Not to mention the 50+ people who aided Trump over the last 9 years who went to jail because they did illegal things to help Trump
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
A few dollars is not the equivalent to the millions of dollars that Trump stole. Do you know what happens if a poor person steals a million dollars? If Trump stole $100, this wouldn't have gone to court. He hasn't done it once, he's done it MULTIPLE times. And, if you are the leader of a company or organisation, you have a greater level of fiscal responsibility
Do you realise the absurdity of your argument?
Most people don't sexually assault or rape people. Most criminals will say that they never did what they did
He wasn't treasonous because he wanted different election results. You could charge all loser of elections if this was the case. If you going to call him treasonous, it's going to be because he sent a bunch of people to attack Congress. It literally would not matter if it was a union strike or civil rights or MLB march
For example, in 1983 two communist women blew up a toilet in Congress. They went to jail. And they were poor.
What in God's name are you even talking about? How about you stop lying about WHY people do things? You are punching ghosts again
Absolutely true. Trump did what no other president did. Biden and Pence didn't do what he did. There was no possible way for this to occur beforehand. ALL he had to do was return them, but that was a little hard for Trump
It would be really cool if you added documents that he refused to give back after being asked multiple times. He even lied about it. Because, once again, the words you use is a falsehood, trying to fabricate what happened.
Has he been charged with murder?
Great. What has this got to do with me? Or anything else we are talking about.
So, let me get this straight, I'm jealous because he stole money? So, when drug dealers or human traffickers earn heaps of money because of their illegal, if I get upset about this, I'm... jealousy
What are we even doing, Tstorm? When you write these sentences, have you said them to another person before? Because I'd think that would help
No, I'm not jealous. If you wan to see someone being jealous, just look at what Trump says. Most of that is him just being jealous
Great
The people involved in Jan 6, all the people who have been jailed for aiding him, people trying to cross the border, people trying to police the border, random BLM protesters who they randomly selected to be renditioned, every single country he targets with his ire so his followers attack anyone from there, steel workers, coal workers, oil drillers, 6000 people from drone strikes (mostly innocent civilians who were just in the vicinity), the people in Gaza...
I can go on if you would like. And, just to be clear, Biden has gotten a lot of people killed and should go to jail to.
Bet you don't have a single example of that happening.
They trespassed into the US Capitol. He did not.
All of them.
I genuinely don't know what millions you're even talking about.
When did I call you jealous?
I'm sure you could, but you're living in lies. Renditioned BLM protestors? Where do you even get these ideas?
Example of what? Of poor people going to prison?
Because he told them to do that and only asked them to stop after three hours of ignoring his own staff's pleas to call them off.
After serving their term? And keep in mind that it wasn't so much that Trump had these documents, it was that he refused to turn them over when asked. That would have made the entire debacle go away, but that would have been the sensible thing to do.
Says the person who thinks rich people can't go to jail when they commit crimes.
For things Trump does...
I'm sure you can quote him directing people to enter the capitol.
Yup.
This is being absurdly specific. If you started making arguments like "Poor people don't get indicted for misvaluing the golf clubs they own" your statements would be self-evidently worthless: you're either talking illegal activities damaging to a free and fair election generally, or you have no real point. Trump has effectively been able to delete the the charges that he faced where his minions could not.
Do you want to try being more honest, and acknowledge you have no evidence these previous presidents kept so many documents, knowingly obstructed their return, and showed them to others?
Projecting?
In his later years, Eisenhower bought a farm in Gettysburg to settle down in. There is a room in that house full of extravagant gifts he wasn't supposed to accept and pieces of his presidency he wasn't meant to keep. It is now a museum where people can go and see what his house was like after being president. Nobody is mad about it.
Sure, and many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, so are you now going to argue it would be fine to reintroduce slavery as long as the master is the president? Appealing to different standards of ethical oversight and morality from yesteryear is just anachronism.
This is nauseating and disgusting. Put these actual abusers in jail and stop firing them and letting them go places where they can take their abuse elsewhere.
Horrific abuse of workers at Indonesian external development studio revealed in new report
A new report from People Make Games has detailed disturbing allegations of abuse towards employees at Indonesian studio…
www.eurogamer.net
Last edited:
Seems Musk is trying to say the LA fires were as bad as they are because the fire department had black people working there.
"A president 63 years ago also improperly kept things from his presidency" =/= "All presidents keep just as much classified information as Donald Trump". It's like you're not even really trying.
Yes, but not in the way you're thinking. When someone's tone goes from "How many previous presidents..." to "Appealing to different standards of ethical oversight and morality from yesteryear is just anachronism" in approximately one day, I do not have to do much to argue.
There's a quote that I absolutely hate the meaning of but understand it entirely. 'Americans don't travel very often; if they do, they get to see things differently; they don't talk or think like Americans do; they are worried about small country issues'. However, it's not Trump, Biden, or even the US government's problem to both see it their way and act in their own interests even a little bit.
As a normal person, a citizen, a non-powerful person, I don't want wars, disruptions to the international status quo, or even economic tariff wars. They get people killed and reduce quality of life.
But when you’re a part of the state of the United States, or China, or Russia, or even the EU. You have a lot of land, people, and/or resources. Someone will want that if they don't right now. Because despite the world police talk, there is no world police, as evidenced by Ukraine, Myanmar, and Israel and co v. Palestine and Co. As a state, you must be rich in the economic realm, strong in the military realm, and have enough natural resources and land. The interests of a state are not of the people, and vice versa in the short and medium term. You must also need people, and you need to get stronger. Otherwise, someone else will, and someone else will get stronger, richer, and bigger. They will also innovate better than you.
Trump put forth the idea of invading Greenland, annexing Canada, seizing the Panama Canal, and imposing tariffs. That’s what states do; they drive a hard bargain. American interests are increasingly in the normal and east, not in the EU. The EU could handle Russia on its own.
Trump will not attack all these places at once, or even one of them, but he is putting forward an idea given to him by likely General Keith Kellogg and other US Gov’t staff in the DOD and other ABC agencies. This is now what the US government thinks; even if Trump did think this up on his own, why isn’t there that much of a pushback (minus Reddit)? Because normal Americans are increasingly seeing the world as more chaotic and don’t want to stop it from spiraling at their own expense.
Lands on maps are only as good as the militaries that defend them. Denmark, or even the EU, cannot defend Greenland AND fight against Russia AND protect their trade with the Middle East and Asia. The US is increasingly not willing to do this for the EU either, and the EU is declining in population, innovation, and even stable governance.
The only country that could partially resist Trump and the US is the only country that has a history of doing so, Mexico. But only in defense. Canadians armed with drones will have their drones shot down if they try the Ukraine method on US original land since US militias have institutional support with the US government. Ditto for any Danish ski troops or Panama guerrillas.
So why are the US, Russia, and China so "immoral?" Because they have learned the lessons of history. The USSR, UK, India, and historical China during the Song dynasty.
The USSR was too monetary crippled (ruled by engineers), didn’t assimilate populations enough (they gave their ruled people their own land vs splitting them up), and couldn’t innovate. They also had a declining population growth rate, or at least a declining birthrate. Also, some of their most innovative people were Jewish Russians, whom they treated poorly. The US uses a financial system, as does China, that counters overspending on projects with poor ROI. Russia’s Putin and elite too recognize this; he’s just bitter and wanted more countries to remain. The EU did not assimilate its people as well, hates their engineers, both software and non-software, and is getting their best people leeched to the US.
The UK overextended their empire. And, were poor assimilators, had poor geography in its home islands for acting as a great power, and kept fighting wars of no interest to the UK that didn’t grow the UK home island’s economic power. The empire was costing the UK. The US assimilates people well and acts in their own interests by getting the best to go and, most importantly, stay in the US. Russia’s Putin does not do this well and just kicks people out. China promotes an open immigration policy, but Han Chinese and Han Chinese adjacent people (basically east Asians minus Japan) and smart foreigners get special treatment. The EU will kick people/refugees back to their own country’s vs. building up even if they speak that country's tongue after their war is over and isn’t a civic nationalistic entity. The EU also could have added Russia to its organization but couldn’t overcome anti-Russian sentiment and now lacks land and natural resources.
If your angry as a European or liberal Democrat that I said this, this is just how the world works. The UN does not have an army right now, so there are no world police. Nukes and their technology are not eternal; one day they will be surpassed by newer anti-missile technology, as infeasible as it seems today. China and the US know there is something called imperial overreach as well.
It does not matter if France, or even the UK plus France, wants/threatens to nuclear bomb DC over Greenland; they can’t nuclear bomb an idea. If the US exists as a state/idea, they will want to get stronger and will want Greenland, Canada, and lower fees in the Panama Canal and more than that. It does not matter how many Americans speak Spanish and are of Mexican descent Mexico's current government wants to incite against the US; the American’s best interests are in Baja California being ours for geopolitical reasons. You cannot outpace the US on war. And it even does not matter how the world incites the young/US youth against doing all the above via Tik Tok and Reddit; US interests doesn’t change due to social media.
Furthermore, if you see what I am writing, you will already think the US is the worst country in the world. China is doing it too; it’s in their best interest to get Mongolia, the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, half of Russia in the East, and even possibly Japan. Can they do it right now? No. But they will try evitability. Americans, American leaders, Chinese, Chinese leaders, and even Russian and Russian leaders aren’t evil; they are just trying to act out their best interests with varying moral and ethical results given their options.
If the EU were smart, they would try to get Russia to join them permanently, but they aren’t. Their leaders are undynamic and won’t do it over historical animosity.
So why do countries/states do this? It’s simple; it’s in their DNA. Just as simple cells combine with other cells, so too do humans gather with others, and they get bigger and stronger.
This is how you get a world police eventually, not by rules, regulations, and laws, but by adding together, and oftentimes in conflict. The EU is weak right now, as are Canada, Denmark, and Panama. That means there is a possible opening for the US/the Trump Administration.
And while human lifespans are limited, states/ideas are near, if not eternal.
As a normal person, a citizen, a non-powerful person, I don't want wars, disruptions to the international status quo, or even economic tariff wars. They get people killed and reduce quality of life.
But when you’re a part of the state of the United States, or China, or Russia, or even the EU. You have a lot of land, people, and/or resources. Someone will want that if they don't right now. Because despite the world police talk, there is no world police, as evidenced by Ukraine, Myanmar, and Israel and co v. Palestine and Co. As a state, you must be rich in the economic realm, strong in the military realm, and have enough natural resources and land. The interests of a state are not of the people, and vice versa in the short and medium term. You must also need people, and you need to get stronger. Otherwise, someone else will, and someone else will get stronger, richer, and bigger. They will also innovate better than you.
Trump put forth the idea of invading Greenland, annexing Canada, seizing the Panama Canal, and imposing tariffs. That’s what states do; they drive a hard bargain. American interests are increasingly in the normal and east, not in the EU. The EU could handle Russia on its own.
Trump will not attack all these places at once, or even one of them, but he is putting forward an idea given to him by likely General Keith Kellogg and other US Gov’t staff in the DOD and other ABC agencies. This is now what the US government thinks; even if Trump did think this up on his own, why isn’t there that much of a pushback (minus Reddit)? Because normal Americans are increasingly seeing the world as more chaotic and don’t want to stop it from spiraling at their own expense.
Lands on maps are only as good as the militaries that defend them. Denmark, or even the EU, cannot defend Greenland AND fight against Russia AND protect their trade with the Middle East and Asia. The US is increasingly not willing to do this for the EU either, and the EU is declining in population, innovation, and even stable governance.
The only country that could partially resist Trump and the US is the only country that has a history of doing so, Mexico. But only in defense. Canadians armed with drones will have their drones shot down if they try the Ukraine method on US original land since US militias have institutional support with the US government. Ditto for any Danish ski troops or Panama guerrillas.
So why are the US, Russia, and China so "immoral?" Because they have learned the lessons of history. The USSR, UK, India, and historical China during the Song dynasty.
The USSR was too monetary crippled (ruled by engineers), didn’t assimilate populations enough (they gave their ruled people their own land vs splitting them up), and couldn’t innovate. They also had a declining population growth rate, or at least a declining birthrate. Also, some of their most innovative people were Jewish Russians, whom they treated poorly. The US uses a financial system, as does China, that counters overspending on projects with poor ROI. Russia’s Putin and elite too recognize this; he’s just bitter and wanted more countries to remain. The EU did not assimilate its people as well, hates their engineers, both software and non-software, and is getting their best people leeched to the US.
The UK overextended their empire. And, were poor assimilators, had poor geography in its home islands for acting as a great power, and kept fighting wars of no interest to the UK that didn’t grow the UK home island’s economic power. The empire was costing the UK. The US assimilates people well and acts in their own interests by getting the best to go and, most importantly, stay in the US. Russia’s Putin does not do this well and just kicks people out. China promotes an open immigration policy, but Han Chinese and Han Chinese adjacent people (basically east Asians minus Japan) and smart foreigners get special treatment. The EU will kick people/refugees back to their own country’s vs. building up even if they speak that country's tongue after their war is over and isn’t a civic nationalistic entity. The EU also could have added Russia to its organization but couldn’t overcome anti-Russian sentiment and now lacks land and natural resources.
If your angry as a European or liberal Democrat that I said this, this is just how the world works. The UN does not have an army right now, so there are no world police. Nukes and their technology are not eternal; one day they will be surpassed by newer anti-missile technology, as infeasible as it seems today. China and the US know there is something called imperial overreach as well.
It does not matter if France, or even the UK plus France, wants/threatens to nuclear bomb DC over Greenland; they can’t nuclear bomb an idea. If the US exists as a state/idea, they will want to get stronger and will want Greenland, Canada, and lower fees in the Panama Canal and more than that. It does not matter how many Americans speak Spanish and are of Mexican descent Mexico's current government wants to incite against the US; the American’s best interests are in Baja California being ours for geopolitical reasons. You cannot outpace the US on war. And it even does not matter how the world incites the young/US youth against doing all the above via Tik Tok and Reddit; US interests doesn’t change due to social media.
Furthermore, if you see what I am writing, you will already think the US is the worst country in the world. China is doing it too; it’s in their best interest to get Mongolia, the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, half of Russia in the East, and even possibly Japan. Can they do it right now? No. But they will try evitability. Americans, American leaders, Chinese, Chinese leaders, and even Russian and Russian leaders aren’t evil; they are just trying to act out their best interests with varying moral and ethical results given their options.
If the EU were smart, they would try to get Russia to join them permanently, but they aren’t. Their leaders are undynamic and won’t do it over historical animosity.
So why do countries/states do this? It’s simple; it’s in their DNA. Just as simple cells combine with other cells, so too do humans gather with others, and they get bigger and stronger.
This is how you get a world police eventually, not by rules, regulations, and laws, but by adding together, and oftentimes in conflict. The EU is weak right now, as are Canada, Denmark, and Panama. That means there is a possible opening for the US/the Trump Administration.
And while human lifespans are limited, states/ideas are near, if not eternal.
What do you think is more important for the EU ? China not expanding to its neighbours or Russia being stopped in Ukraine and the US not taking territory from Denmark or Panama ?
If the US stops opposing Russia and let's the EU do it alone while taking land from EU countries and stealing ressource deposits while also trying to take and monopolize important shipping routes, the EU is better off allying itself to China than the US. China is really good positioned to harm Russia and even has its own claims in Siberia. It is also roughly as valuable as far as trade goes as the US. However it has no designs on any EU territories. It also doesn't threaten tariffs and is instead very keenly aware that it needs global trade to work.
Going with China would also also allow the EU another attempt to let the EURO replace the Dollar as world reserve currency.
So if the US leaves the partnership with the EU, the EU will look elsewhere. And it is pretty obvious, where. The US involving itself in Ukraine is basically part of the price of preventing that. You might not like paying that price but i am very sure, the US really wants and needs the influence in the EU it gets for providing protections. That has always been why it does it.
Also
Rubbish. They tried. Russia didn't want to, clinging to past glory and importance. Also the US did its best to sabotage such a resolution, not wanting a powerful Eaurasian power that doesn't need it anymore.
No. Russia exists. North Korea exists. Israel exists. Afghanistan exists. I could probably write half a page about worse countries. But the thing is i could also write half a page about better countries. And when it comes to much much headaches a country can produce, the US is certainly in the top 3, just because of its power and how wide reaching its influence, how credible its threats are.
But how about doing your geopolitical musings in another thread ? You might actually get more discussion out of it.
Last edited:
Similarly, when someone goes from "everyone else did the same" to "one person did the same 63 years ago", there's not much need to argue either; it's quite obvious the original contest fell apart straight away. And you did that before the reply you're moaning about above.
Obviously, when making comparisons, there are reasonable limits. Contextually, for instance, a very reasonable boundary here is the Presidential Records Act, 1981.
You can deliberately refuse to acknowledge this for petty points scoring, but it doesn't make your bigger point compelling.