it... the market forces are what produce wealth, those forces leave and are externalized when property rights are taken
4: you are inescapably reliant on agriculture, industrialization, and modernization to survive, and dissolving property rights does not change that and never could

[xerx]

I'm curious when you say "`scum` country", what do you mean? its members? its prevailing values?--if so, what are its values? etc

Mainly, but not exclusively, its governments, past and present, which have overthrown democratically-elected governments worldwide; have invaded other countries; have repeatedly violated international laws, as well as their own; and have insinuated themselves, whether through force or economic means, into the affairs of other countries, having justified these interventions to themselves through fervorous appeal to America's moral mission and alleged cultural superiority.

[Bertrand]

do you think the idea of like global communist revolution is then just projection on the part of America and other likeminded imperialist countries?

[rat200Turbo]

What are you even talking about? Try naming what you're talking about. Iraq / Middle East? Russia is in the middle east right now and the country is fighting a civil war. Why is russia interfering in their civil war? Because it's in Russias interest to stabilize Assad... countries always interfere, they interfere everywhere.

[Pallas]

But of course you'll still accuse me of "completely missing the point" even though you deny any possibility of addressing my own points, since you insist on mentioning me instead of using the quote feature that's right there in front of you and that you readily use on any other poster. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes people think you're a troll.

The Internet has no fucking point. Arguing on the Internet is like the special olympics and all that. I could write a book on my alternative (oh wait, I am) but there's no reason to pour that out on this kind of site. But arguing without putting that is also kind of stupid. It's like all those cranks you see on philosophy forums and stuff: if your idea is really that good, why the fuck do you just post it on an Internet forum? It's like they're just afraid of the alternative. Let's all quit the Internet and have a good day.

[xerx]

do you think the idea of like global communist revolution is then just projection on the part of America and other likeminded imperialist countries?

I wouldn't call it a complete fabrication. For better or worse, Communism and Socialism had, especially during the early 20th century, immense moral appeal to the working classes of the industrialized world, as well as to the vast throng of subjects toiling under colonial rule.

But the "threat" posed by these and other revolutionary movements was exaggerated in order to justify interventions aimed cynically at installing puppet dictators or expropriating resources, pushed on the back of an omnipresent war hysteria. Every time a politician wants to make a case for war, there's a deluge of rhetoric about how the target is some great villain comparable in evil to Adolf ******: Saddam Hussein is ******, Muammar Gaddafi is ******, and now Bashar Al-assad is the next ******. None of these people are ****** and none of their countries are Nazi Germany.

We are told that we must take extreme urgency in dealing the current predicament, that we must rush headlong into war to forestall further tragedy, with the intention of closing the mind to circumspection. There is, simultaneously, an appeal to narcissism and self-adulation in the stated goal of acting on the behalf of some beleaguered other, and in the appeal to the defence of the soon to be grateful masses of liberated people.

The fact is, Western interventions have consistently destabilized these regions and created bigger problems than those that they have allegedly sought to solve.

[xerx]

The fact is, Western interventions have consistently destabilized these regions and created bigger problems than those that they have allegedly sought to solve.

Iraq is a case study par excellence on the dangers of war, even when the aims of the war are fully well-intentioned (of course, the aims of the invasion of Iraq, for the most part, were not):

A comic book which had more foreign policy insight than George W. Bush.

[Bertrand]

i feel like the anti trump people are likely to be pretty consistent in that they probably feel the war in iraq was stupid too

i really doubt any anti russian sentiment is rooted in hope for an actual future conflict; i figure its mostly realism in that russians are going to pursue their own interests abroad hence collusion with trump is likely not in the best interest of the american people. really, russia is mostly beneath the interest of the american people, for better or for worse; trump just sort of put them in the spotlight not because he's tapping into a wellspring of resentment towards ruskies but because people just hate trump that much. if trump goes away people will forget about russia, because there is no real abiding hostility as far as I can tell


for what its worth I think russia has a brilliant culture, especially its literary tradition

[rat200Turbo]

Wyrd, if you're writing a book on this than you probably should argue about it.. your points aren't even fleshed out, you don't want to devote an entire book to making a fool out of yourself and circling over your same fail assumptions.

[Grendel]

The Internet has no fucking point.

Your life has no fucking point. Even up here, on this last vestige of a thing you might call a social life, you've failed to present anything human or relatable to anyone around you, and you wonder why we look at you like you have a snake growing out of your forehead. Deny it all you want, you know it to be true. You'd have no motivation to write the walls of psychobabble you do if you had any companionship whatsoever in the real world. If you dropped dead right now, who would care? Your own parents don't love you.


I on the other hand have plenty of people who at least pretend to have a reason to give a shit about me. I could prove it but frankly I see no incentive to justify claims of my personal life to strangers on the internet, since what you think has no bearing on me outside of here. Frankly you're nothing to me but a piece of meat to gobble up if I saw it fit. You've earned it with the way you've treated me. You treat me no differently.

Arguing on the Internet is like the special olympics and all that. I could write a book on my alternative (oh wait, I am) but there's no reason to pour that out on this kind of site.

Some of us enjoy an open forum to discuss these things for their own sake, not because we hope to affect change with them, but simply because we find it enjoyable to do so.

Kind of like how you fetishize obscure literature and lore that no one cares about anymore. It serves no purpose so you should just knock it off rite? Granted, you did, but the fact that you just recently stopped doesn't give you the right to piss on me for doing my own equivalent.


I already know your life is worthless. No one will ever pay money for the existential drivel you write. You've been a condescending, evasive little twat the entire time and utterly failed to address anything brought before you on its own terms.

But arguing without putting that is also kind of stupid. It's like all those cranks you see on philosophy forums and stuff: if your idea is really that good, why the fuck do you just post it on an Internet forum? It's like they're just afraid of the alternative.

Buddy, you're in no position to tell anyone what stupidity looks like. Least not when you can't even humor the other opponent by actually addressing anything they say, yet insist on having the last word with replies no more complicated than "nuh-UHHHHHHHHH!"

Let's all quit the Internet and have a good day.

You could just quit and spare all of us who enjoy hanging out here of your antagonistic presence.

I'll probably come back here tomorrow and enjoy myself. I'll come back to here and other sites I visit as frequently as I want, they'll give me a place to shoot the shit, and all in all my life will have benefited from that. Enjoy locking yourself up in your padded room where it won't make a difference to anyone, positive or negative, what you did or didn't say.


You may see me as the drooling retard, but as far as I'm concerned, you are the ultimate retard the minute you use the unimportance of arguing over the internet as a defense in an internet argument. Good day to you, ma'am.

[Pallas]

Your life has no fucking point. Even up here, on this last vestige of a thing you might call a social life, you've failed to present anything human or relatable to anyone around you, and you wonder why we look at you like you have a snake growing out of your forehead. Deny it all you want, you know it to be true. You'd have no motivation to write the walls of psychobabble you do if you had any companionship whatsoever in the real world. If you dropped dead right now, who would care? Your own parents don't love you.


I on the other hand have plenty of people who at least pretend to have a reason to give a shit about me. I could prove it but frankly I see no incentive to justify claims of my personal life to strangers on the internet, since what you think has no bearing on me outside of here. Frankly you're nothing to me but a piece of meat to gobble up if I saw it fit. You've earned it with the way you've treated me. You treat me no differently.


Some of us enjoy an open forum to discuss these things for their own sake, not because we hope to affect change with them, but simply because we find it enjoyable to do so.

Kind of like how you fetishize obscure literature and lore that no one cares about anymore. It serves no purpose so you should just knock it off rite? Granted, you did, but the fact that you just recently stopped doesn't give you the right to piss on me for doing my own equivalent.


I already know your life is worthless. No one will ever pay money for the existential drivel you write. You've been a condescending, evasive little twat the entire time and utterly failed to address anything brought before you on its own terms.



Buddy, you're in no position to tell anyone what stupidity looks like. Least not when you can't even humor the other opponent by actually addressing anything they say, yet insist on having the last word with replies no more complicated than "nuh-UHHHHHHHHH!"




You could just quit and spare all of us who enjoy hanging out here of your antagonistic presence.

I'll probably come back here tomorrow and enjoy myself. I'll come back to here and other sites I visit as frequently as I want, they'll give me a place to shoot the shit, and all in all my life will have benefited from that. Enjoy locking yourself up in your padded room where it won't make a difference to anyone, positive or negative, what you did or didn't say.


You may see me as the drooling retard, but as far as I'm concerned, you are the ultimate retard the minute you use the unimportance of arguing over the internet as a defense in an internet argument. Good day to you, ma'am.

...

[rat200Turbo]

i feel like the anti trump people are likely to be pretty consistent in that they probably feel the war in iraq was stupid too

i really doubt any anti russian sentiment is rooted in hope for an actual future conflict; i figure its mostly realism in that russians are going to pursue their own interests abroad hence collusion with trump is likely not in the best interest of the american people. really, russia is mostly beneath the interest of the american people, for better or for worse; trump just sort of put them in the spotlight not because he's tapping into a wellspring of resentment towards ruskies but because people just hate trump that much. if trump goes away people will forget about russia, because there is no real abiding hostility as far as I can tell


for what its worth I think russia has a brilliant culture, especially its literary tradition

Russia is actually fairly important, they're sort of on the other side of things from the EU. Eastern Europe threatens to fragment away from the EU and align more closely with Russia as the Wests economic system begins to collapse... things like Brexit / Trump pulling out and renegotiating our trade deals and alliances could be a signal for Ukraine to align with Russia, and other countries could follow... it could mean the collapse of the EU. Russia is very involved in that, and as you can see they're also involved in the middle east aligned with Assad. So they're actually pretty significant and this is probably why we've heard so much propaganda about Russia... the establishment probably fears that Trumps nationalist foreign policy could tip in this direction unless they make it politically very hard for him to do this. Though thus far his policies have not been as radically nationalist as the establishment anticipated.

[Grendel]

Wyrd, if you're writing a book on this than you probably should argue about it.. your points aren't even fleshed out, you don't want to devote an entire book to making a fool out of yourself and circling over your same fail assumptions.

^This a thousand times.


Promoting any idea without running it through the debate phase is no different than releasing a new car model without any safety testing. Debate plays a very important and neglected role in the formation of ideas and the strategies of their presentation.

[Bertrand]

they're actually pretty significant

they're definitely significant I didn't mean to give the impression I thought otherwise

[Grendel]

[Antennae]

Trump is terrifying because he is showing everyone that the highest elected official in the most powerful country on Earth has no power. But then, who's really controlling things? I mean, the President doesn't autocratically control the government anyways, but the President is supposed to control the executive branch for "balance of powers". If he has no say, then that can't be how things are working, at all, and that raises the question of how things are really working. Trump's presidency isn't some comic relief to having some shady figure like Hillary Clinton or Mike Pence in control. It's a mockery by whoever is really running things (which has to be corporations).

E6s are hilarious.

[Rebelondeck]

Trump and Putin do seem to have two things in common: egos that stand in their way and siege mentalities. Both encourage paranoia in their respective spheres of influence; for Putin, it may be a deliberate act but for Trump, I think it's incompetence or early-stage Alzheimer's. All too often, leaders represent but are not representative of their country's population in general. I would think that most Americans and Russians don't want the uncertainty that their leaders seem to be stirring up.

a.k.a. I/O

[Suz]

Trump and Putin do seem to have two things in common: egos that stand in their way and siege mentalities. Both encourage paranoia in their respective spheres of influence; for Putin, it may be a deliberate act but for Trump, I think it's incompetence or early-stage Alzheimer's. All too often, leaders represent but are not representative of their country's population in general. I would think that most Americans and Russians don't want the uncertainty that their leaders seem to be stirring up.

a.k.a. I/O

I agree with most of what you said. dt has been like this his entire life, so I don't think it can be attributed to dementia. Incompetence yeah maybe that's part of it.
I think he does hold Putin as a role model, so it wouldn't surprise me if he tries to emulate him. Putin IS a lot smarter than him though. Also, DT's narcissism make him not realize how a lot of his actions end up coming across, which is also what drives his narc rage at every critique and exposition given by "the media", as he refers to it.

[rat200Turbo]

Suz, every one of your comments is some pointless piece about how "he's dumb" or "he's a narcissist". You say nothing about politics... Is this all you have to say?

[Transkaar]

Trump is great.

What's funny is all these predictions pre and post election about him destroying democracy, destroying America, destroying this and that, will nuke the world, stripping rights away from everyone.....none of it has come to pass. All the hysteria and paranoia from the far left has actually made them look even more ridiculous, coupled with the fact the the whole Russia collusion thing turned out to be false. Really the media are the ones pinning America against each other. Trump is not an idealist, more likely a pragmatist who would work with both sides. Problem is that far left Democrats instilled scare tactics into people, want to continue to push establishment politics, etc. and failed. Now they failed at all the special elections as well.

Tis a pity.

[Bertrand]

lol, what are you? from the future? he's been in office for 6 months--who knows what will become of all these "predictions"? further, Mueller's investigation into trump's relationship to Russia is ongoing

is it really a pity if the demonrats failed to "push establishment politics" and at "all the special elections", if their position amounts to empty fearmongering..? or is the idea that things are great people are just deluded by the media and that is the pity? (despite apparently also simultaneously failing on all fronts?) because for the 23 million people facing the possibility of losing health insurance, I feel like their fears are probably legitimate

[Transkaar]

lol, what are you? from the future? he's been in office for 6 months--who knows what will become of all these "predictions"? further, Mueller's investigation into trump's relationship to Russia is ongoing

is it really a pity if the demonrats failed to "push establishment politics" and at "all the special elections", if their position amounts to empty fearmongering..? or is the idea that things are great people are just deluded by the media and that is the pity? (despite apparently also simultaneously failing on all fronts?) because for the 23 million people facing the possibility of losing health insurance, I feel like their fears are probably legitimate

No collusion was found. Furthermore the media pushed a false narrative that Trump was colluding with Russia. People may lose Health Insurance but an alternate is being pushed to be put into place. Obamacare was very flawed in its design. You want a better final product, regardless. Everything will be alright, trust me.

Still waiting for Trump to be the reincarnation of ******.

[Bertrand]

Everything will be alright, trust me.

[Suz]

Suz, every one of your comments is some pointless piece about how "he's dumb" or "he's a narcissist". You say nothing about politics... Is this all you have to say?

why, does that hit too close to home for you?

seems to, since that's all you seem to have gleaned from my posts, which have had more substance than just that.

[Pallas]

why, does that hit too close to home for you?

seems to, since that's all you seem to have gleaned from my posts, which have had more substance than just that.

The world is a masquerade. Face, dress, and voice, all are false. All wish to appear what they are not, all deceive and do not even know themselves. Leave this place and never return.