 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^Are you a child?
There are many forms of self-aggrandisement, from leverage to nepotism. And corruption is still corruption, criminal association is still criminal association, and white collar crime still white collar crime, regardless of net worth.
Do you have a reasoned response to this, or are you going to copy and paste another piece of drivel that some pimply teenager somewhere created for you?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You're the one making grandiose and ridiculous claims. I'm sure you've got evidence for them of course. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | You're the one making grandiose and ridiculous claims. I'm sure you've got evidence for them of course. |
Goodness, where does one start? The historical corrupt business activities? The use of office to intimidate journalists? The nepotistic appointment of unqualified family members to serious positions of government? The use of office to influence investigations? The embedded, close association with indicted criminals? The mollycoddling and incitement of extremists? The refusal to disavow conflicts of interest? The use of campaign payments to suppress information? The refusal to disclose tax returns? The racist attacks on Mexicans to win votes? The casual cavorting with North Korea to obtain a reality TV 'win'?
Quid pro quos with foreign powers are but the submerged tip of what is an inverted iceberg, with the bulk of the crimes already visible. However, as we all know, George W. and his gang of criminals still haven't faced justice for their wars and corrupt business dealings, so all of this needs to be viewed in a context where the highest powers in American office are often not prosecuted for their crimes.
Put the Trump laundry list into broader context. Can you see someone as tainted as Trump leading another advanced democracy? Italy under Berlusconi might come close, but it's unimaginable that someone associated with even a fraction of the business history, conflicts of interest, and abuse of office with which Trump is associated would be elected and then maintained as a PM or leader elsewhere.
In vivid contrast, Trudeau might be finished after a single Trump-like abuse of power because Canada holds its leaders to serious standards.
There is nothing grandiose about these claims at all. You've lost perspective, living as you do in virtual extreme America. Take the many arguments listed below and offer a defense if you wish; I'm sure Breitbart et al. have counter-arguments that aren't animated GIFs, many of which also have some merit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/opinion/trump-mueller-report.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/20/18241825/trump-investigations-sdny-inauguration-state-congress
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | Goodness, where does one start? The historical corrupt business activities? The use of office to intimidate journalists? The nepotistic appointment of unqualified family members to serious positions of government? The use of office to influence investigations? The embedded, close association with indicted criminals? The mollycoddling and incitement of extremists? The refusal to disavow conflicts of interest? The use of campaign payments to suppress information? The refusal to disclose tax returns? The racist attacks on Mexicans to win votes? The casual cavorting with North Korea to obtain a reality TV 'win'?
Quid pro quos with foreign powers are but the submerged tip of what is an inverted iceberg, with the bulk of the crimes already visible. However, as we all know, George W. and his gang of criminals still haven't faced justice for their wars and corrupt business dealings, so all of this needs to be viewed in a context where the highest powers in American office are often not prosecuted for their crimes. |
Enough about Obama, what about Trump? |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Really? Another juvenile meme? You've become a far-right meme-generating version of HAL.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I don't see any need to respond seriously to Trump derangement suffering leftists. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | I don't see any need to respond seriously to Trump derangement suffering leftists. |
And still a further copy-paste meme. Teenagers and brainwashed fundamentalists do that sort of stuff.
Do you fear having to change your views in interaction with the world? Has the world become too difficult for you to engage seriously?
Just do the thought exercise: take Trump and try to make him leader of any other advanced nation on the planet without him being swiftly dismissed or prosecuted, or not elected to begin with.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Mueller investigation appears to be a big nothingburger in the end.
| Quote: | Five things that didn't happen in the Mueller investigation
1. Mueller did not indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, or other people whose purported legal jeopardy was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
2. Mueller did not charge anyone in the Trump campaign or circle with conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
3. Mueller did not subpoena the president, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
4. The president did not fire Mueller, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year.
5. The president did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, as was the subject of intense media speculation in the last year. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted the requirement that he notify lawmakers if top Justice Department officials ever interfered with the Mueller investigation. "There were no such instances," Barr wrote. |
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-five-things-that-didnt-happen-in-the-mueller-investigation?utm_source=browser_push&utm_medium=onesignal&utm_campaign=push_notifications
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Trump 2020 
So good! I never get sick of the laughs that the whining, moronic, pretentious leftists spruiking gives me. I go to work every day with a smile on my face  Life is good.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There’s definitely something psychologically interesting in the fact that, while a lot of leftists are genuinely concerned with Trump’s stance on issues like climate change, asylum seekers, minority rights and international relations, a key motivation of a lot* of Trump’s supporters really does just seem to be "owning the libs".
We see a lot of mirroring in politics, where similar motivations and tactical thinking seem to undergird rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum, but I’m not really sure this specific phenomenon has a clear parallel on the left. Basically, leftists and liberals seem to very rarely vote to troll the other side. Nobody wants Sanders or Corbyn in just to see how mad conservatives get, at least not from what I can tell.
So what’s going on here, exactly? I feel like there are going to be some answers that progressives won’t like – that this is a reaction to self-righteousness, easy offence-taking and certain forms of cultural dominance – but, while there may be a lot of truth in that, we should also be wary of embracing simplistic narratives (usually disingenuously pushed by fake “ex-liberals” like Dave Rubin) that leftists and liberals have a mortgage on any of these qualities or that if they were just a little more tolerant then people wouldn’t be so racist. I feel like there’s something more complex in operation here.
*Of course there are also a lot of Trump supporters who genuinely have strong ideological reasons for following him, and I’m not necessarily saying the Pepes and other apparent nihilists expressing Skids-like sentiments are completely ideology-free. But the prospect of triggering lefties seems to loom large over Trump’s presidency and, indeed, his whole candidacy from the get-go...
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
#Resistance types in the media will try their best to spin this in their favour, but this reads like a pretty thorough repudiation of Russiagate to me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That quote sums up a huge chunk of my animosity towards the left and progressives in general. They don't just want to give up their own freedoms for safety but want to take mine too. **** the arrogant, self righteous morally superior wankers. Yes, I like to 'trigger liberals' because they want power over me and they want to use the violence of government to take it.
I usually keep my views to satire and gentle mockery, but you asked.  |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | There’s definitely something psychologically interesting in the fact that, while a lot of leftists are genuinely concerned with Trump’s stance on issues like climate change, asylum seekers, minority rights and international relations, a key motivation of a lot* of Trump’s supporters really does just seem to be "owning the libs".
We see a lot of mirroring in politics, where similar motivations and tactical thinking seem to undergird rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum, but I’m not really sure this specific phenomenon has a clear parallel on the left. Basically, leftists and liberals seem to very rarely vote to troll the other side. Nobody wants Sanders or Corbyn in just to see how mad conservatives get, at least not from what I can tell.
So what’s going on here, exactly? I feel like there are going to be some answers that progressives won’t like – that this is a reaction to self-righteousness, easy offence-taking and certain forms of cultural dominance – but, while there may be a lot of truth in that, we should also be wary of embracing simplistic narratives (usually disingenuously pushed by fake “ex-liberals” like Dave Rubin) that leftists and liberals have a mortgage on any of these qualities or that if they were just a little more tolerant then people wouldn’t be so racist. I feel like there’s something more complex in operation here.
*Of course there are also a lot of Trump supporters who genuinely have strong ideological reasons for following him, and I’m not necessarily saying the Pepes and other apparent nihilists expressing Skids-like sentiments are completely ideology-free. But the prospect of triggering lefties seems to loom large over Trump’s presidency and, indeed, his whole candidacy from the get-go... |
As I say, no one blames fundamentalist Islam on annoying liberal Muslims. However, fundamentalist Islam most certainly does blame liberal Muslims, hating them more than even outsiders. This is a well-known phenomenon among social groups.
At the individual level, and Republicans do like to go on about personal responsibility, people cutting their noses to spite their faces is surely about a lack of self control. If all it takes is someone pissing you off to make you sabotage your own healthcare or de-fund your own education to give tax cuts to millionaires, you're behaving irrationally. In a non-political context, people who continually sabotage their own wellbeing are considered to have disorders.
At the group level, the problem with isolated cultures – and much of Trumpland sits outside the productive urban centres that fund the nation – is that they can, as Foucault demonstrated, normalise all kinds of things. By the time you've listened to some shrieking nutcase go on about migrant caravans, heard Uncle Fred say education is a waste of money, read about the socialist healthcare conspiracy, spent a few hours flicking through animated GIFs, and joined hands in a circle of prayer for your god-appointed president, your self-destructive choices suddenly have a veneer of normality about them.
But by just saying that, apparently I caused a dozen people to vote for some fanatic who wants to send their children to war with China. My bad.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
