@maya_von_doll said in #5:
> He is a businessman. Money, and not people, are his concern.
Which is funny once you realize just how terrible of a businessman Trump actually is. Even without considering the incredible amounts of fraud, the list of failed businesses stretches for miles. His real estate empire is the only thing that wasn't a colossal failure, and he's being fined hundreds of millions of dollars and barred from doing business in New York because it turns out he committed an awful lot of fraud.
Really, Trump's strength basically comes down to charisma. He's a con artist who has been wildly successful because he managed to convince other people he was successful. Christ, the dude didn't even write Art Of The Deal.
<Comment deleted by user>
If the Democrats run Biden then they enable a possible Trump win.
Biden ( or what is left of his mind ) is the only candidate that Trump could win against.
Neither is a good choice.
Too many are giving highly biased responses.
Trump is narcissistic, greedy, and CATEGORICALLY a tyrant. He has no political aptitude, like almost all of his constituents, and also almost all of his opponents. There are, however, many myths about him that his detractors accept with zealous ignorance. The following are the truths.
1. Trump did NOT attempt an insurrection.
2. Trump is NOT special when it comes to attempts to undermine the democratic system.
3. Trump is NOT right-wing.
4. Trump is CATEGORICALLY a tyrant.
The first is easy to address, and the only two ways that a person can come to the conclusion that Trump intended to start an insurrection is willful ignorance, or plain propaganda-induced ignorance. Those that become loudspeakers for party propaganda are easily able to reach for the common slogans and propagandistic platforms, but all that is really necessary to dispel those fevered delusions is the simple fact that if Donald Trump wanted to start an insurrection, it would have been successful. If Donald Trump said "Bring your weapons and retake America. My military will support you. Make America Great Again." That lie would have been enough to incite at least a hundred thousand fools into storming the Capitol with guns blazing.
Instead, they came with phones to record an historic moment, they did not "storm" the Capitol any more than leftist protestors did during a previous conveniently ignored riot, and the property damage they did was less than even the "peaceful" protests of 2019. If merely ten idiots brought firearms, we would be living in a different state right now.
Trump did not attempt an insurrection, and the people that went to the Capitol on January Sixth did not intend to either. The only way a person could bring themselves to such a foolish belief is ignorance.
The second is divisive, and anything I say on the topic will result in nothing but endless pilpul, for the simple fact that when one person undermines a democracy, they are merely "fortifying it." Trump's attempts to undermine democracy are, to his constituents, "taking democracy back into the hands of the people." Biden and the left's attempts are "preventing fascists" from stealing it. Take George Soros' position: That in order to have a free, open, and democratic society, one must necessarily "act outside it." Sometimes, especially when a democracy is teetering on the brink of destruction, the only way to save it is to act undemocratically. An example is the Roman Republic's last attempt to overthrow a tyrant: They saw fit only an entirely un-democratic and non-republican solution. And realistically, damaging democracy was the only viable solution, though one that inevitably failed.
I do not need to argue further on this point, because again, both sides see their actions as "fortifying," not undermining.
3. Trump is not a right-wing populist. He is a classical liberal that wants to use un-democratic means to return his country to the delusional period when things weren't as politically extreme in his mind. He is by no means, and in no way whatsoever "rightist." He is at most, a slightly socially-conservative liberal.
***
Finally, Trump IS a tyrant. There is no way to deny this while maintaining any sort of intellectual honesty.
>Say then, my friend, In what manner does tyranny arise?—that it has a democratic origin is evident.
>Clearly.
>And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy—I mean, after a sort?
>How?
>The insatiable desire of wealth creates a demand for democracy, the insatiable desire of freedom creates a demand for tyranny. The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth—am I not right?
>Yes.
>And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?
>True.
>And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?
>What good?
>Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State—and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
>Yes; the saying is in every body’s mouth.
>I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.
>How so?
>When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.
>Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.
>Freedom in the end means anarchy. Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?
>Certainly not.
>...
>And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?
>...
>At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes every one whom he meets;—he to be called a tyrant, who is making promises in public and also in private! liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to every one!
However, those who call him a tyrant fail to realize that many of the same people they support are also tyrants of their own kind.
Finally, there is a criticism that Donald Trump is a "populist." Almost everyone that calls him a populist is unable to reconcile their belief in democracy with opposition for a leader that brings to the people what the people ask for. In many cases, these people come up with the same idea: That the people are stupid, so democracy must be in the hands of those who know what they are doing. This leads us to oligarchy, or, in the best of cases, Aristocracy (rule by the best). But very few people are cognizant of just what they are insinuating when they say that "the majority made the wrong choice," or "populists are bad when they give the people what they want."
And with all of this said, I still support Trump over Biden, simply because Trump is an impotent Tyrant that will make some positive changes to social and economic policy, while Biden is a figure-head for a shadow oligarchy. Trump's worst flaw at this point is his intent to engage in a despicable war of atrocity in the Middle East in support of a rogue apartheid state. However, I doubt that any other candidate can stand up to the Israel lobby.
> Trump did NOT attempt an insurrection.
Trump understood that he had lost the 2020 election on election night. Axios reported on this; he knew he had lost and was not happy about it.
Despite that, he went out and claimed he won, then spent the next several months in the leadup to January 6th filing meritless legal cases and getting as much of his party and as much of the American public as he could behind the lie that he won the election. On January 6th, he was calling his allies in congress and asking them to stall the certification of the votes while fascists stormed congress shouting for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi's head.
We can split hairs about what specifically is meant by "insurrection". But anyone who wishes to claim that Trump did not attempt to overthrow the results of an election he lost is simply wrong. January 6th was the culmination of months of lies, in a way that is genuinely unprecedented in US history.
> Trump's attempts to undermine democracy are, to his constituents, "taking democracy back into the hands of the people." Biden and the left's attempts are "preventing fascists" from stealing it.
Yes, this is how a person who is completely unaware of the context would frame this. So what have these actions looked like?
Well, Trump filed lawsuits in every state, attempted to coerce the Secretary of State to "find" exactly as many votes as would have him winning the state, attempted to get mail-in ballots thrown out en masse, stoked conspiracy theories about voter fraud that were blatantly false, and stoked the fires on January 6th right before a crowd of his supporters stormed congress.
Biden allowed his legal department to attempt to prosecute Trump for the very obvious and very public crimes Trump committed, pushed for a law that would strengthen the right to vote and push back against attempts to prevent people from voting, and...
...actually, I'm rather lost, what are you even talking about? You didn't provide any examples; you referenced the Roman Republic and something George Soros (a billionaire who is not a democratic politician) allegedly said.
> I do not need to argue further on this point
I kinda think if you want to argue that the two are equivalent, you should maybe list *one* thing Biden has done that is in any way comparable to Trump's attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.
> Trump is not a right-wing populist.
Please abstain from talking about US politics when you know nothing about US politics, thank you. :)
@CadyRocks said in #15:
> Trump understood that he had lost the 2020 election on election night. Axios reported on this; he knew he had lost and was not happy about it.
>
> Despite that, he went out and claimed he won, then spent the next several months in the leadup to January 6th filing meritless legal cases and getting as much of his party and as much of the American public as he could behind the lie that he won the election. On January 6th, he was calling his allies in congress and asking them to stall the certification of the votes while fascists stormed congress shouting for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi's head.
>
> We can split hairs about what specifically is meant by "insurrection". But anyone who wishes to claim that Trump did not attempt to overthrow the results of an election he lost is simply wrong. January 6th was the culmination of months of lies, in a way that is genuinely unprecedented in US history.
>
>
>
> Yes, this is how a person who is completely unaware of the context would frame this. So what have these actions looked like?
>
> Well, Trump filed lawsuits in every state, attempted to coerce the Secretary of State to "find" exactly as many votes as would have him winning the state, attempted to get mail-in ballots thrown out en masse, stoked conspiracy theories about voter fraud that were blatantly false, and stoked the fires on January 6th right before a crowd of his supporters stormed congress.
>
> Biden allowed his legal department to attempt to prosecute Trump for the very obvious and very public crimes Trump committed, pushed for a law that would strengthen the right to vote and push back against attempts to prevent people from voting, and...
>
> ...actually, I'm rather lost, what are you even talking about? You didn't provide any examples; you referenced the Roman Republic and something George Soros (a billionaire who is not a democratic politician) allegedly said.
>
>
>
> I kinda think if you want to argue that the two are equivalent, you should maybe list *one* thing Biden has done that is in any way comparable to Trump's attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.
>
>
>
> Please abstain from talking about US politics when you know nothing about US politics, thank you. :)
Most people aren't so quick to wear their ignorance with pride.
@JS1901291 said in #14:
> Finally, there is a criticism that Donald Trump is a "populist."
There are a few words that scream "we can't have a conversation", and "populist" is number 1 ("fascist" is number 2, "oligarchy" not far).
Unless we are talking about some accurate historical populist as opposed to a true oligarchy (like Solon, Cleisthenes or Gaius Marius), "populist" means just "this guy is doing something many people want but I don't like, and I can't explain why".
@JS1901291 god forbid you actually substantiate the things you say in any meaningful way.
@OctoPinky said in #17:
> There are a few words that scream "we can't have a conversation", and "populist" is number 1 ("fascist" is number 2, "oligarchy" not far).
>
> Unless we are talking about some accurate historical populist as opposed to a true oligarchy (like Solon, Cleisthenes or Gaius Marius), "populist" means just "this guy is doing something many people want but I don't like, and I can't explain why".
Certainly, tell me why this rule isn't a populist rule: "Trump bans emigration/travels into USA from Muslim-majority countries."
Now unless we are talking about a rule that is going to please a lot of people but isn't actually based on the secular nature of laws, it screams populist. The last time I read something of that sort was Nazi rules against the Jews.
The US and not Trump alone (because he is the most demonised of all political leaders), has forgotten about the very basics of how a country runs.
1. jus ad bello and jus ad bellum are distinct
2. the Church and the State are distinct
The US at the moment screams populism, just like India does...
