Trump is Still President

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/-Ue5F57dZMU

[Ecmandu]

You stand by your previous errors and months of gaslighting.

Does it hurt to be wrong? Probably

You’re not rational. It’s that simple. Even if you are being paid by the Russians (or whatever) to say this shit, you’re still not rational.

Mr. reasonable (who I rarely agree with) is right about you.

Gaslighting is a bullshit term used by propagandists to project what they are actually doing to the other side who isn’t doing it.

I’m sorry that you’re jealous of America ... I’m sorry you didn’t get to destroy it with trump.

Everyone on these boards knows what you’re about...

You’re not that fucking smart dude. Stop pretending like you are.

[obsrvr524]

um... the house impeached him. now the senate is conducting a trial to determine whether to bar him from holding office again. so i'm not sure that you completely understand what is happening.

I'm sure that I am far more aware of it than you.

no evidence? you're crazy man. you see no evidence where it's as plain as day, and you see evidence when there isn't any. you have a serious problem with discernment.

Good then show us the evidence - not just that someone said that someone said....

i am aware that state and federal prosecutors can also bring charges against him, for separate crimes.

Yet they haven't for this supposed high crime. Even your FBI didn't have any evidence to provide to Congress. And they knew of the plans to attack the Capital at least a week before it happened. In fact they are actually culpable - as is Ms Pelosi.

[obsrvr524]

Would you describe what has been going on in the US for some time as a civil war? I mean a civil war comparable to the first or second one of those civil wars of the Ancient Romans (133-30). These wars were fought mostly outside Rome. They were private wars. And they were always about money, because money is a means of gaining, maintaining, expanding power. So money works like violence, blood, war.

That is a very difficult question for me to answer.

The way I see it is that democracy itself is a type of constant civil warring or ideas. Different nations have different competing parties and different numbers of them. Each nation has different standards for what is considered acceptable warring tactics. It seems to me that military warring (including fascism) or any warring more physical than that of ideas is the only reasonably clear division between the democratic process and civil war.

There has been a great deal of physical warring in the socialist US states for the last year or so. On a small scale they were insurrectionist. Socialists are not concerned with democracy. Their foundation is entirely formed and maintain by fascism. To them anything goes. So with socialists, any desire they put forth opens the door for all out civil war. And any desire put forth against they desire is already civil war to be crushed by any means.

In addition to those confusions the US ugliness has been largely inspired, directed, financed, and controlled by foreign actors. Most of the players have certainly been US citizens. The army of the socialist coup has been US citizens. But their generals have been almost entirely foreign. Is a coup, even a successful one, a "civil war"? I guess if they use physical weaponry or tactics to accomplish it - it seems reasonable. The problem is that the other side, not seeing the gravity of what was happening, has not been using physical tactics.So is it a civil war of only one side is actually fighting?

It seems one of those - "yes and no" questions until more specific clarity of definitions is provided.

I don't know enough about the ancient Roman "civil" wars to opine on the inherent vagueness of the issue.

[Kathrina]

If I may answer.

Ancient Rome - short interpretation of what happened between about 200 and 88 BC..*

The construction of the Roman state could not suffice in the long run for the domination and administration of the growing world empire. Moreover, the prosperities that streamed into Italy from the plunder of wars and the exploitation of Rome's supremacy, and the sunny influences of the quite different Hellenistic world on Rome, which was still quite simple around 200 A.D., brought about internal and moral changes that greatly affected not only the ancient Roman state mentality, but the entire internal structure of Roman life.

The competition of cheap overseas grain from taxation and the influx of money in the Roman upper class, which had to seek investment primarily in landed property, and other related developments worked in the direction of the shrinking of the peasant middle class of the Roman citizenry. This, with the shrinking of the legions' recruiting base and, at the same time, ever-increasing military tasks, directly touched the foundations of Roman rule and conjured up other clearly visible dangers. The reform attempt of the Gracchi, who wanted to counteract this development by resettling peasants on available state land, failed for various reasons and, with its side effects, led to the outbreak of civil war-like processes (and thus civil wars in general) and a disastrous tension between the estates of the Roman people.

Marius drew from this situation the other conclusion, for the formation of the army needed for the colonial war against Jugurtha in North Africa and then against the Germanic threat in the north and in the west, no longer to resort to conscription of the middle classes of the Roman people, but to form his army by recruitment. In order to be successful, Marius had to offer the recruits not only a short-term military service, but also a kind of life position. The recruits thus became professional soldiers with at least twenty years of service, who then also demanded to be provided for somehow for their further life after their discharge. It is natural that these new professional soldiers came primarily from the proletariat, which, moreover, streamed to Rome in ever-increasing numbers from Germania, Gaul, North Africa and the Hellenistic states, and according to established Roman ideas, this immediately had further consequences.

One of those consequences was that the bonds between the soldiers and the commander became closer and closer. Another consequence was that with this ominous aggravation of the internal political antagonisms, the interest of the leading class in Rome shifted completely to these personal power struggles (private wars!) and intrigues, and they no longer paid sufficient attention to the developments in the external sphere of Rome's power and let them drive to real catastrophes like the domination of the whole Mediterranean Sea by the pirates and the conquest of Asia Minor by Mithridates with the murder of all the Romans in the country (at least 80000; cp. "Vesper of Ephesus").

Here, the most serious mistake of the republican Roman leadership took its revenge on Rome itself, the lack of interest in the provinces, which one as a lower subject country did not really think had to worry about and in which one therefore allowed to happen, about which one did not really think to have to care about as an subject country and in which one therefore let happen what then led to the fall of the republic itself. The unrestricted power and self-importance of the Roman imperial leaders in the provinces, which did not directly affect Roman citizens and therefore did not seem to be particularly disturbing, had the consequence that the great military leaders in the provinces and on the borders of the Roman Empire were able to act almost freely and, in the wars they led, created the great armies and turned them into tools of their policy, with which they could conquer Rome from the provinces.

* Roman civil wars: 133-30 BC.

Please compare, taking into account, of course, the differences owed to occidental modernity.

[promethean75]

See I toldja. Niggas fighting over property and land. I'ont give a damn what empire in what era the example is, it always comes down to that. Those are the two deal breakers. Gee, I wonder IF THERE IS A PATTERN HERE coughmarxistanalysiscough.

[MagsJ]

Of all the presidents in all the world, America thought this one impeachment-worthy.

D58F60F5-CA02-458B-9F56-170F3ED62B0B.jpeg (67.83 KiB) Viewed 215 times

[obsrvr524]

I think I can vaguely see a path to resurrecting the US as a Constitutional republic but it would take all of the right kind of people doing the right kinds of things and I'm not sure they know who they are and what they must do.

Mr Trump was good at utilizing national authority to solve serious security and economic issues but was obviously unaware of certain critical concerns (most specifically the disease issue and degree of evil that the vast majority of people in authority are willing to do - although obviously now very aware of them). But can he do similar on a less than national scale - which he would have to do because he must start from wherever he currently is? And could he do it in such a way s to remain strong despite the entire globalist intelligence agencies doing their satanic thing against him and anyone associated with him?

I believe there is a way - I think. I am just not close enough to observe the details of their situation. And very certainly "the devil is in those details".

[Urwrongx1000]

I think I can vaguely see a path to resurrecting the US as a Constitutional republic but it would take all of the right kind of people doing the right kinds of things and I'm not sure they know who they are and what they must do.

Mr Trump was good at utilizing national authority to solve serious security and economic issues but was obviously unaware of certain critical concerns (most specifically the disease issue and degree of evil that the vast majority of people in authority are willing to do - although obviously now very aware of them). But can he do similar on a less than national scale - which he would have to do because he must start from wherever he currently is? And could he do it in such a way s to remain strong despite the entire globalist intelligence agencies doing their satanic thing against him and anyone associated with him?

I believe there is a way - I think. I am just not close enough to observe the details of their situation. And very certainly "the devil is in those details".

Currently the amount of Populists who can change the system, choose not to, and are unwilling to.

Currently they are not willing to Sacrifice what is necessary, to defend and uphold the Constitution.

That might change within a few short years, as the Political-Left silence, censor, deplatform, Burn-Loot-Murder the Political-Right to the point where they become radicalizing and employing the same tactics of the Far-Left.


However that will lead to all-out warfare and physical confrontation, including larger and larger political purges, street-shooting, and direct political assassinations. These events will then be used as excuses for the Centralized government to declare their political opposition "Domestic Terrorists", removing Americans of their Rights, and further hastening of Fascism spreading throughout Western Civilization.

If this is going to happen, and it most likely will, I'd much rather have the Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress first. Again, this is also unlikely. Biden has Dementia and Harris is obviously a Sociopath (laughs about calling Biden a Racist/Sexist in their Democratic debates, revealing she was serious about the charge, but it's a double-standard not applied to their own kind or political allies).

If more power is ceded to these cretins, lowlifes, thugs, and traitors, then again I make this point, America and the Free World are doomed.



Right now there are too many factors against Freedom and Liberty. It seems to me that US will fall, unless things reverse direction quickly, and there's no signs of such.

[Urwrongx1000]

The simplest political fact/factor is this:

The Far-Left has/had nothing to lose. These are the poor, the disenfranchised, the "victimized" (although many live with their wealth mothers), and the propagandized. They drank the cool-aid, and they are willing to Burn-Loot-Murder their way into power. We even saw this recently proved by the publicly admitted Domestic Terrorist (WWIII on this forum).

The Centrists and Political-Right (excluding the Far-Right), have lots to lose. They have assets, wealth, homes, businesses, reputation, notoriety, etc. They don't want to sacrifice these things. But, the Far-Left is depriving the Center of these things by force. This radicalizes them, and pushes them to the Far-Right. As this continues to happen, more and more will step further and further Right, until the breaking point.

I doubt we're going to make it to 2024 without an implosion.

[obsrvr524]

Mr Trump has already signaled that he intends to at least fight in the standard ways to restore the House and possibly the Senate through upcoming votes. If he can mange that the USA could be restored and be far more capable of defending itself. But without securing a media (which I think he could certainly do) and preventing fraud (which I can't see enough to know if there is a way to do) it seems unlikely that the standard way is going to work (although I agree it should be sought).

In order to gain probable success, he and others must also do something much more likely to succeed. Securing an independent media would be highest on the list and that can be done (I think). But he must also provide the other independent essentials (that is what Jesus did long ago to the extent that could be done back then - that Holy Grail thing). He must form independent financing and medical security. I am not sure he can do those or not any time soon. And does he even know that he must do those very early in the game?

With those 3 things truly secured and under an altruistic national or regional banner (not global), over time, I don't think there is anything that could stop it from reversing the last few decades of corruption. But the longer it takes, the more permanent damage will be done to those who struggled through it. It would be a Devil vs Donald Trump rematch.

It is a pretty high bar - unlikely to be taken on - but I think it is a path to overwhelming long term success regardless of who has been against it - devil or no devil.

[iambiguous]

For some, Trump is still this too: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/opin ... lence.html

[Urwrongx1000]

I agree obsrvr, if Trump can secure the religious Americans, then he maybe able to pull off retaking Congress.

But there is still widespread election fraud to check. In the next 4 years, if Republicans can organize, poll-watch, record videos, prosecute prosecute prosecute, they might be able to take down Dominion corruption and Democrat corruption. Republicans need to do private investigations and fund-raise for that, no more relying on the FBI, which is owned by the DNC.

FBI have committed treason to this country. They are disloyal and violated the US constitution by protecting voter-fraud.


Social media, is also interfering in elections with voter-fraud, another violation of the US constitution.

[obsrvr524]

Mr Trump and team could probably do all of that for your red States (even fix the social media issue) - and probably within the next 2 years. But during that time your Electoral College will probably be disbanded and without that, the US Constitution becomes meaningless. Your blue State governors will simply be dictators over the entire country - even more than they have become already. If that happens the holy route would be the only hope. I think he would have to form an immutable core.

It seems like the Roman Empire all over again - having to become the Holy Roman Empire - but maybe this time do it right.

[Mr Reasonable]

the electoral college was designed to give landowners disproportionate representation in govt. it's a throwback to the slave days. the senate is split 50/50 and the democratic side represents something like 40 million more people than the republican side.

[obsrvr524]

the electoral college was designed to give landowners disproportionate representation in govt. it's a throwback to the slave days. the senate is split 50/50 and the democratic side represents something like 40 million more people than the republican side.

That is totally false. You obviously don't understand the incentive of the Electoral College and now just promote the communist propaganda. If you weren't so Ecmanduishly simple minded and partisan I would explain it to you.

[Mr Reasonable]

you cant explain shit. you literally made a thread entitled "trump is still president". he isn't. youre nuts.

[obsrvr524]

you cant explain shit. you literally made a thread entitled "trump is still president". he isn't. youre nuts.

Just to prove my point -

I didn't make that thread.

That's right - you said something stupid - yet again.

[Peter Kropotkin]

you cant explain shit. you literally made a thread entitled "trump is still president". he isn't. youre nuts.

Just to prove my point -

I didn't make that thread.

That's right - you said something stupid - yet again.

K: I must admit that I can't tell the difference between Ur and Observ....
both hold beliefs that cannot be justified in any way, shape or form....
and both hold beliefs that have no basis in fact.. for example, neither one
has figure out that Biden is president and not IQ45.... and for both, IQ45
is a messiah who can walk on water and both apparently jack off thinking
about IQ45.... sick as that sounds.....

Kropotkin

[obsrvr524]

you cant explain shit. you literally made a thread entitled "trump is still president". he isn't. youre nuts.

Just to prove my point -

I didn't make that thread.

That's right - you said something stupid - yet again.

K: I must admit that I can't tell...

That's right - you can't tell (many things - probably due to myopic vision issues) - although you never stop professing.

[Urwrongx1000]

Obsrvr and I have different life experiences, different politics, different rationalizations, yet we saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion.

Everybody who agrees is the same person? I guess that means all the Communist Shills on this forum are all one person with a dozen sock-puppets. Carleas the puppet-master, with a dozen usernames spewing the same CCP propaganda.



How pathetic can you "thinkers" be???

At least I have somebody to laugh with, and many to laugh at.

[iambiguous]

Obsrvr and I have different life experiences, different politics, different rationalizations, yet we saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion.

Maybe.

But what I attempt to note here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196433

And here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=196492

...is that you are both hardcore moral and political objectivists.

And that you are both chickenshit when it comes to bringing those value judgments down to earth and exploring them given the following philosophical framework:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a "real me" in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively "the right thing to do", and "I" embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I'm less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

Or one of your own.

So, I challenge you both.

Let's have a discussion regarding Trump. But not whether he is still the president. He obviously, objectively is not.

Instead let's discuss whether in your opinion and in my opinion he ought to be president because his policies are more reasonable and more virtuous than Biden's.

I say they are not. But I recognize this as a frame of mind rooted in my own political prejudices rooted in the life that I have lived...and not because I can demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think this as well.

Just say the word [either one of you] and I will start the thread.

Or, as in the past, will you wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of it with some chickenshit excuse?

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: I must admit that I can't tell... [/quote]

UR or perhaps Observe? That's right - you can't tell (many things - probably due to myopic vision issues) - although you never stop professing. [/quote]

K: unlike yourself, I have on several occasions admitted my weaknesses and failures....
I have enough self confidence to admit when I am wrong....but that doesn't negate
the point that I really can't tell the difference between UR and Observ...
even the words they use are very much the same....I can usually, usually tell
who wrote something without even looking at the name but with you two, I can't....

to me, you are just clueless kids... as I once was.....with age, comes some self
knowledge.... I am even willing to bet I am older then either one's father.... any takers?

Kropotkin

[Berkley Babes]

Trump still has the best hairstyle I've ever seen on a human being.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Trump still has the best hairstyle I've ever seen on a human being.

K: IQ45 is an old bald guy doing the
the big combover to hide his baldness.

Kropotkin