Trump's Arrest and Trial

[timber]

Why is the separation between the executive and judicial branches the bedrock of our legal system...? Why do we have laws in this country? Why should we uphold them?

If you have nothing interesting / thought provoking to say please do not waste my time by quoting me / commenting.

How DARE you speak to me, do you know who I am!

Why are you apologizing for Trump? The guy is a pos.

[DogOfDanger]

You can speak to me just don't say something that is ill conceived / shows you did not read or follow the conversation. For example, the post you're referring to answers your question and explains why, and yet you asked me to explain why. So then I answered your question rhetorically, and yet again you ask me to explain why. It looks like you aren't even processing what I'm saying. So why are you responding to me...?

[FreelancePoliceman]

People can use good/correct reasoning and still defend a rationale that is against their interest. My endgame isn't to go around calling anyone an "agent of Putin", though there are a few of those on this forum (Silke for example). It's just that Putin's endgame is not beneficial to Westerners, unless they want to live in an authoritarian type regime. So you have to ask yourself "who gains" when applying rationale to an argument, arguments are not simply theoretical woolgathering, they have real world implications also.

So when you say

We live in a post fact world...There is no right position

You mean that you've embraced the new world order yourself.

You're saying that you're only interested in the truth insofar as the truth helps your apparent interests. I don't think we have anything more to say to each other; our fundamental assumptions and principles are too far apart.

Dount can be good, since it allows you to question what is wrong in the first place. But the endgame isn't to endlessly doubt, since that creates inaction. If you decide both sides are equally evil, then choose a third option or whatever. Maybe you don't realize it, but as a European who's land is more and more threatened by Russia I do: staying on the fence as far as world conflicts are concerned will not be an option for much longer, Israel vs Palestine, the Russian war agianst the Ukraine: all of these are also symbolic and not just a material conflict. If you accept Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, then you are enabling further hostile action by Putin against Europe and even America (he has even claimed Alaska is part of Russia).

For what it's worth, I hate my ruling class and I couldn't care less which group of sociopaths rules Alaska. But believing the Russian state would try to conquer Alaska is only barely more unhinged than believing it represents a threat to Europe as a whole. Even going back to the Cold War, when it was known to any diplomat with a brain that the USSR was in no condition to conquer Europe, the myth that it was was propagated to justify plundering and overthrowing weaker states and to create NATO -- the real purpose of which was to wage war against its own citizens via Gladio/the Strategy of Tension and suppress communism domestically, rather than to "contain" the phantom power of the USSR. The same shit is going on now. The 2nd most dysfunctional state in Europe struggling to win a war against the most dysfunctional state in Europe is in no universe about to fight its way to Belgium or wherever. Since you like asking this question, who is it that stands to gain by pretending that this is even remotely plausible?

[timber]

You can speak to me just don't say something that is ill conceived / shows you did not read or follow the conversation. For example, the post you're referring to answers your question and explains why, and you asked me to explain it. So then I answered your question rhetorically, and yet again you ask me to explain why. It looks like you aren't even processing what I'm saying. So why are you responding to me...?

Good question.

[Ave]

You mean that you've embraced the new world order yourself.

You're saying that you're only interested in the truth insofar as the truth helps your apparent interests.

How have I embraced the "new world order"?

I wonder if anyone can be interested in truth in a way that does not further one's interest, indeed, seeking truth in itself is an act of safety seeking and thusly self-interested. I don't know what's wrong with saying I want to keep Western values of freedom, rights, legality, democratic institutions and so forth alive; I'd rather live in a world like this than in a patriarchal, authoritarian one or a corrupt one (China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the rest of the Middle East and much of Africa) I'm not denying that the West is in some ways decaying and shedding its own enlightenment values. I wish more people, especially younger people, would agree with me, but I can't force anyone to think like me, and that's what I meant when I say there is no "right" position I advocate.

For what it's worth, I hate my ruling class and I couldn't care less which group of sociopaths rules Alaska. But believing the Russian state would try to conquer Alaska is only barely more unhinged than believing it represents a threat to Europe as a whole. Even going back to the Cold War, when it was known to any diplomat with a brain that the USSR was in no condition to conquer Europe, the myth that it was was propagated to justify plundering and overthrowing weaker states and to create NATO -- the real purpose of which was to wage war against its own citizens via Gladio/the Strategy of Tension and suppress communism domestically, rather than to "contain" the phantom power of the USSR. The same shit is going on now. The 2nd most dysfunctional state in Europe struggling to win a war against the most dysfunctional state in Europe is in no universe about to fight its way to Belgium or wherever. Since you like asking this question, who is it that stands to gain by pretending that this is even remotely plausible?

I don't think Belgium will be attacked by Russia now. Russia doesn't have the capacity to risk a war with NATO. But, I also don't think Putin is content stopping at the Ukraine. What Putin wants is a ceasefire for a few years in order to rebuild his army the way ****** did pre-WW2.

To answer your question: I think Europe and NATO can only stand to gain by inscreasing its defense against Russia, and to realize that this is urgent.

[Ave]

Luckily for you there's a long winded post that was just made explaining this. Feel free to respond.

Ah, so what you call Marxism is essentially what I call woke-ism. Essentially a revolutionary impetus carried by the idea that it's race, gender, and sexual orientation etc that defines whether one is oppressed and not economic factos (class). I agree with you this is a real problem in American society. I don't think democrats for the most part propagate these ideas or adhere to them, but they do tolerate it, in return blaming Trump for everything wrong with American society, but both extreme Trump supporters and woke sjws are dividing American society, it takes two to tango...

Regarding your claim that the democrats today behave as capitalists... corruption exists in government because the government has control over the money. This problem is unfixable. It is not due to the economic system in place... A violent revolution might serve as a reset, maybe... depends on what new government emerges out from that, but the problem will inevitably return. Capitalism is the free market system, it operates based on competition between private businesses. Capitalism is not merely another word for "money making" or "money exchanges". Every communist government has money... exchanges are taking place. In theory people are paid according to their abilities and what they need. In practice it means the government just decides who gets what money. At best this may mean some superficial class or identity based wealth redistribution. But it inevitably also means a giant system of bribes and corruption develops within the government (shouldn't be a surprise, we already have corruption in all governments today feeding off tax money and various government programs... what do you think would happen if the government got larger?). There are many historical examples of that... large sums of money given to donors and special interests groups. That's a government phenomenon, not a free market phenomenon. There will never be a shortage of donors and special interests looking to lobby the people who control the money, the economic system will not change that... some of the most corrupt governments in the world are communist. Then there are also black markets that develop... there's a giant black market in North Korea today - people smuggle in goods from China, some North Korean guards make deals with the smugglers and allow them to pass in, and it's practically the only way of people getting access to many goods in North Korea, the black market makes up a very large portion of their economy. The ideals on how communism or the government ought to work, and how they do work in reality, are two very separate worlds. The processes accounting for corruption in the US government / practically any government today are the very same processes that occur in any communism system, it's a human problem related to power and greed. Anywhere you have power over money you are going to have corruption and the misuse of money. Usually those who fancy themselves as communists don't recognize this, and just call government corruption "due to capitalism... cuz money"... I don't believe these people understand things on a basic level. They seem to just believe that any exchange automatically implicates capitalism, the critical distinction they fail to recognize is the principle of the exchange, whether the government is in control and delegating the funds or whether the market forces are incentivizing private businesses to compete.

I don't know, tbh, I'm not a libertarian (I know you didn't use the term to define yourself) and I'm not too worried about things like government having "control over money". Do you know of any currency that is produced by corporations, non profits, or individuals and is considered valuable by people. I don't. Of course, many currencies are also not very valuable, but that's not the case of the US dollar. You could argue that it would be better if the government had more of a hands off policy, and maybe yes, maybe no, but I don't see a threat from the current monetary policies the way I do from extremes. Comparing the state of the American government's "control over money" (I guess by that you mean the fed and the fact government prints money?) to Nork policy is a bit of a strawmen, there is just no comparison.

[DogOfDanger]

You said that the democrats in office today behave as capitalists. By this I'm assuming you mean that they make deals with or on behalf of companies, awarding them large government contracts, crafting the laws in certain ways to favor the companies, and things of this nature. Government corruption and greed, in other words. What I'm telling you is this phenomenon occurs due to a fundamental and unfixable problem - the fact the government has control over the money - meaning they can tax it or print it and delegate it as they see fit. The point being this problem of government corruption and greed exists independently of any particular economic system, it can occur within capitalist systems but it can also occur in communist systems and really in any system where a government exists. It may manifest in slightly different ways, but communist governments are some of the most corrupt governments on the planet, it is certainly not the case that communism is some sort of magic bullet to this problem. This is not a strawman, it directly addresses your argument.

Ah, so what you call Marxism is essentially what I call woke-ism. Essentially a revolutionary impetus carried by the idea that it's race, gender, and sexual orientation etc that defines whether one is oppressed and not economic factos (class). I agree with you this is a real problem in American society. I don't think democrats for the most part propagate these ideas or adhere to them, but they do tolerate it, in return blaming Trump for everything wrong with American society, but both extreme Trump supporters and woke sjws are dividing American society, it takes two to tango...

I think you're completely missing what's going on in the institutions. In the US the media dominates and controls the culture, these movements could not get any traction without media backing, which means establishment backing. Why for the last 4 elections has there been a widely publicized police shooting of a black person 6-8 months prior to them? Why does the media not take note of the fact that only 20 or so unarmed black people are shot by police a year, most of whom are charging at police? Who added the T to LGB? Was it the woke brigade, or was it the institutions...? It was the institutions, LGB is and always has been a mainstream backed political movement. It has been a central pillar of the democrat campaigns for the last 4 major elections.
I know the LGBT issue has been discussed into the ground, particularly the T, but it's a very clear example of what perpetual revolution is and how it works. Which is what I'm actually referring to here, not specifically wokeness-
For many years gays / lesbians could not legally marry. This was a wedge issue between religious conservatives and the LGBs, and there was a political movement to establish "equal marriage rights" in law. It also sought after some other protections. For example, the government can no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when dishing out security clearances.
At some point the democrats predictably latched onto this wedge issue, turned it into a movement and made it a pillar of their campaigns. Many would argue this is only natural because it represents a genuinely oppressed underclass... That's what happened with blacks and slavery. The LGB movement isn't directly comparable to slavery, but it's close enough for this example. I'm not going to argue that institutions are "peddling a degenerate form of Marxism" by absolving slavery or Jim Crow laws.
However, at some point... maybe about 10 years ago, the LGB movement had basically succeeded in establishing legal rights for gays / lesbians in law, and normalizing it in society. Marriage had also been legalized. At the same time religious conservatives were pushed to the margins socially. The whole movement had more or less achieved its purpose at this point, there wasn't any real legal ground left to fight over.
But for the democrats who had made the LGB movement a central pillar of their campaign... the success of the LGB movement was not a good thing, it was a problem. It meant that the LGB movement was coming to an end. The central issue of the democrat platform is no longer relevant and can't be used politically any longer.
So, what should be done about this problem? Very simple... they had to take the revolution another step further. They started normalizing transgenderism. They could add a T onto the LGB. This would allow them (the democrats) to keep the movement alive. In this way they maintain their power in politics and society. Because revolution is the process of ascension and self empowerment. So this is just exactly what they did. This is what I mean by perpetual revolution and a degenerate Marxism. There was no actual need to mainstream transgenderism, nor was this a grass roots movement where all the transgenders came together and rose up. The institution created it, and it is purely instrumental for them. While this strategy maintains the leftist establishment as a permanent fixture it also tears down / pushes to the fringes all the traditional elements of society. The result is what we have in the US, a culture where there is no common, unifying principles, and everyone is just disconnected and in their respective bubbles, full of fear and hostility. The democrats have largely destroyed the US culture in their quest for self empowerment.

Wokeness I would say is just the outward and latest manifestation of this... because to keep advancing it now has to push into obscurity. Perpetual revolution is a very practical and almost inevitable mechanical process given certain values... The dems are not going to just decide to be conservative at some point, and to stop peddling revolution would mean the death of their movement.... the institution they've created is going to be self-preserving. So I'm not even sure this can be stopped. And there are still traditions remaining that can be torn town, taboos remaining that can be broken. The SJWs are just the on-the-ground lemmings who have bought into the philosophy as it's promoted to them. But I doubt the establishment democrats pushing this stuff are woke themselves, I suspect for them the issue of transgenderism is purely instrumental.

The process has been going on for quite a while, it predates wokeness. Even as far back in the 70s when there was a big anti-establishment social movement protesting the Vietnam war... the institutions were stronger back then, but you still had certain progressive elements of them promoting not just war protests but also a culture of drug use and the sexual revolution. There are many examples of this - BLM is another good example. Blacks have equal protections in law today, there are not vast numbers of unarmed blacks shot by police, and the ones in prison are there because they committed crimes... we also have a giant social safety net, we spend 1 trillion on medicare a year. This stuff all comes from the democrat platforms, these aren't grass roots movements. There's hardly any room for grass roots movements to take hold if they don't have mainstream backing of some sort, because of the level of control over the media.

Carry onward!

[chriscorey]

I wish I lived in the world right-wingers imagine.

I see the videos. As an independent I wish I lived your reality. All us Biden voters are ashamed.

Charlie Kirk only lists books and statistics. Not propaganda. I have friends of every political insight.

I leave you with this... If your brain can't comprehend geography, I'm sorry. The middle east has tried to kill the Jews...



simple math makes you wrong.

[chriscorey]

You just lost to the angels who promote God. They were right, you oppose God. Psychotherapy for the souls!

[chriscorey]

Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama, and George Bush were never investigated.

You are scathing type people.

[chriscorey]

[chriscorey]

So when you say



You mean that you've embraced the new world order yourself.

You're saying that you're only interested in the truth insofar as the truth helps your apparent interests. I don't think we have anything more to say to each other; our fundamental assumptions and principles are too far apart.



For what it's worth, I hate my ruling class and I couldn't care less which group of sociopaths rules Alaska. But believing the Russian state would try to conquer Alaska is only barely more unhinged than believing it represents a threat to Europe as a whole. Even going back to the Cold War, when it was known to any diplomat with a brain that the USSR was in no condition to conquer Europe, the myth that it was was propagated to justify plundering and overthrowing weaker states and to create NATO -- the real purpose of which was to wage war against its own citizens via Gladio/the Strategy of Tension and suppress communism domestically, rather than to "contain" the phantom power of the USSR. The same shit is going on now. The 2nd most dysfunctional state in Europe struggling to win a war against the most dysfunctional state in Europe is in no universe about to fight its way to Belgium or wherever. Since you like asking this question, who is it that stands to gain by pretending that this is even remotely plausible?

When you leftist fucks get your war it will be my son that answers. Go fuck yourself.

[FreelancePoliceman]

When you leftist fucks get your war it will be my son that answers. Go fuck yourself.

Passing over everything else:

Do you really think that hysterical theorizing about how Russia/China/Iran/another Asian country is getting ready to attack someone or is "subverting our democracy," and saying we need to surround these countries with military bases and sanction them and steal their assets and train soldiers in war games to invade those countries and coup their neighbors to install governments hostile to them -- this is all supposed to avoid war?! Being skeptical of this narrative means I want war? Simply pointing out what the most warmongering country on the planet is is treason?

[chriscorey]

Passing over everything else:

Do you really think that hysterical theorizing about how Russia/China/Iran/another Asian country is getting ready to attack someone or is "subverting our democracy," and saying we need to surround these countries with military bases and sanction them and steal their assets and train soldiers in war games to invade those countries and coup their neighbors to install governments hostile to them -- this is all supposed to avoid war?! Being skeptical of this narrative means I want war? Simply pointing out what the most warmongering country on the planet is is treason?

we may be the most war mongering country on the planet, but do you have to side with the president that wants it? He clearly does.

[chriscorey]

Or does the president even matter?

[spatula boy]

It's the same as these college kids protesting all over the country; nobody actually knows what's going on, it's just the cool thing to do.

[Adam Strange]

[chriscorey]

No president has made me laugh more than Trump and Putin.

I heard Putin made the LGBT flag a terrorist flag. I'm still laughing. And Trump is a comedian who runs for president.

[chriscorey]

I saw this AI meme on Twitter with Trump and Biden. They looked buff. Then they show a picture of JFKjr with his shirt off..... he really is buff.