Trump

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Rest easy, the guy who said to rake the forest and water-bomb the cathedral and nuke the hurricane is here to tell us exactly how he would win a war against Russia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Putin must have ordered his puppet to say those things.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Putin must have ordered his puppet to say those things.

Actually that he’s stupid enough to make and believe those claims is how he qualified to be Putin’s Puppet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Putin expected Trump to be re-elected. He and his apparatchiks had done everything in their power to assure it. His ministers had told him it was assured. He expected Trump to withdraw from NATO.

When that plain failed to come to fruition, he made choices based on his worldview and the information presented to him.

For that I think Andrei Kozyrev has an insightful look at Putin.

“ First of all, I want to examine where the questioning of Putin’s rationality started. I think it began because most people, particularly in the West, view his decision to invade Ukraine as utterly irrational. I disagree. It’s horrific, but not irrational.”
“ To understand why the invasion was rational for Putin, we have to step into his shoes. Three beliefs came together at the same time in his calculus:
1. Ukraine’s condition as a country
2. Russian military’s condition
3. The West’s geopolitical condition”

“1. Ukraine’s condition. Putin spent the last 20 years believing that Ukraine is not a real nation and, at best, should be a satellite state. Maidan ended any hope of keeping Ukraine independent and pro-Kremlin. He thought the West was behind it.
If Ukraine’s government cannot be kept independent and pro-Kremlin covertly, as he likely concluded, then he will overtly force it to be. He also started to believe his own propagandists that Ukraine is run by a Nazi-Bandera junta. Perfect pretext to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.

2. Russian military. The Kremlin spent the last 20 years trying to modernize its military. Much of that budget was stolen and spent on mega-yachts in Cyprus. But as a military advisor you cannot report that to the President. So they reported lies to him instead. Potemkin military

3. The West. The Russian ruling elite believed its own propaganda that Pres. Biden is mentally inept. They also thought the EU was weak because of how toothless their sanctions were in 2014. And then the U.S. botched its withdrawal from Afghanistan, solidifying this narrative.

If you believe all three of the above to be true and your goal is to restore the glory of the Russian Empire (whatever that means), then it is perfectly rational to invade Ukraine.

He miscalculated on all three, but that doesn’t make him insane. Simply wrong and immoral.

So, in my opinion, he is rational. Given that he is rational, I strongly believe he will not intentionally use nuclear weapons against the West. I say intentionally because indiscriminate shelling near a nuclear power plant can cause an unintentional nuclear disaster in Ukraine.

I will take it a step further. The threat of nuclear war is another example of his rationality. The Kremlin knows it can try to extract concessions, whether from Ukraine or the West, by saber-rattling its last remaining card in the deck: nuclear weapons.
The ultimate conclusion here is that the West should not agree to any unilateral concessions or limit its support of Ukraine too much for the fear of nuclear war.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

PUTIN’S PLAN SHOWS WHY HE DIDN’T INVADE UKRAINE UNDER TRUMP.

The “peace deal” he just offered is the same kind of deal trump allies were trying to get for Putin.

As long as what Putin wanted was on the table, there was no need to invade.

According to the Mueller report, and a sloppily redacted filing by Manafort, Pauly Walnuts and sanctioned Russian spy Kilimnik worked on the “Ukraine Peace Plan”. According to documents, the plan was to put Yanukovic back in power in Ukraine and carve it up for Putin.

Manafort worked for Yanukovich - trying to make him a more likable guy. He was paid by Deripaska who eventually sued him, but when Manafort got the job grooming trump to install him for Putin, Manafort indicated he would make Deripaska “whole”.

Van der Zwaan - son-in-law of Alfa Bank mogul German Khan, was indicted by Mueller for lying about on behalf of Yanukovich by bad mouthing his opponent, Tymoshenko without registering as a foreign agent.

Kilimnik also had another “Ukraine peace plan” in the works called “The Mariupol Plan”. So while Manafort was trying to install Donald, he was helping Russian-backed separatists with a plan that would hand Ukraine back to Putin. Is this making more sense now?

Another “peace plan” was worked on by Cohen, Flynn, and Artymenko. And we all remember Manafort, along with Dearborn and Mashburn #^&#^&#^&#^&ing up the Ukraine language in the GOP platform in Cleveland.

So Russia was helping donald win the election while his allies were putting together plans to drop sanctions and hand Ukraine over to Putin. Manafort was there for all of it, and donald pardoned him. And when Ukraine wasn’t down with the plan, donald withheld aid.

Rudy and his pals got Yovanovitch out of the way and worked to extort Zelenskyy for fake dirt on Biden so donald could stay in power and continue to pursue Putin’s plan for Ukraine. But donald lost. With the trump “peace plan” off the table, Putin invaded.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Trump: Barr 'Went to the Other Side' on 2020, Fearing Impeachment

Omg will it ever end?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump: Barr 'Went to the Other Side' on 2020, Fearing Impeachment

Omg will it ever end?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it will end, when you stop
obsessing 24/7. let’s not pretend you don’t love it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it will end, when you stop
obsessing 24/7. let’s not pretend you don’t love it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok Iam obsessing , I didn’t say this Trump did you know the guy you’re willing to vote for LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ok Iam obsessing , I didn’t say this Trump did you know the guy you’re willing to vote for LOL

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ok Iam obsessing , I didn’t say this Trump did you know the guy you’re willing to vote for LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many posts do you make a week, about the former president? answer that, then tell me if you’re obsessive about him.

that’s also some quality gibberish there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how many posts do you make a week, about the former president? answer that, then tell me if you’re obsessive about him.

that’s also some quality gibberish there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wonder how many times Trump's greatest defender has posted about him in this thread alone?

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...archid=8245218

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’ve never criticized a democrat or complimented a conservative. not once.

Jim, Pete is a Neo-Marxist Critical Theorist. He has openly stated that conservatism always leads to oppression and liberalism always leads to liberation.

When you point out that he never criticized a Democrat or complimented a Conservative, he admits "that’s not my objective."

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

If you have the slightest expectation that he will have a rational conversation with you in which he can recognize what you consider some tolerance or approval of any Conservative opinion whatsoever, you don't understand what he is about.

For him, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE for any Conservative opinion. Any such opinion to him would by like garlic or a cross to a vampire.

His objective is the total eradication of "Conservatism." By any means necessary.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, Pete is a Neo-Marxist Critical Theorist. He has openly stated that conservatism always leads to oppression and liberalism always leads to liberation.

When you point out that he never criticized a Democrat or complimented a Conservative, he admits "that’s not my objective."

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

If you have the slightest expectation that he will have a rational conversation with you in which he can recognize what you consider some tolerance or approval of any Conservative opinion whatsoever, you don't understand what he is about.

For him, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE for any Conservative opinion. Any such opinion to him would by like garlic or a cross to a vampire.

His objective is the total eradication of "Conservatism." By any means necessary.

i agree with you 100%. i’m not sure anything them are capable of criticizing their own side, or complimenting the other side. difficult to have a worthwhile conversation. probably not worth trying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, Pete is a Neo-Marxist Critical Theorist. He has openly stated that conservatism always leads to oppression and liberalism always leads to liberation.

When you point out that he never criticized a Democrat or complimented a Conservative, he admits "that’s not my objective."

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

If you have the slightest expectation that he will have a rational conversation with you in which he can recognize what you consider some tolerance or approval of any Conservative opinion whatsoever, you don't understand what he is about.

For him, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE for any Conservative opinion. Any such opinion to him would by like garlic or a cross to a vampire.

His objective is the total eradication of "Conservatism." By any means necessary.

Neo-Marxism
Never as horrific as the right-wing propagandists claim,

And calling you a right-wing propagandists fits you like a glove

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Neo-Marxism
Never as horrific as the right-wing propagandists claim,

Look what it did to you guys. I'd say pretty horrific.

[Pete F.]

Both the rabid Trump fans have yet to realize they are actually his victims
Senate Republicans, including Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio, are now praising Rick Scott’s 2022 GOP platform that calls for raising taxes on “over half of Americans,” including seniors.

This all makes sense when you recognize that the supposedly conservative GOP believes that if you're rich you deserve to be rich, and if you're poor, you deserve to be poor.

To tax the rich is to deprive them of what they deserve, and to tax the poor is to give them what they deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

GOP believes that if you're rich you deserve to be rich, and if you're poor, you deserve to be poor.

To tax the rich is to deprive them of what they deserve, and to tax the poor is to give them what they deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"GOP believes that if you're rich you deserve to be rich"

True enough, I guess.

"if you're poor, you deserve to be poor."

Said no influential conservative, ever. I think policy results make it pretty clear that liberals are the ones who want a permanent underclass.

"To tax the rich is to deprive them of what they deserve, and to tax the poor is to give them what they deserve."

Again, no one thinks that.

Why did Trump double the standard deduction, which INCREASES the number of poor people who pay no federal income tax? Please explain why anyone would do that, if their goal was to stick it to the poor?

Just keep making up nonsense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Neo-Marxism
Never as horrific as the right-wing propagandists claim,

Where in my post to which you responded did I say it was horrific? Do you know that the notion that "conservatism" always leads to oppression and "liberalism" leads to liberation, and so expression from the "right" ("conservative) should be suppressed, not tolerated, is a tenet found in one of one of Marcuse's most important works, "Repressive Tolerance." Marcuse is recognized as a prominent Neo-Marxist, as in the Wikepedia subject entry Neo-Marxism: "Many prominent neo-Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School".

Marcuse's tenet is practiced by current leftist or left leaning groups such as ANTIFA, cancel culturalists, social media orgs, major internet opinion and communication outlets, even to some degree by print or TV media.

Censorship of the right and support of leftist expression (including even the support of leftist riots, but censures of the riots by the right this past year) that is occurring now is "horrific" to many, but not to Pete F, nor, it seems, to you and some others on the forum. That's up to you. I'm merely pointing it out. Pete's own words on this forum have specifically supported Marcuse's tenet. And his refusal to give any credit or support of "conservative" expression is demonstrable "praxis" (practice) of Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, as well as a praxis of Critical Race Theory.

And calling you a right-wing propagandists fits you like a glove

I've told the truth. If you consider that to be right-wing propaganda, then you may inadvertently be practicing Repressive Tolerance.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I've told the truth. If you consider that to be right-wing propaganda, then you may inadvertently be practicing Repressive Tolerance.

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

I've told the truth.

And calling you right-wing propagandists

Guess what I've told the truth

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

I've told the truth.

And calling you right-wing propagandists

Guess what I've told the truth

Are you saying that Pete doesn't vigorously defend and support Critical Race Theory and doesn't try to persuade us to see and agree with its view of America being a racist system designed by white supremacists for the sole purpose of granting privilege to whites at the expense of those who are not white? And that the system cannot be incrementally improved, that the legal equality created by all the civil rights initiatives have actually further entrenched white privilege rather than liberating non-whites, and so must be torn down at its roots and replaced by an equitable system created by critically race conscious theorists and governed by the same sort? Are you saying CRT is not a neo-Marxian theory derived from neo-Marxist Critical Theory?

Are you saying that Pete F does not believe that "conservatism" inevitably leads to oppression and its ideas must be suppressed, not tolerated or even granted space in political and social discourse in public, political, and media spaces?

Are you saying that Pete is not on a mission to rid us of the classical liberal idea of individual sovereignty that we were founded on and replace it with the Progressive notion of universal equity created and enforced by authoritarian government that has unlimited power to give us what we need and that notions like individual liberty are outdated and are an obstacle to the Good that powerful centralized government can do for us?

[Pete F.]

I see the poor victims are crying again.
Interesting how the victims consistently defend the man who numerous times tried to subvert the American electoral system and didn’t care where he got aid in doing so from.
He was just kidding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I see the poor victims are crying again.
Interesting how the victims consistently defend the man who numerous times tried to subvert the American electoral system and didn’t care where he got aid in doing so from.
He was just kidding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor baby! You see! (Through a glass darkly). . . And you spout! Yet your wonderful distortions are not able to prevail on so many of the poor that they are truly victims of your marvelously crafted nightmare . . . but you valiantly continue to preach! Oh! . . . will they not listen!

How tragic . . .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I see the poor victims are crying again.
Interesting how the victims consistently defend the man who numerous times tried to subvert the American electoral system and didn’t care where he got aid in doing so from.
He was just kidding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how is that different from 2016, when democrats also tried to subvert the electoral
system, by (1) asking electors not to cast their ballots for the winning candidate, and the.n (2) congress challenging the certification of election results in some states with zero evidence of wrongdoing, and (3) undermining confidence in our elections by saying “the russians did it”?

Answer - it’s always ok when democrats do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Trumplicans always project

"Mark Meadows, who as chief of staff to President Donald Trump promoted his lies of mass voter fraud, is facing scrutiny about his own voter registration status. Public records show he is registered to vote in two states."

January 2017: “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states…”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans always project

"Mark Meadows, who as chief of staff to President Donald Trump promoted his lies of mass voter fraud, is facing scrutiny about his own voter registration status. Public records show he is registered to vote in two states."

January 2017: “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states…”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More election fraud found

Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters has been INDICTED on 11 counts and Deputy Clerk Belinda Knisley on 6 counts in "election system breach." This is out of the DA's office in Mesa County.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released the final report on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, finding numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow posed a "grave" counterintelligence threat.

"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released the final report on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, finding numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow posed a "grave" counterintelligence threat.

"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, how about we be clear? are you saying trump didn’t win fairly?

And i know how much that question boxes you into a corner.

I have no doubt there was meddling. just like i have no doubt dead people voted in chicago. the question is, did it effect the outcome?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, how about we be clear? are you saying trump didn’t win fairly?

And i know how much that question boxes you into a corner.

I have no doubt there was meddling. just like i have no doubt dead people voted in chicago. the question is, did it effect the outcome?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with that question
Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.

What did Manafort do?
Why was he pardoned?
What are Manaforts connections to Russia and Ukraine?
Why did the Trump campaign push and succeed in removing Ukraine from the 2016 Republican platform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have no problem with that question
Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.

What did Manafort do?
Why was he pardoned?
What are Manaforts connections to Russia and Ukraine?
Why did the Trump campaign push and succeed in removing Ukraine from the 2016 Republican platform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you have no problem with that question, why didn’t you answer it?

I’ll ask again…

Did Trump win fairly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you have no problem with that question, why didn’t you answer it?

I’ll ask again…

Did Trump win fairly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Both US intelligence agencies and Mueller’s investigation affirmed that Russian hackers wanted to help Trump win office and committed crimes toward that end. Trump even acknowledged it at one point.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Thursday indicated that beyond hacking and propaganda campaigns, the Kremlin’s efforts included attempts to penetrate elections systems in all 50 states. It also affirms there is no evidence Russian hackers messed with vote totals or were able to change votes. So in that very narrow sense, the claim that Russia didn’t affect the outcome of the election is defensible.

University of Tennessee Knoxville study funded by the Defense Department found that Trump’s polling upticks during the 2016 campaign correlated with social media activity by Russian trolls and bots. According to the study, every 25,000 retweets from troll and bot accounts connected with Russia’s Internet Research Agency predicted a 1 percent bump in Trump’s polling.

Damian Ruck, the study’s lead researcher, told NBC’s Ken Dilanian that his findings indicate Russia played a very key role in Trump’s victory:

In an interview with NBC News, Ruck said the research suggests that Russian trolls helped shift U.S public opinion in Trump’s favor. As to whether it affected the outcome of the election: “The answer is that we still don’t know, but we can’t rule it out.”

Given that the election turned on 75,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, “it is a prospect that should be taken seriously,” Ruck wrote, adding that more study was needed in those swing states.

He points out that 13 percent of voters didn’t make their final choice until the last week before the election.

There is also a strong argument to be made that WikiLeaks, which published the first tranche of emails purloined from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta by Russian hackers just hours after the Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape of Trump on October 7, swayed voters during the final month of the campaign. In this period, Trump overcame a string of sexual misconduct allegations and a 7-point deficit in the polls to win the election.

As Harry Enten noted for FiveThirtyEight in an analysis of WikiLeaks’ impact during the campaign’s closing stretch, the case remains circumstantial, but Americans were definitely paying attention to WikiLeaks. Enten found that for much of October, there was almost twice as much search interest in WikiLeaks than there was in the FBI, which was also in the news that month because of a letter then-Director James Comey sent to Congress publicizing the Clinton email investigation. Here are a couple additional important data points from Enten’s piece:

Trump, for instance, won among voters who decided who to vote for in October 51 percent to 37 percent, according to national exit polls. That’s Trump’s best time period. He carried voters who decided in the final week, when you might expect Comey’s letter to have had the largest impact, 45 percent to 42 percent.
It’s worth remembering that Trump’s closing message centered largely around WikiLeaks. He mentioned Julian Assange’s operation about five days a day during the campaign’s final month, but now pretends that never happened. (“Problematic is an understatement,” Mueller said on Wednesday about Trump’s promotion of WikiLeaks.) Is it possible the Clinton campaign email dumps and Trump’s relentless hyping of them on the campaign trail had no impact on the outcome of the election? It seems exceedingly unlikely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no evidence in all this that there is ENOUGH of what Russia did to change the election. Nor is there an accounting of the dark money that was spent in Hillary's favor.

The NYT says that dark money is what swayed the election in 2020 in favor of Biden. "A New York Times analysis reveals how the left outdid the right at raising and spending millions from undisclosed donors to defeat Donald Trump and win power in Washington.":

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/u...ey-donors.html