Libertarian Cringe

[Bno]

@Leo Gura So you no longer believe Trump had any part in it, huh? ?

What makes you say the Russian interference is obvious?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Bno

[Bno]

@Apparition of Jack The intelligence would've found documented conversations in which Trump asked for dirt on Hillary. Instead the opposite happened, Hillary asked for dirt on Trump. Another type of evidence would've been Trump hiring hackers. 

Trump would've also removed sanctions on Russia, not pulled out of the nuclear deal, stopped bombing Syria, never tried to install coups in Venezuela and Bolivia, stayed in the Iran nuclear treaty, and helped enrich Putin. Everything except the last thing is actually even a good thing but since the MSM keeps insisting Trump is a Putin puppet, he tries so hard to make himself look like he's not a puppet to the expense of increasing tensions with Russia and Russian allied countries.

The evidence found by our Intelligence would've been more than just finding fake bot accounts from Russia, but not tied to the Russian government, posting mostly memes and ads about Christianity and stuff that'll help people not jerk off. An insignificant amount of the memes (less than 10% of them) were just ridiculous and childish stuff like showing Hillary as the devil.

Let's put all of this aside though and assume that it was Russia that hacked our election in the way that the media is claiming. That would mean that they hacked into Hillary's emails with Padesta and gave it to Julian Assange (I wish the poor guy well, he's currently being tortured). And then the American public found out information they should've known anyway. That her and the DNC committed dishonesty and cheating to prevent Bernie Sanders from being the Democratic nominee.

There's actually more evidence to suggest that the emails were leaked from within the DNC, though, not by an outside foreign source.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Bno said:

@Leo Gura So you no longer believe Trump had any part in it, huh? ?

I still think Trump has deep Russian connections. I just don't know if he deliberately conspired in the 2016 election.

The important part is that he is compromised, not the 2016 election itself. His ties to Russia are largely financial and no one has seriously investigated his finances yet. Muller didn't look into that.

Although we already know that he was working on a deal to build Trump Tower Moscow DURING the 2016 election!

Quote

What makes you say the Russian interference is obvious?

There's too much evidence to list. Read the news.

RussiaGate is not a hoax. Trump is corrupt as fuck and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg of his corruption. Books will be written about it for years to come.

[Bodigger]

No doubt books will be written.  However, I recall many of the things being said about Trump were said about Ronald Reagan and years later the facts were that Reagan was much more sincere, mindful, intelligent, and honorable than what was said about him at the time.  It will be interesting what will be said about Trump years from now.  One thing for sure is, if it is good for Trump, it will not be said by the media....

[Bno]

@Leo Gura There were Trump Towers built all over other countries too like Indonesia. Padesta, Hillary Clinton, and other Clinton staffers also have financial deals with Russians and their government and asked for dirt on Donald Trump, so by that logic why aren't they considered Russian assets/puppets?

It's funny that every time I ask you, or @Serotoninluv or I see others ask Cenk Ugyr, you all never want to tell what evidence they have for still believing this after being told of Trump's international actions that go against Putin's interest. Surely listing at least some of the evidence would help your argument, no?

And given this recent attack on Iran, you guys still believe he's a Russian asset or that they have leverage on him?

Do you think you might be blinded by Trump derangement syndrome? It wouldn't hurt to deeply check within you why you're not seeing what many lefty journalists that aren't TYT see.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Bno

[Hatfort]

@Bno

Trump is the US president that Russia, China and other countries like those want, corrupt like them. He is also unstable, volatile and, frankly, ridiculous in some aspects. They will do all they can so he is reelected, as they did on 2016, now even more. Democrats will have to accept that, but if they catch Trump or his administration getting involved with foreign governments to interfere in the elections, like in Ukraine, that's crossing the line, it's ilegal and they cannot let him get away with that like it was nothing. The impeachment is well done, even if it won't end his presidency, it was at least the decent thing to do.

Man, maybe listen to what they are telling you, you seem to be too focused in very particular things like they make the whole picture. You are sharing valid points and make a bigger whole picture, but if you insist that much, looks that you only see that. You ask for proves, I understand, but you don't always get a recording of the crime being commited, that would be easy for the detectives, right? Whatever, those are my two cents.

[Bno]

@Hatfort Every US President we've had in recent history has been corrupt. Russia and China prefer presidents who will interfere less in their growth, which is why they also preferred Obama over McCain and Romney. Hillary was being hawkish towards Russia, Iran, Syria, Lybia, etc. so they preferred Trump over her. That doesn't mean there's evidence that they interfered in our election.

Now that Trump has been president, his stupidity has increased tensions with Russia by pulling out of the Iran nuclear treaty, increasing sanctions in Iran, Russia, and Syria, attempting coups in Venezuela and Bolivia, continuing to push a pipeline in Syria, continuing to bomb Syria, etc. All of these actions overshadow any notion that he is helping Russia.

Then there's the hypocrisy of the anti-Trump "Resistance" within the Democratic party that calls him a Russian puppet but then go ahead and vote to give him more surveillance power and increase the already bloated military budget. He's committed so many crimes like violating the emoluments clause, arming Saudi terrorists who are generating a genocide in Yemen, torturing kids on the border, and rape allegations.

Obama installed a coup in Ukraine and threatened to withhold aid to their country if they fired a lawyer that was investigating Biden's son's energy company. This is why this impeachment is weak. Trump can easily turn this around to make Biden look like the one on trial. 

I agree that Trump should be impeached but it needs to be a stronger case like what I listed at the end of my 3rd paragraph.

 

[Apparition of Jack]

@Bno I'm trying to be as respectful as I can, but I still feel the need to point that it feels like you're too attached to the idea that Russian interference in the US elections means that the Russians were hoping that the new president would do everything 100% in Russia's favour, which really isn't what their goal was.

To be fair, it can be easy to think this when everyone acts like Putin is some sort of "4D chess mastermind" who is pulling the strings in a hundred different ways, but I really think this is giving him too much credit. Putin is an unhealthy stage Red dictator, which is still a rather unconscious level of being to be at, and unconscious levels of being lead to unconscious outcomes.
When Putin orders his government to create chaos in other nations through things like election manipulation, he's not thinking about the long-term wellbeing of a conscious, prosperous Russian society. Instead he's thinking about "protecting Russia at all costs" against real or, more likely, imagined threats, using very underhanded and very unconscious tactics to do so, so it's no surprise if these tactics came back to bite him in the ass down the road. Russia meddling with the US election in order to sow division within the US isn't mutually exclusive with the US taking actions that hurt Russian interests. You have to get more nuanced about these things and view them from a SD perspective.
Besides, having a weak, divided America - even one that is threatening war with Iran and refusing to lift sanctions - still benefits Russia in other areas, because they can use that domestic chaos to distract the US from putting up any resistance against aggressive Russian moves elsewhere, which is what the Russian government has been doing. Have you noticed how US criticism of Russia's involvement in the Ukraine has all but gone silent since Trump got elected?

Another thing I've noticed in your worldview is that it seems to rely on some very strong assumptions, which you would probably do well to explore and question. Some of these assumptions are things like:

- "Neoliberalism is morally evil and everyone who engages in neoliberal policies cannot promote healthy policies elsewhere"

- "Hillary Clinton is irredeemably corrupt"

- "Impeaching Trump is mutually exclusive with supporting Trump's war bills"

And so on. Now don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of neoliberalism in the slightest, nor do I personally like Hillary Clinton, but the point is that these are the assumptions you are operating under, and ones that break down once you bring more nuance to your analysis.
Obama was a standard "Third Way" neoliberal Democrat, and yet he pulled US troops out of Iraq and passed the first guaranteed-coverage healthcare bill in US history. Bill Clinton was likewise, and yet he invested heavily in education, helped Israel and Palestine sign the Oslo accords, created the first maternity leave style policy in the US and did much to protect American national parks. The point is - while the neoliberal establishment might be corrupt in its structure, that doesn't prevent individual politicians who operate under this framework for passing actual good legislation, despite their problematic policies elsewhere. In the age of constant internet outrage it can be very easy to forget the fact that politics is, still, the art of compromise (a lesson I have had to learn personally), so taking totalising stances like "a  neoliberal politician can never pass conscious legislation" is counter-productive and unhelpful.

And finally, of course I am not saying this to defend neoliberalism or intervernionism or anything like that. Neoliberalism still has to go, and in the new Green political system that is emerging with Bernie's movement neoliberal ideas are going to come under increasing scrutiny in the coming years. But that doesn't prevent us from approaching the existing conditions critically and with nuance, and seeing what are the best tools we have available today - which may have emerged from the neoliberal paradigm itself - to help dismantle this power structure and put a more conscious, holistic one in its place.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Apparition of Jack

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Bodigger said:

Reagan was much more sincere, mindful, intelligent, and honorable than what was said about him at the time.

Oh, you mean Reagan the racist?

Quote

It will be interesting what will be said about Trump years from now.

History will be very unkind to Trump. Future generations will read about Trump in disbelief, wondering how 40% of the country could be so stupid as to buy anything he says. Those who supported Trump will be seen as neanderthals -- the way we think about Southern slaverowners today.

Pretty soon after Trump's gone no one who supported him will admit they ever did. They will deny the whole thing because it will be too embarrassing to ever mention you supported him. Similar to how people today deny supporting the Iraq war. Similar to how no one today will admit that they or even their parents supported segregation. It's just too ugly to admit. Only those "others" could support something like segregation or slavery.

[Bno]

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

 

- "Neoliberalism is morally evil and everyone who engages in neoliberal policies cannot promote healthy policies elsewhere"

- "Hillary Clinton is irredeemably corrupt"

- "Impeaching Trump is mutually exclusive with supporting Trump's war bills"

Morality is subjective. I think that in the grand scheme of things neoliberalism is hurting the Self in a global scale. Evolution will lead to the installation of more protection on people and the environment, thus leading to more consciousness.

Hillary Clinton is damaging people's consciousness if she's put in power and at the same time is increasing people's consciousness as some of us awaken to several Democratic corruptions that we thought was exclusive to Republicans.

It makes no logical sense to say that Trump is a foreign puppet yet they vote to give him more militaristic and surveillance power. 

 

I know based on your posts that you don't support neoliberalism, don't worry. Overall though, the damaging foreign policy of each administration has carried over and exacerbated: Raegan arming middle eastern terrorists to fight off communism laid the groundworks for GHWB to go to war with Iraq which laid the groundworks for Clinton to continue to sanction and bomb Iraq which laid the groundworks for Bush to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq which laid the groundworks for Obama to expand the wars from 2 to 7 which laid the groundworks for Trump to attack Iran. 

One way we can end these senseless wars is to make corporate lobbying illegal so that the MIC stops influencing our presidents. Same thing with the Fossil Fuel industry and other giant conglomerates that want to expand their businesses overseas by force. Such acts are egoic. We need to increase our consciousness so that we can be aware of the realities in our politics harming the Self and finding the proper solutions by understanding the root problems.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Bno

[remember]

On 24.1.2020 at 1:44 PM, Bno said:

The intelligence would've found documented conversations in which Trump asked for dirt on Hillary. Instead the opposite happened, Hillary asked for dirt on Trump. Another type of evidence would've been Trump hiring hackers. 

there is one little twist in what you write there. just because russian intelligence is intelligent enough to not leave traces does not mean trump is intelligent enough to not leave traces. to not leave traces might be a matter of coalition not a matter of non matter.

or you could also say just because russia is intelligent enough to not leave any traces does not mean usa is intelligent enough to find any traces...

Edited January 26, 2020 by remember

[Leo Gura]

Politicians digging up dirt on opponents is par for the course.

What's not okay though is if the dirt-digging discovers actual serious dirt.

Like if your opponent discovers you murdered someone, well, that means you're disqualified from the job. It isn't really dirt if it's true that you murdered someone.

The problems with Trump are not merely his sexual scandals and tabloid dirt. It's the fact that he's seriously corrupt as fuck.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura So are the Clintons.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Bno

[Bno]

@remember You're speculating based on a limited amount of information you've heard from the MSM whose goal is to make ratings, protect their reputation, beat the drums for war and tensions with other countries, and prevent progressives from taking higher office because they'll regulate and tax them more.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Bno

[remember]

@Bno i‘m not speculating about anything, just pointing out basic dualities about intelligence. maybe i watched to many intelligent movies.

[randomguy123]

8 hours ago, Bno said:

@Leo Gura So are the Clintons.

True, but we cant be keeping score like that. Root out corruption wherever you can.

[Bno]

@remember Why would Russia ask the US to partner in setting more international laws to protect cyber interference but the US refused? Why would Trump commit all these acts that hurt Russia? What you pointed out is true but continuing to call someone an asset when it is far from proven, what's the point?

@randomguy123 I'm not saying to keep a scorecard, I'm saying to notice biases that blind.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

15 hours ago, Bno said:

@Leo Gura So are the Clintons.

Not nearly in the same ballpark.

If you can't distinguish between Clinton corruption and Trump corruption, you're not very conscious.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura Arming terrorist, secretly selling uranium, sanctioning countries without congressional approval, taking advantage of disasters to benefit their Foundation (see what they did in Haiti), their strong ties with Jeffrey Epstein, accepting donations from infamous rapists knowingly (Harvey Weinstein), bombing and invading countries without congressional approval, overthrowing governments left and right while laughing about it ("we came, we saw, he died!"), passing a racist crime bill, gutting welfare, deregulating telecom, deregulating the banks and other industries ultimately leading to the market crash of '08. All these actions committed for personal enrichment. Millions of lives destroyed and still being destroyed. I'd say you're not very politically conscious if you don't recognize that as "the same ball park." Probably even as more corruption than Trump's. You wouldn't have Trump without the Clintons.

But let's also not forget that they were friends.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Bno said:

All these actions committed for personal enrichment.

That's not the real reason. You're not appreciating the relativity of perspective. From the Clinton's perspective they do good for the world. Of course that doesn't excuse some of the bad stuff they do, but they don't do it for money, they do it because they believe that's the kind of governance the world needs, AND it also makes them good money. Of course they aligned those two things in their worldview in a convenient manner. You can disagree with that since you're a progressive. But it's not as simple as doing stuff for money. And don't forget that the Clintons also did a lot of good stuff for the world. Governance is a tricky and dirty business. Don't expect people to have clean records.

It's problematic to look back to the 90's and judge it by today's progressive standards. The Democratic party has evolved a lot. And that evolution sits on an older foundation which was the Clintons. Like it or not that's how progress happens.