Go to page:

Trumps Indictment: Historical and Future Implications II

mysteriouslady
Tyrant of Words
United States 15awards
Joined 11th Aug 2012
Forum Posts: 2340

HER : Firstly, You can't "get" someone who "knows" you're vying for their attention through lower vibrational actions ( much like a child whose behavior you accused others of) such as "baiting" ( which you fully admit ).  

Youre killing me, Smalls!  Im dying laughing here. For real. I didn't quote your whole bullshit post/thing because its not relevant. Its plainly hysterical and I totally needed a good laugh tonight, so thanks for that. <3

ajay
Fire of Insight
England 2awards
Joined 21st Mar 2023
Forum Posts: 991

Why would anyone vote for Trump who wasn't either:

a) very rich?
b) the owner of a company that did all of its business in the USA, or had a substantial shareholding in such a company?
c) stupid?


I'm stumped. 🤔

Josh
Joshua Bond
Tyrant of Words
Palestine 40awards
Joined 2nd Feb 2017
Forum Posts: 1577

ajay said:Why would anyone vote for Trump who wasn't either:

a) very rich?
b) the owner of a company that did all of its business in the USA, or had a substantial shareholding in such a company?
c) stupid?


I'm stumped. 🤔


I think people vote for Trump for the same reason people voted for Brexit - they were lied to by a 'charismatic figure', which helped them believe the lies.

Add to that the masses are generally dispossessed from the political process and want to give "The System" a bloody nose, and they justify to themselves voting for the outsider and/or crazy ideas -- under the belief "it can't get any worse". Unfortunately, it can.

Any cursory study of the rise of authoritarianism in numerous countries over the last 200 years (and more) will show this to be generally the case.

Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756


Unless you think history doesn't matter, you're doomed to repeat it. I've said it before in this thread, "[Trump supporters] want a king." One that justifies the content of their heart.  

February 11, 2024
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
FEB 11, 2024


On February 12, 1809, Nancy Hanks Lincoln gave birth to her second child, a son: Abraham.

Abraham Lincoln grew up to become the nation’s sixteenth president, leading the country from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865, a little over a month into his second term. He piloted the country through the Civil War, preserving the concept of American democracy. It was a system that had never been fully realized but that he still saw as “the last, best hope of earth” to prove that people could govern themselves.

“Four score and seven years ago,” he told an audience at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in November 1863, “our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Lincoln dated the founding of the nation from the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution, the document enslavers preferred because of that document’s protection of property. In the Declaration, the Founders wrote that they held certain “truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”

But in Lincoln’s day, fabulously wealthy enslavers had gained control over the government and had begun to argue that the Founders had gotten their worldview terribly wrong. They insisted that their system of human enslavement, which had enabled them to amass fortunes previously unimaginable, was the right one. Most men were dull drudges who must be led by their betters for their own good, southern leaders said. As South Carolina senator and enslaver James Henry Hammond put it, “I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that ‘all men are born equal.’”

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, then a candidate for the Senate, warned that arguments limiting American equality to white men were the same arguments “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.” Either people—men, in his day—were equal, or they were not. Lincoln went on, “I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it…where will it stop?”

Lincoln had thought deeply about the logic of equality. In his 1860 campaign biography, he permitted the biographer to identify six books that had influenced him. One was a book published in 1817 and wildly popular in the Midwest in the 1830s: Capt. Riley’s Narrative. The book was written by James Riley, and the full title of the book was “An Authentic Narrative of the Loss of the American Brig Commerce, Wrecked on the Western Coast of Africa, in the Month of August, 1815, With the Sufferings of Her Surviving Officers and Crew, Who Were Enslaved by the Wandering Arabs on the Great African Desart [sic], or Zahahrah.” The story was exactly what the title indicated: the tale of white men enslaved in Africa.

In the 1850s, on a fragment of paper, Lincoln figured out the logic of a world that permitted the law to sort people into different places in a hierarchy, applying the reasoning he heard around him. “If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?” Lincoln wrote. “You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”

Lincoln saw clearly that if we give up the principle of equality before the law, we have given up the whole game. We have admitted the principle that people are unequal and that some people are better than others. Once we have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, we have granted approval to the idea of rulers and ruled. At that point, all any of us can do is to hope that no one in power decides that we belong in one of the lesser groups.

In 1863, Lincoln reminded his audience at Gettysburg that the Founders had created a nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” but it was no longer clear whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” During the Civil War, the people of the United States were defending that principle against those who were trying to create a new nation based, as the Confederacy’s vice president Alexander Stephens said, “upon the great truth” that men were not, in fact, created equal, that the “great physical, philosophical, and moral truth” was that there was a “superior race.”

In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln called for Americans to understand what was at stake, and to “highly resolve…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

[Photo of Abraham Lincoln by Alexander Gardner, November 8, 1863]


Josh
Joshua Bond
Tyrant of Words
Palestine 40awards
Joined 2nd Feb 2017
Forum Posts: 1577

Really interesting post. Where are the politicians today who can think and write from first principles and get to the nub of the matter by thinking through the implications of certain viewpoints? (sigh!)

Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756

ajay said:Why would anyone vote for Trump who wasn't either:

a) very rich?
b) the owner of a company that did all of its business in the USA, or had a substantial shareholding in such a company?
c) stupid?


I'm stumped. 🤔


Don't drive yourself crazy trying to figure it out.

Josh said:

I think people vote for Trump for the same reason people voted for Brexit - they were lied to by a 'charismatic figure', which helped them believe the lies.

Add to that the masses are generally dispossessed from the political process and want to give "The System" a bloody nose, and they justify to themselves voting for the outsider and/or crazy ideas -- under the belief "it can't get any worse". Unfortunately, it can.

Any cursory study of the rise of authoritarianism in numerous countries over the last 200 years (and more) will show this to be generally the case.


They'll attempt to silence anyone who shares the truth to allow others to make up their own minds. That's what this thread is all about. Not opinion but fact.

Heather Cox Richardson is a proficient and renowned historian and college professor. And no one, to my knowledge or remembrance, has refuted one single fact she's listed. That's what I find most interesting.



Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756

Josh said:Really interesting post. Where are the politicians today who can think and write from first principles and get to the nub of the matter by thinking through the implications of certain viewpoints? (sigh!)

I would have NO DOUBT been a Republican back then working with the abolitionists!

Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756

For those who hate to read posts but prefer to watch podcasts or listening while you work, exciting news from Letters from an American.

After years of requests, we are finally adding audio versions of Letters from an American. The audio version will appear the morning after I post the letter. They will live on this Substack page, if you want to get them here, but they will also be available on the Apple Podcast Channel, and elsewhere, as we get our ducks in a row.

Like the Letters, they are free.

We’ve committed to trying this for three weeks, to see how it goes. Please let me know if you think it’s worthwhile, and do spread the word to those who might be interested.

Trying to get solid information in front of as many people as we can heading into this election.

Links here:

Where the episodes will be stored on Substack:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/.../february-10...

Apple Podcast Channel:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/letters-from-an-american/id1730358737?uo=4&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


And for the public and private support for this thread, thank you. It's my intention to share modern facts coupled with historical truths so that each person can make up their own minds.

mysteriouslady
Tyrant of Words
United States 15awards
Joined 11th Aug 2012
Forum Posts: 2340

HER: And for the public and private support for this thread, thank you. It's my intention to share modern facts coupled with historical truths so that each person can make up their own minds.

ME: Thats totally 100% false. You are here to bully those that do not agree with your thick headed ways of thinking. Try again....

And for us :stupid: folks, well see how this all plays out with your idiots in charge now and his disgusting regime. All they want is communism. Take a look at our border and thats all I have to say. These people will be the ones that come to kill you, sent by those you want in office. Thats stupid.

Billy_Snagg
Rist Jizzmann
Tyrant of Words
United Kingdom 35awards
Joined 14th Apr 2018
Forum Posts: 229

mysteriouslady said:Take a look at our border and thats all I have to say. These people will be the ones that come to kill you, sent by those you want in office. Thats stupid.In that case, mysteriouslady, I am very much relying on you to save me! You will save me, won't you?

Carpe_Noctem
Tyrant of Words
Spain 8awards
Joined 3rd Mar 2013
Forum Posts: 2906

mysteriouslady said:HER: And for the public and private support for this thread, thank you. It's my intention to share modern facts coupled with historical truths so that each person can make up their own minds.

ME: Thats totally 100% false. You are here to bully those that do not agree with your thick headed ways of thinking. Try again....

And for us :stupid: folks, well see how this all plays out with your idiots in charge now and his disgusting regime. All they want is communism. Take a look at our border and thats all I have to say. These people will be the ones that come to kill you, sent by those you want in office. Thats stupid.


Import the 3rd world become the 3rd world

Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756

February 12, 2024
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
FEB 12, 2024


Today’s big story continues to be Trump’s statement that he “would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) if those countries are, in his words, “delinquent.” Both Democrats and Republicans have stood firm behind NATO since Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president in 1952 to put down the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, and won.

National security specialist Tom Nichols of The Atlantic expressed starkly just what this means: “The leader of one of America’s two major political parties has just signaled to the Kremlin that if elected, he would not only refuse to defend Europe, but he would gladly support Vladimir Putin during World War III and even encourage him to do as he pleases to America’s allies.” Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark called Trump’s comments “treasonous.”

To be clear, Trump’s beef with NATO has nothing to do with money. Trump has always misrepresented NATO as a sort of protection racket, but as Nick Paton Walsh of CNN put it today: “NATO is not an alliance based on dues: it is the largest military bloc in history, formed to face down the Soviet threat, based on the collective defense that an attack on one is an attack on all—a principle enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty.”

On April 4, 1949, the United States and eleven other nations in North America and Europe came together to sign the original NATO declaration. It established a military alliance that guaranteed collective security because all of the member states agreed to defend each other against an attack by a third party. At the time, their main concern was resisting Soviet aggression, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin, NATO resisted Russian aggression instead.

Article 5 of the treaty requires every nation to come to the aid of any one of them if it is attacked militarily. That article has been invoked only once: after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, after which NATO-led troops went to Afghanistan.

In 2006, NATO members agreed to commit at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP, a measure of national production) to their own defense spending in order to make sure that NATO remained ready for combat. The economic crash of 2007–2008 meant a number of governments did not meet this commitment, and in 2014, allies pledged to do so. Although most still do not invest 2% of their GDP in their militaries, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 motivated countries to speed up that investment.

On the day NATO went into effect, President Harry S. Truman said, “If there is anything inevitable in the future, it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and for peace.” In the years since 1949, his observation seems to have proven correct. NATO now has 31 member nations.

Crucially, NATO acts not only as a response to attack, but also as a deterrent, and its strength has always been backstopped by the military strength of the U.S., including its nuclear weapons. Trump has repeatedly attacked NATO and said he would take the U.S. out of it in a second term, alarming Congress enough that last year it put into the National Defense Authorization Act a measure prohibiting any president from leaving NATO without the approval of two thirds of the Senate or a congressional law.

But as Russia specialist Anne Applebaum noted in The Atlantic last month, even though Trump might have trouble actually tossing out a long-standing treaty that has safeguarded national security for 75 years, the realization that the U.S. is abandoning its commitment to collective defense would make the treaty itself worthless. Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholtz called the attack on NATO’s mutual defense guarantee “irresponsible and dangerous,” and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines our security.”

Applebaum noted on social media that “Trump's rant…will persuade Russia to keep fighting in Ukraine and, in time, to attack a NATO country too.” She urged people not to “let [Florida senator Marco] Rubio, [South Carolina senator Lindsey] Graham or anyone try to downplay or alter the meaning of what Trump did: He invited Russia to invade NATO. It was not a joke and it will certainly not be understood that way in Moscow.”

She wrote last month that the loss of the U.S. as an ally would force European countries to “cozy up to Russia,” with its authoritarian system, while Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) suggested that many Asian countries would turn to China as a matter of self-preservation. Countries already attacking democracy “would have a compelling new argument in favor of autocratic methods and tactics.” Trade agreements would wither, and the U.S. economy would falter and shrink.

Former governor of South Carolina and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, whose husband is in the military and is currently deployed overseas, noted: “He just put every military member at risk and every one of our allies at risk just by saying something at a rally.” Conservative political commentator and former Bulwark editor in chief Charlie Sykes noted that Trump is “signaling weakness,… appeasement,…  surrender…. One of the consistent things about Donald Trump has been his willingness to bow his knee to Vladimir Putin. To ask for favors from Vladimir Putin…. This comes amid his campaign to basically kneecap the aid to Ukraine right now. People ought to take this very, very seriously because it feels as if we are sleepwalking into a global catastrophe…. ”

President Joe Biden asked Congress to pass a supplemental national security bill back in October of last year to provide additional funding for Ukraine and Israel, as well as for the Indo-Pacific. MAGA Republicans insisted they would not pass such a measure unless it contained border security protections, but when Senate negotiators actually produced such protections earlier this month, Trump opposed the measure and Republicans promptly killed it.

There remains a bipartisan majority in favor of aid to Ukraine, and the Senate appears on the verge of passing a $95 billion funding package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. In part, this appears to be an attempt by Republican senators to demonstrate their independence from Trump, who has made his opposition to the measure clear and, according to Katherine Tulluy-McManus and Ursula Perano of Politico, spent the weekend telling senators not to pass it. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, previously a Ukraine supporter, tonight released a statement saying he will vote no on the measure.

Andrew Desiderio of Punchbowl News recorded how Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) weighed in on the issue during debate today: “This is not a stalemate. This guy [Putin] is on life support… He will not survive if NATO gets stronger.” If the bill does not pass, Tillis said, “You will see the alliance that is supporting Ukraine crumble.” For his part, Tillis wanted no part of that future: “I am not going to be on that page in history.”

If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to the House, where MAGA Republicans who oppose Ukraine funding have so far managed to keep the measure from being taken up. Although it appears likely there is a majority in favor of the bill, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tonight preemptively rejected the measure, saying that it is nonstarter because it does not address border security.  

cont below

Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756

cont from above

Tonight, Trump signaled his complete takeover of the Republican Party. He released a statement confirming that, having pressured Ronna McDaniel to resign as head of the Republican National Committee, he is backing as co-chairs fervent loyalists Michael Whatley, who loudly supported Trump’s claims of fraud after the 2020 presidential election, and his own daughter-in-law Lara Trump, wife of Trump’s second son, Eric. Lara has never held a leadership position in the party. Trump also wants senior advisor to the Trump campaign Chris LaCivita to become the chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee.

This evening, Trump’s lawyers took the question of whether he is immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election to the Supreme Court. Trump has asked the court to stay last week’s ruling of the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals that he is not immune. A stay would delay the case even further than the two months it already has been delayed by his litigation of the immunity issue. Trump’s approach has always been to stall the cases against him for as long as possible. If the justices deny his request, the case will go back to the trial court and Trump could stand trial.



Notes: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-12-2024

Josh
Joshua Bond
Tyrant of Words
Palestine 40awards
Joined 2nd Feb 2017
Forum Posts: 1577

I'm wondering what impact, if any, Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin has had (or might still have) on America's view on Russia as the continuing great threat.
Was Carlson manipulated by Putin to present a more reasonable stance with Russia not being such a big threat after all? Yet America laid the seeds of the Ukraine war by openly asking Ukraine to join NATO, despite much opposition from high-up Americans who said this was a dangerous provocation, (think Cuba, 1962).

Ahavati
Tyrant of Words
United States 116awards
Joined 11th Apr 2015
Forum Posts: 13756

Josh said:I'm wondering what impact, if any, Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin has had (or might still have) on America's view on Russia as the continuing great threat.
Was Carlson manipulated by Putin to present a more reasonable stance with Russia not being such a big threat after all? Yet America laid the seeds of the Ukraine war by openly asking Ukraine to join NATO, despite much opposition from high-up Americans who said this was a dangerous provocation, (think Cuba, 1962).


HISTORY is vital to understanding the present.

Ukraine's interest in joining NATO goes back, but all I can really remember about the situation with Ukraine ( and Georgia, if I'm not mistaken ) was how angry I was when NATO voted neither "yay" or "nay" ( at least tell them yes or no! ) but promised eventual membership for both at a summit held in Turkey (?). This was back in the late 80's ( if I'm not mistaken ) during Republican George W Bush's presidency.

Under Obama's administration it wasn't just the U.S. but Italy, France, and other European countries lobbying for Ukraine's membership. While I was aware that the U.S. and others lobbied ( unsuccessfully ) and continues to lobby for Ukraine's request for NATO membership, I wasn't aware it initially provoked them into requesting to join.

That doesn't mean they didn't. They very well may have. Or maybe Ukraine felt threatened by Russia and felt the need for protection to ensure its future. None of us are truly privy to what goes on privately behind closed doors - not in the heads or hearts of others.  

Russia's excuse for war and the killing of thousands ( its own countrymen  included ) should be condemned. Do you feel Russia has the right to prevent by interception its neighboring countries in their pursuit of NATO membership?

Say, just hypothetically, that Portugal was once part of Spain and wasn't a member of NATO, but wanted to join—would Spain ( hypothetically not a member of NATO ) have the right to invade them and attempt to incorporate their country as its own? Would any country? Does any country have the right to do that, in your opinion.

[ sidenote: Actually, I believe Portugal joined NATO decades before Spain? I wonder why? Maybe they needed the security, being a small country up against a large. ]

Because mine is no.

As an aside, are there any authoritarian countries in NATO? I'll google that.

As far as Tucker Carlson, Russia is invading a neighboring country. Yet we're supposed to believe that Russia isn't a threat? Talk about hypocrisy. "Believe as I say, not as I do?"

Maybe the U.S. and the other European countries aren't blameless in this. But neither is Russia's decision to invade. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Go to page:
Go to: