Trump's Arrest and Trial

[xerx]

Surprised that there is no thread about this.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-arraign...110057599.html

[Metamorph]

Surprised that there is no thread about this.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-arraign...110057599.html

It's the16types.info. The forum owner never shows up because if he did the site would die at sight of the horror of the lich who owns it instead of shambling on like a zombie (for the time being.) You can't say Hı̇tler without special unicode characters because otherwise the owner would be saying hi to the FBI and probably have to account for things I heard he did at a party in addition to accounting for thinking Uyghurs being genocided is pretty swell and the fact he only really likes talking to other ethnically Asian people regardless of how much they actually have in common. The topic of the site is a typology system influenced by the guy who thought that Wotan needed to usurp "Yahweh and Allah" (as if these were supposed to be two different beings) to restore the German völkisch soul. You can't expect very much of it.

[Sol]

USA is long-time hithleristic-alike satanistic disctatorship with show-men as politics
one TV-host changes another one

[Popcorn]

Honestly, it just seemed like same-old, with half people saying it’s a Democrat conspiracy to hurt unicorns Trump and the other half not surprised to see a conman back in court, yet again.

[Muira]

The very people who arrested him didn't even know why. They are looking for something to create to bring him down, that's political corruption for you. I don't even like him, but is this all true? I don't know, there doesn't seem to be much logic. Why only go after Trump? What about Joe Biden and his open pedophilia, selling US revered oil to China, intentional inflation, and so on. Don't you see this is very one sided? It's an illusion to distract you from what is actually happening globally.

[xerx]

It's the16types.info. The topic of the site is a typology system influenced by the guy who thought that Wotan needed to usurp "Yahweh and Allah" (as if these were supposed to be two different beings) to restore the German völkisch soul. You can't expect very much of it.

Wouldn't that make conversations about politics more likely?

[Metamorph]

Wouldn't that make conversations about politics more likely?

Yes, but it also tends toward old and irrelevant politics imo due to the whole thing about obsessing over a long-dead guy's archaeological psychology (depth psychology) theory. I said you can't expect very much of it, and this is more about the quality of discussions than the quanitity.

[xerx]

Yes, but it also tends toward old and irrelevant politics imo due to the whole thing about obsessing over a long-dead guy's archaeological psychology (depth psychology) theory. I said you can't expect very much of it, and this is more about the quality of discussions than the quanitity.

lol, yeah. I definitely don't come here for the quality.

[Adam Strange]

Update: Would a mall hire a guy convicted of sexual assault and facing 88 felonies? Would you?



If you can ‘t trust him with driving your daughters to school, he should never be President.

[DogOfDanger]

Well that's the purpose of charging him with 88 felonies, it causes ignoramuses to have a gut-level reaction against him... therefor it is politically expedient. If anyone can describe in clear terms what he actually did I'd love to hear it, I never hear that from you people, it's always just these slogans - 88 felonies, con man don gone to the clank!!! Never any details about what is actually going on, nor do I see even the slightest bit of awareness from you people that political persecution is a potential problem... like shouldn't the fact it's 88 stand out as surprising to you? People who commit violent crimes like armed robbery usually get a handful of felonies. It doesn't matter, because the political activists are all just power-driven narcs willing to trample over any law to achieve their political whims. This may seem fine when it serves your purposes - as long as that lasts (and it won't last forever) - when the party in power is capable of orchestrating the media and courts effectively enough to maintain dominance that is a very big and long term problem... the courts and media were setup to be a check and balance against the executive branch, not in the pocket of the executive branch. You people like to imagine you're the authoritarian in charge but you're not, political parties have their own interests, they change and go off the rails all the time, their interests only loosely and superficially align with yours when they need your vote. Besides, whatever happened to the obligation to act as stewards of the law? Parties who abuse the law should be voted out on that fact alone.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Despite everything that has been going on with him in the last years, I find it likely that he will win the election again. I rarely make these sort of predictions, but it almost seems inevitable.

[Adam Strange]

Well that's the purpose of charging him with 88 felonies, it causes ignoramuses to have a gut-level reaction against him... therefor it is politically expedient. If anyone can describe in clear terms what he actually did I'd love to hear it, I never hear that from you people, it's always just these slogans - 88 felonies, con man don gone to the clank!!! Never any details about what is actually going on, nor do I see even the slightest bit of awareness from you people that political persecution is a potential problem... like shouldn't the fact it's 88 stand out as surprising to you? People who commit violent crimes like armed robbery usually get a handful of felonies. It doesn't matter, because the political activists are all just power-driven narcs willing to trample over any law to achieve their political whims. This may seem fine when it serves your purposes - as long as that lasts (and it won't last forever) - when the party in power is capable of orchestrating the media and courts effectively enough to maintain dominance that is a very big and long term problem... the courts and media were setup to be a check and balance against the executive branch, not in the pocket of the executive branch. You people like to imagine you're the authoritarian in charge but you're not, political parties have their own interests, they change and go off the rails all the time, their interests only loosely and superficially align with yours when they need your vote. Besides, whatever happened to the obligation to act as stewards of the law? Parties who abuse the law should be voted out on that fact alone.

I hear a lot of "but what about...." in your argument.
So, you're OK with the sexual assault conviction?

[Ave]

Let's face it: if he wasn't running, he wouldn't be on trial. Trials are political at this level of the world stage.

[Ave]

I hear a lot of "but what about...." in your argument.
So, you're OK with the sexual assault conviction?

I think people who use "what about" arguments aeren't even aware this is an old Soviet propaganda tactic (whataboutism).

[DogOfDanger]

For the argument to be whataboutism there would need to be an argument that I'm supposedly dodging. What felony do you believe he committed, and what did he do? I asked you for an argument, you didn't make one. What I'm pointing out is the irony that you people don't even know what he did to justify all those felonies, you just know he's guilty... but you have to go google it and come up with an argument before you can respond when I ask the question. Or you just say nothing.
In the rape case there was no DNA, no witnesses, no video... her word against his, and some New York civil court siding a little more with her than with him, and then your argument is an appeal to authority of the court, with no further detail or proof required, basically. And of course the mere fact he is charged is considered proof of criminality by the lemmings - because why else would the authorities charge him? They're our authorities, we trust them. That's not a legitimate argument. You cannot just make an appeal to authority and then say I'm engaging in whataboutism when I don't address it, it's not even logically possible to address that argument, that is nonsense - show me the evidence and I'll respond to it.
The level of pseudo-intellectual nonsense people on this site pass off as profound on a daily basis is criminal.
It isn't paranoia to question the court system when the entire government establishment has openly been after him for 8 years, and has made multiple attempts to frame him already and were caught doing so. I mean, is there no point at which you start to question motives? What would the establishment have to do to lose its credibility?

I hear a lot of "but what about...." in your argument.
So, you're OK with the sexual assault conviction?

And I see alot of nothing in your posts. I asked what you believe he actually did that justifies this level of legal recourse - but you couldn't be bothered to point it out... because it doesn't matter, and you don't even really care, do you? Because what matters is ultimately just self interest. Truth is nothing, compassion is a sort of delusion that you have, what matters is self-interest.

If this were just some random person off the street convicted of sexual assault the self-righteous condemnation of him would actually make sense... but this isn't just some rando, it's the frontrunner / former president and the single person who has had more propaganda smear jobs aimed at him than probably anyone else in human history... the entire government establishment has every reason to go after him, and has made every attempt to do so, for about 8 years now. And infact he was initially accused by 26 people of sexual assault, but then some of the accusers were found to have received large sums of money in their bank accounts from superpacs, and were discredited. So we know there was some deliberate attempt to smear him in that manner ... but has there been a widespread investigation or trial into who funded that payout - perhaps the very same administration currently in power, who appointed the NY attorney general currently prosecting him? No, but the Stormy Daniels payout matters, right?
Furthermore, in civil court the standard of conviction is preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt - he has not been proven to have committed that act. Where is the proof - can you point to it? There was no DNA, no video, no witnesses...
I provide him the presumption of innocence, because I have no political need nor desire to persecute him, unlike you. If it were proven at some point - actually proven - that he committed sexual assault, I would modify my opinion. It'd need to be very good proof, because at this point there have been so many attempts to smear him and frame him with shit that... I think the justice systems credibility is damaged. At least with respect to him, but probably more broadly damaged. You know, if you cry wolf long enough the town will stop coming to your aid at some point.

So, you're OK with the sexual assault conviction?

You seem to have complete confidence in the result. How is that? I mean really, how can you be so confident? I'm looking for a reason other than "it serves my political interests", but I don't see one.
I thought when the Mueller report came out and concluded "no evidence of collusion" that you stooges would learn something - the propagandist babble you had adamantly believed for 2 years, which you people tore the country in half over, was proven to be false. I thought maybe you'd start to catch on to the fact that you were being lied to. But no... you people did not even take note of the fact. It was just on to the next. What I eventually came to realize is you never really believed any of it, it was deeper than that - the truth never mattered to you empty shells to begin with. You tell me how you can be confident in the court decision when you know really nothing about the process, and you can clearly see the establishment is after him...? You really can't be confident in the court decision - but it doesn't matter, what matters is just what serves your political interests. So then why does it even matter whether I believe he's committed sexual assault, when infact it doesn't matter to you, or the other leftist lemmings?
All that matters is just propagandizing the point home so that you can wind up on top of this stupid little game where you imagine you're in charge and the world is going to your little plan... but you're not in charge. That's the ultimate joke of it all... you are a gerbil in this game.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I think people who use "what about" arguments aeren't even aware this is an old Soviet propaganda tactic (whataboutism).

"Propaganda" doesn't necessarily mean "untrue," "deceitful," or "not worth paying attention to." The word simply means "stuff that should be propagated." The idea of "propaganda" as "something bad" that only the enemy engages in is itself the result of an American propaganda tactic from the Cold War, a pretense that media in this country were free from state control and censorship.

You can just as well say that accusations of "whataboutism" are an American propaganda tactic to attempt criticizing without being criticized in turn.

I don't think DogOfDanger was even saying "what about..." in the first place though.

[FreelancePoliceman]

If you can ‘t trust him with driving your daughters to school, he should never be President.

Would you trust Biden to drive at all? Let alone with children.

[timber]

For the argument to be whataboutism there would need to be an argument that I'm supposedly dodging. What felony do you believe he committed, and what did he do? I asked you for an argument, you didn't make one. What I'm pointing out is the irony that you people don't even know what he did to justify all those felonies, you just know he's guilty... but you have to go google it and come up with an argument before you can respond when I ask the question. Or you just say nothing.
In the rape case there was no DNA, no witnesses, no video... her word against his, and some New York civil court siding a little more with her than with him, and then your argument is an appeal to authority of the court, with no further detail or proof required, basically. And of course the mere fact he is charged is considered proof of criminality by the lemmings - because why else would the authorities charge him? They're our authorities, we trust them. That's not a legitimate argument. You cannot just make an appeal to authority and then say I'm engaging in whataboutism when I don't address it, it's not even logically possible to address that argument, that is nonsense - show me the evidence and I'll respond to it.
The level of pseudo-intellectual nonsense people on this site pass off as profound on a daily basis is criminal.
It isn't paranoia to question the court system when the entire government establishment has openly been after him for 8 years, and has made multiple attempts to frame him already and were caught doing so. I mean, is there no point at which you start to question motives? What would the establishment have to do to lose its credibility?

And I see alot of nothing in your posts. I asked what you believe he actually did that justifies this level of legal recourse - but you couldn't be bothered to point it out... because it doesn't matter, and you don't even really care, do you? Because what matters is ultimately just self interest. Truth is nothing, compassion is a sort of delusion that you have, what matters is self-interest.

If this were just some random person off the street convicted of sexual assault the self-righteous condemnation of him would actually make sense... but this isn't just some rando, it's the frontrunner / former president and the single person who has had more propaganda smear jobs aimed at him than probably anyone else in human history... the entire government establishment has every reason to go after him, and has made every attempt to do so, for about 8 years now. And infact he was initially accused by 26 people of sexual assault, but then some of the accusers were found to have received large sums of money in their bank accounts from superpacs, and were discredited. So we know there was some deliberate attempt to smear him in that manner ... but has there been a widespread investigation or trial into who funded that payout - perhaps the very same administration currently in power, who appointed the NY attorney general currently prosecting him? No, but the Stormy Daniels payout matters, right?
Furthermore, in civil court the standard of conviction is preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt - he has not been proven to have committed that act. Where is the proof - can you point to it? There was no DNA, no video, no witnesses...
I provide him the presumption of innocence, because I have no political need nor desire to persecute him, unlike you. If it were proven at some point - actually proven - that he committed sexual assault, I would modify my opinion. It'd need to be very good proof, because at this point there have been so many attempts to smear him and frame him with shit that... I think the justice systems credibility is damaged. At least with respect to him, but probably more broadly damaged. You know, if you cry wolf long enough the town will stop coming to your aid at some point.


You seem to have complete confidence in the result. How is that? I mean really, how can you be so confident? I'm looking for a reason other than "it serves my political interests", but I don't see one.
I thought when the Mueller report came out and concluded "no evidence of collusion" that you stooges would learn something - the propagandist babble you had adamantly believed for 2 years, which you people tore the country in half over, was proven to be false. I thought maybe you'd start to catch on to the fact that you were being lied to. But no... you people did not even take note of the fact. It was just on to the next. What I eventually came to realize is you never really believed any of it, it was deeper than that - the truth never mattered to you empty shells to begin with. You tell me how you can be confident in the court decision when you know really nothing about the process, and you can clearly see the establishment is after him...? You really can't be confident in the court decision - but it doesn't matter, what matters is just what serves your political interests. So then why does it even matter whether I believe he's committed sexual assault, when infact it doesn't matter to you, or the other leftist lemmings?
All that matters is just propagandizing the point home so that you can wind up on top of this stupid little game where you imagine you're in charge and the world is going to your little plan... but you're not in charge. That's the ultimate joke of it all... you are a gerbil in this game.

Why spend your time being an apologist?

[chriscorey]

Update: Would a mall hire a guy convicted of sexual assault and facing 88 felonies? Would you?



If you can ‘t trust him with driving your daughters to school, he should never be President.

You don't like the orange man? Who cares. Biden is a corrupt liar. He's no better than Trump. Biden takes showers with his young daughter.

88 lies. you lie and corrupt the american people. Our votes don't matter because YOU are a Marxist.

[chriscorey]

[chriscorey]

God gave you idiot orange man who knows the system.

[chriscorey]

I hear a lot of "but what about...." in your argument.
So, you're OK with the sexual assault conviction?

Let me introduce you to Satan. He cares only for God.

[chriscorey]

you are all lost..

[DogOfDanger]

Why spend your time being an apologist?

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.

[Ave]

"Propaganda" doesn't necessarily mean "untrue," "deceitful," or "not worth paying attention to." The word simply means "stuff that should be propagated." The idea of "propaganda" as "something bad" that only the enemy engages in is itself the result of an American propaganda tactic from the Cold War, a pretense that media in this country were free from state control and censorship.

I know that, but you would trust the soviets as saying things that are true, not deceitful etc?

You can just as well say that accusations of "whataboutism" are an American propaganda tactic to attempt criticizing without being criticized in turn.

Maybe, though I think it's clear that using "what about" is a way to deflect blame/attention. It's a way of keeping people doubting and on the fence, mainly in a way that benefits Russia/Putin. I'm aware the reasons why this is are complex and long-winded and I don't want to explain them, but supposing you have studied this topic you shouldn't be naive enough to think otherwise.

If you want to blame democrats for something they did wrong, then do so, but at least have evidence and not Q-Anon conspiracy bullshit (not saying you do, but I see some of that itt). And then clearly frame the discussion as being about something democrats did wrong, not "but what about" which just makes it seem like there is no right posiition to take on since every one is yelling "what about" and there is no longer any truth or consensus...

[DogOfDanger]

If you want to blame democrats for something they did wrong, then do so, but at least have evidence and not Q-Anon conspiracy bullshit (not saying you do, but I see some of that itt). And then clearly frame the discussion as being about something democrats did wrong, not "but what about" which just makes it seem like there is no right posiition to take on since every one is yelling "what about" and there is no longer any truth or consensus...

If you want to criticize something I've said then do so, but at least quote it directly and speak to it, don't rely on some vague insinuation and bullshitting of a point. Clearly frame the discussion as being about something I actually said, not "but what about" which just makes it seem like there's no valid criticism of this obvious witchhunt since everyone is yelling "whataboutism" and there is no longer any rational train of thought or possible consensus.

Hey thanks for helping me articulate that so precisely.

Btw sometimes there isn't a consensus and the truth isn't fully known - I know that might be overwhelming for you but it's the way the mind and reality works.

[Ave]

If you want to criticize something I've said then do so, but at least quote it directly and speak to it, don't rely on some vague insinuation and bullshitting of a point. Clearly frame the discussion as being about something I actually said, not "but what about" which just makes it seem like there's no valid criticism of this obvious witchhunt since everyone is yelling "whataboutism" and there is no longer any rational train of thought or possible consensus.

I quoted Adam and was hoping to make a general point, if I wanted to make a point about every instance of whataboutism type arguments in this thread, I'd have to quote several users, as you aeren't the only one.

Hey thanks for helping me articulate that so precisely.

Btw sometimes there isn't a consensus and the truth isn't fully known - I know that might be overwhelming for you but it's the way the mind and reality works.

Yw.

And I know that. I'm not sure why think that that's overwhelming for me, but you're speaking to a theoretical reality anyhow, I'm specifically talking about the disinformation campaigns the Kremlin has launched in order to destablize the West. They have spread (through troll farms, "alternate facts/media") a narrative that facts can't be known, when they in fact can (at least the things they are sowing doubt about, for example regarding the private lives of certain politicians, "pizzagate" et al...). This whole idea Western media is a machine of deceit is also part of that narrative. This, compounded by the fact that some of the information spread by Russia is factual, for example that Western media does make factual blunders and does have (cultural) bias, gives credit in part to these ideas - but never in full either. You see where I'm going with this. The whole climate in the West is one of lack of certitude. Yes, this is largely due to disinformation campaigns (which even contain some factual information, it doesn't matter as long as people stay confused and on the fence). The Russians have been practicing these propaganda techniques since the Soviets and even before, in order to destabilize enemy powers, it's nothing new, the same old shit, just that now it happens on the internet.

[Ave]

you are all lost..

I'm not sure who you are addressing here, but I will say:

Step outside of the American Democrat vs Republican political matrix for a minute.

As a European, I feel like I have a better bird's eye view of what goes on there than Americans do. You're in a matrix and the propagranda (whether factual or not, just so FreelancePoliceman doesn't think I'm ignorant of the definition, lol) is directed at you, not at me. I have different propaganda directed at me. But not propagranda asking me to choose between Trump and Biden.

You don't have to "save" or "enlighten" anyone.

[chriscorey]

I'm not sure who you are addressing here, but I will say:

Step outside of the American Democrat vs Republican political matrix for a minute.

As a European, I feel like I have a better bird's eye view of what goes on there than Americans do. You're in a matrix and the propagranda (whether factual or not, just so FreelancePoliceman doesn't think I'm ignorant of the definition, lol) is directed at you, not at me. I have different propaganda directed at me. But not propagranda asking me to choose between Trump and Biden.

You don't have to "save" or "enlighten" anyone.

I'm just irritated with American politics for reasons you described. I talk into the void...

ps freelance listens to propaganda... I don't. I always want the straight truth.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I'm just irritated with American politics for reasons you described. I talk into the void...

ps freelance listens to propaganda... I don't. I always want the straight truth.

Literally you a few minutes ago:

I've been watching Charlie Kirk...

[chriscorey]

oh, this thread is old.

Err I'm concerned about them trying to take his secret service away. It's like they're trying to give him the death penalty.

I do NOT trust the left. Not anymore.

[chriscorey]

Literally you a few minutes ago:

See what I mean? Lol

[FreelancePoliceman]

I know that, but you would trust the soviets as saying things that are true, not deceitful etc?

Would you trust the Americans?

Whoops, that's "whataboutism." It's fine to call the Soviets evil, but if you compare them to anyone that's suddenly not OK.

Maybe, though I think it's clear that using "what about" is a way to deflect blame/attention. It's a way of keeping people doubting and on the fence, mainly in a way that benefits Russia/Putin.

Why do you think it works? It's the natural principle that someone with a log in his eye shouldn't speak about the speck in another's, and that a double standard is in itself unjust.

It's interesting that you mention Russia. Russia can launch a war of aggression and one standard gets applied; a certain other country can launch another and another and another and another, and to it another standard is applied. Noticing this is "propaganda;" you can only talk about the former case and why it's bad and deserves to be sanctioned and threatened and its assets seized, but if you compare the situation to any others, you're an unwitting agent of Vladimir Putin, source of all discord in the West!

But yes, "whataboutism" keeps people doubting. Doubt is good. If both sides of a conflict are evil, you don't have to choose either.

And then clearly frame the discussion as being about something democrats did wrong, not "but what about" which just makes it seem like there is no right posiition to take on since every one is yelling "what about" and there is no longer any truth or consensus...

And what would you say is the "right position?" What is the "consensus" people should have? What is this "truth" we should agree on, that's so terrible to question?

[DogOfDanger]

I'm specifically talking about the disinformation campaigns the Kremlin has launched in order to destablize the West. They have spread (through troll farms, "alternate facts/media") a narrative that facts can't be known, when they in fact can (at least the things they are sowing doubt about, for example regarding the private lives of certain politicians, "pizzagate" et al...). This whole idea Western media is a machine of deceit is also part of that narrative. This, compounded by the fact that some of the information spread by Russia is factual, for example that Western media does make factual blunders and does have (cultural) bias, gives credit in part to these ideas - but never in full either. You see where I'm going with this. The whole climate in the West is one of lack of certitude. Yes, this is largely due to disinformation campaigns (which even contain some factual information, it doesn't matter as long as people stay confused and on the fence). The Russians have been practicing these propaganda techniques since the Soviets and even before, in order to destabilize enemy powers, it's nothing new, the same old shit, just that now it happens on the internet.

The Kremlin isn't responsible for the current narrative that the US media is a disinformation machine, the media created that perception by lying to the public and inundating them with propagandist nonsense for decades. The US media apparatus is far larger and much more pervasive in the US than any disinformation effort the Kremlin could muster. Besides, what information in this conversation are you claiming is Russian disinformation? They're charging Trump with 88 felonies, there is no Russian disinformation there, this judicial process is absurd and illegitimate on its face.

Your ideas are something like 20 years out of date, probably more... There are no national institutions in the US that have not already been compromised by some sort of global interest groups... these groups have their own set of priorities that seem to be at odds with the US national interest. The current conflict is mainly between the establishment and national populist minded US citizens. Sure there have historically been Russian OPs attempting to sow distrust and spreading disinformation... these attempts were much more relevant during the cold war when the Soviet Union still existed and we still had uncompromised national institutions. And yes Russia attempted to undermine the election recently... their effort was a tiny fraction of the overall media output around that time, and had only minimal impacts. In the US we probably get more Chinese propaganda than we do Russian propaganda these days ... the Chinese have been buying up movie production studios for quite a while, and there are many films these studios have produced with clearly Marxism themes or anti-nationalist themes... TikTok is another good example of them targeting the youth with alot of anti-Western propaganda.

But at this point external interference is a secondary concern... it's not the fringes peddling Marxism in the US, it's the institutions themselves, which are now dominated by the left - and the left wing party is not the same party it was even 15 years ago, something has changed in the recent decades, the party was compromised... it could be that the Chinese compromised the party for all we know. But there are no truly nationally minded institutions remaining that I can think of. Our national propaganda is directed at undermining the national identity, systematically and on every level. Every other story or commentator on the TV has some Marxist message toward this end... the newest phrase the media is using to identify its political enemies is literally "christian nationalist", and that's the mainstream media. If the Kremlin or some other foreign government were behind all of this... they'd be way past the sowing seeds of distrust phase, they'd be in charge.

Meanwhile the institutions are increasingly authoritarian. Just recently we received firsthand evidence via the Twitter files of collusion between the government and all social media platforms to censor speech and stories to effect the outcomes of elections... You can see for yourself the judicial branch working with the executive branch and the media to perform these political persecutions.
Whatever is happening it's not a covert undermining effort, it's open teardown and rebuild at this point.

[FreelancePoliceman]

it's not the fringes peddling Marxism in the US, it's the institutions themselves, which are now dominated by the left...Every other story or commentator on the TV has some Marxist message toward this end

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

[DogOfDanger]

Your post is devoid of content as usual, really not even deserving of a serious response but I'll respond to it anyway...
Your anti-billionaire schtick is not uncommon, the whole Sanders campaign was centered on saying just exactly the same thing, and it almost won the primary. But by Marxism I'm really referring to the modern reimagining of it where rather than focusing on wealth disparity grievance it's merged with postmodernism and focuses on group-identity based grievance. Its ultimate end is still functionally identical with traditional Marxism - the tearing down and rebuilding of the institutions in the name of equity. And yes, this is everywhere, and it's peddled by the US institutions.
This serves the interest of the institution via the idea of perpetual revolution - Permanent revolution - Wikipedia
Basically if an institution (or certain elements of it) can facilitate, and in so doing maintain control over, an ongoing revolution it can cement itself as a permanent fixture. This strategy works, as you can see there's a formal philosophy defining it... The only downside for the institution is the procedure ends up tearing down everything traditional within the institution in the process / replacing it. What remains is the revolutionary head of it. The leftist elements of the institution have no problem with that, because they're the ones left in charge... and they reject the traditional elements anyway, what they want is power.
You probably would try to draw some hard line between a "true Marxism" and this institutional Marxism, but that boundary is artificial... Marxists can operate within institutions just as easily as they can operate outside of them, and the ultimate end is the same - either way the goal is always the self-empowerment of the revolutionaries themselves, and the tearing down / rebuilding of the institutions with them as the head of it. The pertinent question is really just whether they're accurately operating as representatives of the underclasses in society. But this question is always pertinent, even for grass-roots revolutions. There are always casualties and bystanders in any revolution. I will say that for a person operating in an institution, whose motive is self-empowerment, this concern is easily redressed by coopting the population via propaganda... convince the population to join in and be included in the revolution, or better yet instigate one. And so in this sense you could argue that the institution Marxism is more often a degenerate form of Marxism (sounds like an oxymoron). Though I think really the true Marxist is always really motivated by a self-empowerment which may exclude the underclass if necessary, and merely is coopting the underclass. It becomes a debate over how you define the underclass, but defining that in real terms is an intractable problem. For example, it's not actually possible to operationally define and measure oppression, instigating a revolution always requires appealing to certain groups that will be key in carrying out the revolution, and a bloody revolution by definition creates class disparity in the form of those who are still alive vs. those who are dead, if you're willing to kill people you are going to be willing to oppress people. The only certainty is that the Marxist himself will be left in charge and in control. Anyway...
If you can't see this playing out in society, in the way the media obviously promotes "revolutionary organizations" based on grievance (such as BLM, and many other causes), then you're an imbecile.
The telltale sign of this degenerate Marxism is the appeals to group grievances, but where the grievance is exaggerated and not rational... todays politics is dominated by that. For example, the entire BLM movement is a sham.
Carry onward

[Ave]

Would you trust the Americans?

Whoops, that's "whataboutism." It's fine to call the Soviets evil, but if you compare them to anyone that's suddenly not OK.


Why do you think it works? It's the natural principle that someone with a log in his eye shouldn't speak about the speck in another's, and that a double standard is in itself unjust.

It's interesting that you mention Russia. Russia can launch a war of aggression and one standard gets applied; a certain other country can launch another and another and another and another, and to it another standard is applied. Noticing this is "propaganda;" you can only talk about the former case and why it's bad and deserves to be sanctioned and threatened and its assets seized, but if you compare the situation to any others, you're an unwitting agent of Vladimir Putin, source of all discord in the West!

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.

But yes, "whataboutism" keeps people doubting. Doubt is good. If both sides of a conflict are evil, you don't have to choose either.

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). If you're American, you're probably caught up deeper in the misdirected game of elections, than of the probable upcoming war. But the US election is super important, because if Trump wins, then Putin will feel much safer in attacking Europe beyond the Ukraine. That's why I'm don't want Trump to win: I'm don't care about his felonies and I don't hate him as a person, but if he wins, it's going to be a very different outcame than if Biden wins.

And what would you say is the "right position?" What is the "consensus" people should have? What is this "truth" we should agree on, that's so terrible to question?

Not truth, but facts. We live in a post fact world, where cooky conspiracy theories with no factual basis are more and more legitimized. Knowing facts allows us to make the right decisions. There is no right position, I just see people acting against their interest. No offense, and it might not be my business, but given the way you reason, you don't sound very old or experienced, I think you even mentioned in the shoutbox you are college age. Not trying to sound like someone's grandpa, but it's obvious you don't know the difference between learning to reason in a theoretical sense and a working system. You ask questions which would be better asked in a philosophy class, lol. Which is fine, but you miss the point.

[Ave]

The Kremlin isn't responsible for the current narrative that the US media is a disinformation machine, the media created that perception by lying to the public and inundating them with propagandist nonsense for decades. The US media apparatus is far larger and much more pervasive in the US than any disinformation effort the Kremlin could muster. Besides, what information in this conversation are you claiming is Russian disinformation? They're charging Trump with 88 felonies, there is no Russian disinformation there, this judicial process is absurd and illegitimate on its face.

Your ideas are something like 20 years out of date, probably more... There are no national institutions in the US that have not already been compromised by some sort of global interest groups... these groups have their own set of priorities that seem to be at odds with the US national interest. The current conflict is mainly between the establishment and national populist minded US citizens. Sure there have historically been Russian OPs attempting to sow distrust and spreading disinformation... these attempts were much more relevant during the cold war when the Soviet Union still existed and we still had uncompromised national institutions. And yes Russia attempted to undermine the election recently... their effort was a tiny fraction of the overall media output around that time, and had only minimal impacts. In the US we probably get more Chinese propaganda than we do Russian propaganda these days ... the Chinese have been buying up movie production studies for quite a while, and there are many films these studies have produced with clearly Marxism themes or anti-nationalist themes... TikTok is another good example of them targeting the youth with alot of anti-Western propaganda.

But at this point external interference is a secondary concern... it's not the fringes peddling Marxism in the US, it's the institutions themselves, which are now dominated by the left - and the left wing party is not the same party it was even 15 years ago, something has changed in the recent decades, the party was compromised... it could be that the Chinese compromised the party for all we know. But there are no truly nationally minded institutions remaining that I can think of. Our national propaganda is directed at undermining the national identity, systematically and on every level. Every other story or commentator on the TV has some Marxist message toward this end... the newest phrase the media is using to identify its political enemies is literally "christian nationalist", and that's the mainstream media. If the Kremlin or some other foreign government were behind all of this... they'd be way past the sowing seeds of distrust phase, they'd be in charge.

Meanwhile the institutions are increasingly authoritarian. Just recently we received firsthand evidence via the Twitter files of collusion between the government and all social media platforms to censor speech and stories to effect the outcomes of elections... You can see for yourself the judicial branch working with the executive branch and the media to perform these political persecutions.
Whatever is happening it's not a covert undermining effort, it's open teardown and rebuild at this point.

I strongly disagree with you.

You also throwx around the term "Marxist", but could you please sum up Marx's philosophy for me? The democrats are not even remotely Marxists, they are capitalists, just like the republicans are.

Besides, what information in this conversation are you claiming is Russian disinformation?

The idea that Biden is invloved with pedophilia, for example. There is no proof or basis for this and noone but Q-Anon nutjobs believe this, anyways, or people who echo them. I'm not saying you have said or done this btw, but some in this thread have.

Your ideas are something like 20 years out of date, probably more

They aeren't, Yes, the cold war is repeating itself. And yes, you are right about Chinese interests and how those conflict with US ones, but Russia sowing doubt in the Western narrative is also in China's interest.

The Kremlin isn't responsible for the current narrative that the US media is a disinformation machine, the media created that perception by lying to the public and inundating them with propagandist nonsense for decades

Oh, I'm not denying that the US media has a big role in the loss of trust they get from the general public. But if you were a Kremlin agent, trying to sow doubt in the West, this would be a godsend. What could be better than using poltical pundits in "alternative" media and online trolls pointing out all the times that Westnern media has lied or been bias (usually it's the latter)? They usually don't even know who gains in this sense, they probably just think they are pointing out contradictions, inconsistencies, and bias (and that's what they are doing). And this media bias needs to be denounced. But we have to replace it with a desire to do better, and a belief we can do better, not cynicism, which is what is happening.

But at this point external interference is a secondary concern... it's not the fringes peddling Marxism in the US, it's the institutions themselves, which are now dominated by the left - and the left wing party is not the same party it was even 15 years ago, something has changed in the recent decades, the party was compromised... it could be that the Chinese compromised the party for all we know. But there are no truly nationally minded institutions remaining that I can think of. Our national propaganda is directed at undermining the national identity, systematically and on every level.

You aeren't wrong about this. I don't know if the Chinese are behind this, though again, I suspect the Russians are behind left-wing "woke" narratives(behind them in the sense of popularizing them in part). These narrataives, which have been around a while especially among US university students, are a also a godsend to anyone wanting to destabilize the West as these very narratives are based on blaming the "evil Western white man" for all the world's ills...who is this beneficial to?

Meanwhile the institutions are increasingly authoritarian. Just recently we received firsthand evidence via the Twitter files of collusion between the government and all social media platforms to censor speech and stories to effect the outcomes of elections... You can see for yourself the judicial branch working with the executive branch and the media to perform these political persecutions.
Whatever is happening it's not a covert undermining effort, it's open teardown and rebuild at this point.

I never denied Trump's trial was poltically motivated, in fact in a post earlier I affirmed it...

But let me ask you this: do you think he should win the election? Why? If not, then what can still be something to believe in, if anything? This is the question we should be asking, I think. I don't think cynicism and nihilism are options, but to each their own.

[DogOfDanger]

I strongly disagree with you.

You also throwx around the term "Marxist", but could you please sum up Marx's philosophy for me? The democrats are not even remotely Marxists, they are capitalists, just like the republicans are.

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

But by Marxism I'm really referring to the modern reimagining of it where rather than focusing on wealth disparity grievance it's merged with postmodernism and focuses on group-identity based grievance. Its ultimate end is still functionally identical with traditional Marxism - the tearing down and rebuilding of the institutions in the name of equity. And yes, this is everywhere, and it's peddled by the US institutions.
This serves the interest of the institution via the idea of perpetual revolution - Permanent revolution - Wikipedia
Basically if an institution (or certain elements of it) can facilitate, and in so doing maintain control over, an ongoing revolution it can cement itself as a permanent fixture. This strategy works, as you can see there's a formal philosophy defining it... The only downside for the institution is the procedure ends up tearing down everything traditional within the institution in the process / replacing it. What remains is the revolutionary head of it. The leftist elements of the institution have no problem with that, because they're the ones left in charge... and they reject the traditional elements anyway, what they want is power.
You probably would try to draw some hard line between a "true Marxism" and this institutional Marxism, but that boundary is artificial... Marxists can operate within institutions just as easily as they can operate outside of them, and the ultimate end is the same - either way the goal is always the self-empowerment of the revolutionaries themselves, and the tearing down / rebuilding of the institutions with them as the head of it. The pertinent question is really just whether they're accurately operating as representatives of the underclasses in society. But this question is always pertinent, even for grass-roots revolutions. There are always casualties and bystanders in any revolution. I will say that for a person operating in an institution, whose motive is self-empowerment, this concern is easily redressed by coopting the population via propaganda... convince the population to join in and be included in the revolution, or better yet instigate one. And so in this sense you could argue that the institution Marxism is more often a degenerate form of Marxism (sounds like an oxymoron). Though I think really the true Marxist is always really motivated by a self-empowerment which may exclude the underclass if necessary, and merely is coopting the underclass. It becomes a debate over how you define the underclass, but defining that in real terms is an intractable problem. For example, it's not actually possible to operationally define and measure oppression, instigating a revolution always requires appealing to certain groups that will be key in carrying out the revolution, and a bloody revolution by definition creates class disparity in the form of those who are still alive vs. those who are dead, if you're willing to kill people you are going to be willing to oppress people. The only certainty is that the Marxist himself will be left in charge and in control. Anyway...
If you can't see this playing out in society, in the way the media obviously promotes "revolutionary organizations" based on grievance (such as BLM, and many other causes), then you're an imbecile.
The telltale sign of this degenerate Marxism is the appeals to group grievances, but where the grievance is exaggerated and not rational... todays politics is dominated by that. For example, the entire BLM movement is a sham.

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.

[DogOfDanger]

The idea that Biden is invloved with pedophilia, for example. There is no proof or basis for this and noone but Q-Anon nutjobs believe this, anyways, or people who echo them. I'm not saying you have said or done this btw, but some in this thread have.

We don't need to look to the Kremlin to explain this, the right wing media / individuals have every reason and motive to propagate this idea. However, I will say there is alot of video of Biden sniffing little girls and touching them in ways that are quite odd, and we just had the Epstein Island incident which... shows plenty of elites are involved in pedophilia. So I won't say there's no basis for believing that, but you're correct there's not concrete evidence of it. But not everyone holds themselves to a standard of requiring concrete evidence to conclude things, maybe they should but they don't.

Oh, I'm not denying that the US media has a big role in the loss of trust they get from the general public. But if you were a Kremlin agent, trying to sow doubt in the West, this would be a godsend. What could be better than using poltical pundits in "alternative" media and online trolls pointing out all the times that Westnern media has lied or been bias (usually it's the latter)? They usually don't even know who gains in this sense, they probably just think they are pointing out contradictions, inconsistencies, and bias (and that's what they are doing). And this media bias needs to be denounced. But we have to replace it with a desire to do better, and a belief we can do better, not cynicism, which is what is happening.

The cynicism is related to the fact that we have no power to displace the media or the corrupt establishment. It's magnified by the fact that hoards of lemmings are so easily coopted by it via appeals to their skin tone or sexuality or any other avenue of grievance. The danger to our social stability is the lemmings, not the aware people. I don't see much reason to be optimistic, I really don't believe our country is going to do any better than this. We are dumb slaves and will remain as such.

You aeren't wrong about this. I don't know if the Chinese are behind this, though again, I suspect the Russians are behind left-wing "woke" narratives(behind them in the sense of popularizing them in part). These narrataives, which have been around a while especially among US university students, are a also a godsend to anyone wanting to destabilize the West as these very narratives are based on blaming the "evil Western white man" for all the world's ills...who is this beneficial to?

I've considered the possibility but I think it's unlikely due to the all-pervasiveness of the problem, combined with the apparent fact that we still oppose Russia and China geopolitically. It seems to me that whatever body is responsible for this institutional Marxism already has pretty much complete control over the nations politics and the ability to set its policies. So we should just already be a satellite for Russia or China. But we don't behave that way, so... I think it's global interests. Some group of elites that just want to run the entire planet probably. My guess is they would be Westerners actually, but that's just a guess.

But let me ask you this: do you think he should win the election? Why? If not, then what can still be something to believe in, if anything? This is the question we should be asking, I think. I don't think cynicism and nihilism are options, but to each their own.

Trump should win for the simple fact that he is not trampling over our laws and undermining democracy itself in the way the democrats are.
It's funny because that's become their new campaign slogan - "TrUmP iS a tHrEaT tO deMoCraCY!!!!". At the very same time as they popularize the slogan they have a firm grip on the media and they're rigging the court system against the frontrunner... But that's an old propagandist technique where you accuse your opponent of what you are doing, and the population will be confused by the cause and effect of it and unable to sort out the difference. Because they are idiots. The US population is just a bunch of absolute fools.
Whatever governing body controls the democrat party, whether it be made up of some globalist elites or someone else, is willing to:
- suppress and censor opposing or alternative media, and target / censor individuals (twitter files, numerous examples of individuals)
- collude with large companies against the people / threaten the companies if they don't comply
- almost completely controls the news and floods the population with propaganda wall to wall, deliberately creating grievance that tears the country apart, for political gain... even when it risks stoking hostilities with nuclear powers (RUSSIA!!!)
- promote revolution (BLM burning country down for 5 months) via false narratives (Floyd died of a drug overdose. Many other such examples)
- mainstream delusion and extreme perversion (trans phenomenon), and go so far as to effect children with it
- kill large numbers of people for no known reason (numerous wars such as in Libya / Syria)
- destroy the US national culture and institutions
- flood the US with migrants and descend the working class into poverty / overwhelm the healthcare system / jails and break the social welfare programs, probably in order to win the elections (currently 10K migrants a day entering US)
- weaponize the courts against political opponents
- does not appear to want peace on the foreign policy front
I could go on.
There is nothing Trump could ever say, no attitude he could hold, that could cause me to choose that kind of lawlessness over him.
Not that my vote even matters, and he's probably going to lose regardless.

I don't find unrealistic hope to be very inspiring, and we really do not have much power over this, nor do I see any sign of it improving. Even the populist movements I think will be easily coopted by the establishment, because people are too stupid to tell the difference between obvious propaganda and true information even now... I don't totally write of revolution, at some point there may be a need for it. But it won't be based in identity politics, it will be resistance to legitimate government tyranny and unlivable poverty. But that's something that needs to be avoided at all costs, because the price of a revolution is very big. My guess would be... the United States currency will slowly inflate over the next couple decades, at some point conditions will be unlivable for most people and things will come to a head. Probably will take the socialism or communist route and given enough time the currency will hyperinflates like Venezuela. That could lead to a revolution. I think that's the only possible cause of revolution in the US, the people are very complacent and docile. If the currency just slowly inflates, but doesn't hyperinflate... it'll probably be just a slow skid off into obscurity and poverty, with increasing overreaches by the government and an increasingly toxic culture to go along with it, maybe some people migrating to other countries or to red states. Who knows. Whatever happens I don't see a very positive prognosis long term.