Trump Administration 2.0 ~ #3

via Mediaite and MSNBC

CNBC’s Steve Liesman Says Trump Is ‘Steering the Titanic Towards the Iceberg’

CNBC’s Steve Liesman said President Donald Trump’s tariffs are a self-inflicted catastrophe.

>1 Molly3028: Actually, if the Titanic had hit the iceberg head on, it would have survived. "Hard to starboard" did it in.

Socialist Youtube personality Vaush has dubbed the coming Monday (and particularly the likely deepening rash in world markets) "Orange Monday." Sounds good to me. https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/1js82vq/orange_monday_brilliant/

>2 davidgn:

Because of the Titanic movies which have been produced over the years, most people on the planet can relate to the seriousness of the message Steve was conveying to people here and around the globe.

>4 Molly3028: Yes, I'm aware. My point is that there is a chance that Trump steering straight for the iceberg might also, in this case, be the best outcome. The more people are rallied the faster against him by his utter outrageousness and by the direct and sharp economic pain he causes, the shorter time he is likely to remain in power. It aligns with something I said elsewhere. But of course, there is also a good chance that along whatever path things ultimately unfold, we will wind up in a full-blown Third World War.

Not sure best place to stick this one, but this is the best simple explanation of the impact of tariffs to share with, say, idiot relatives that I've seen. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kmMwkTpM35I

Roughly $11.1 trillion has been wiped away from the U.S. stock market since Jan. 17, the Friday before President Donald Trump took the oath of office and began his second term, according to data from Dow Jones Market Data.

***
MTG moved hundreds of thousands of bucks out of the stock market and into T-bills in March!!!

>6 davidgn: "Against Ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain"

>6 davidgn: This is something I saw all the time working in a supermarket. Many things would say "Made in the USA of Global components". Until such time as all those components can actually be produced in the USA prices for those things are going to go up.

>9 rastaphrog: Even if all the components are US made, prices will go up with high tariffs because domestic producers have little competition and can just set the prices slightly below the tariffed imports. Plus, producing everything in the US is expensive in and of itself. Add to that low unemployment and eagerness to close the borders, and it is unclear who should be working in those factories even if they manage to force corporations to move home (which would take years, if not decades). All in all, it is complete and utter bollocks that will lead to serious recession worldwide. I wish those responsible to be criminally charged once that happens. Perhaps then we will finally have a break from those down to human stupidity and greed.

>10 SandraArdnas: OK, why shouldn't we expect that trashing the world's largest economy won't , or rather can't, lead to a serious recession worldwide?

>11 modalursine: She said the opposite.

>12 davidgn: D'oh! Serves me right for trying to read without my glasses (or my brains turned on). She didn't say it's "bollocks that trashing the US can trash the world", it's making policy based on economic bollocks that got us here in the first place.

My bad, I stand totally corrected.

>3 davidgn: Yep, we're gonna hit circuit breakers today. Futures tipping 5% down at open.
Someone said we're about to experience what would have happened to Britain if Liz Truss had been elected to a 4-year term.
Still on Team Cabbage. Might need some formaldehyde, though.

>14 davidgn: But nothing that happens in Brexit-country would have these effects on the global markets. (I'm not even sure that LIz Truss would be able to wreck this amount of havoc on Brexit-country).

Unfortunately, Peter Navarro is tRump's present-day Roy Cohn.

There is a resemblance to Brexit in that its what the sports people would call an "own goal" that was embraced enthusiatically by enough voters but didn't turn out to be the glorious triumph they were hoping for.

Trump, of course, being Trump will no doubt double and tripple down on the bonkers concept of high tariffs.

That will lead to ever increasing public dissatisfaction, and maybe some restlesness among the enablers.

At some point, barring unforseen events, such as the evolution of chordates in the congressional GOP gene pool, our lad will have had enough with ungratefull wretches who "hate America" and treat him "So badly", that he'll just have to call out the military to put down the "radical left wing Geroge Soros funded rioters" of his imagination.

He'll either complete his coup effectively before the actual midterm elections, or he'll get hit with a "Blue Tsunami", after which. the job of repairing his damage will be a heroic and painful undertaking.

Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent says all those fired Federal workers can just get jobs in all those yet to be built factories the tariffs will cause US industry to need.

https://www.rawstory.com/scott-bessent-2671686472/

But wait! I gets better!

Veteran investigative reporter Phil Williams pointed to another Bessent comment in which he "argued that tariffs will eventually lead to increased income tax collections 'from all the new jobs,' then admits much of the new manufacturing will be done by AI/robotics."

Ahhhhh Scott? If those "new jobs" were being filled by all the people being fired, how does that "increase" tax collections?

Tariffs are stupid.....but they could work at least to some degree if you had a country that was a manufacturing and industrial powerhouse which the United States was like 40,50, 60 years ago. Yeah we have a lot of billionaires. They're mostly bankers and hedge fund operators (casino players).....and the ones who aren't don't produce anything really that the rest of the world could go without and that includes Musk, Bezos and Gates.

Still Donald and his cronies are deluded that our economy is the biggest, baddest and best. He and they believe in all kinds of American mythology. What we really have that make us dangerous is not an economy but a military industrial complex that makes bombs and warplanes but also what goes into it is the most corruptible of governmental expenditures and it depends on tax money. It seems they think that the tariffs are going to help with that. If the lights ever go out at Boeing, Raytheon and McDonnell Douglas there's going to be a lot of pain for sure but I'm going to have a hard time not looking at it as a silver lining to the most preposterous economic decision that an American POTUS has ever made.

Donald and team seem to think that other nations are going to come to him on theirs knees. I really don't think so. I would be shocked and disappointed if the BRICS countries and the European Union don't call his bluff. It looks like Canada and Mexico are finding other customers already and for the Chinese tariffs should be a double edged sword. They have the rest of the world as a market place to sell their goods and with their own tariffs towards American goods they won't even have to go through the nonsense of the quid pro quo trade policies they've had with us turning our own sometimes substandard products into something so expensive no one in their market will want to buy it pretty much shutting down their country to our goods and we won't have other customers or markets to fall back on as they will.

So here we go burning bridges and turning allies into adversaries and Donald plays golf after he's set our economy on fire. I suspect when this disaster concludes the US dollar as go to world currency will be no longer.

Anyway on past trade deals---Nafta etc. were disasters but the American work force of 1994 are either dead, disabled or retired now. Most of American manufacturing disappeared and the economy moved in another direction leaving a lot of casualties behind. To rebuild manufacturing and industry would take lots of government investment and a lot of planning and years of hard work just to get off the ground. It would need the help of our billionaire class.....a class of people who've gotten rich at the casino of financialized debt. and for the most part aren't hard working and don't know shit point fuck about building a manufacturing concern into anything and the other thing you would need to know is who you're customers are going to be. It's like Trump's knuckleheads think that all that needs done is to return to abandoned and derelict old factories and turn on the electric and you're back in business.

>19 lriley: I suspect when this disaster concludes the US dollar as go to world currency will be no longer.

That's a pretty safe bet. Looks like Trump has Made China Great Again, doesn't it?

The Silence of the Dems (The Progressive Magazine)

As bombs fall and civilians die in Yemen and Gaza, the party’s leaders sit on their hands. On March 15, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz informed fellow Trump Administration officials through their now-infamous Signal chat that a U.S. missile attack had resulted in the collapse of an apartment building filled with Yemeni civilians. Vice President J.D. Vance replied, “Excellent.” Democrats on Capitol Hill have since expressed outrage—not at the deaths of innocent civilians, or at the United States’ unprovoked attack on a sovereign country, but at the fact that the conversation was not more carefully shielded from the public... Those same Democratic leaders have expressed little opposition to President Donald Trump’s support of Israel’s ongoing occupation forces in Lebanon, which violate the terms of the cease-fire agreement made between Israel and Lebanon last fall. Nor have the Democrats objected to Trump’s support for Israel’s violation of its 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria, or his defense of the ongoing large-scale seizure of Palestinian lands and destruction of villages in the occupied West Bank...

>21 John5918: and "Boom! Speaking of Democrats" ... that's not all they've been silent on. Not that there aren't individual Democrats who are speaking up, but as an organized party...crickets on at least the following:
1. A most coherent and vigorous program for opposing the Trump2.0 agenda legally came from, of all people, the "conservative" , "Tough on crime", originalist, paleo fossil Judge Luttig who urged the various law firms to hang together in mutal support of each other to file lawsuits against the regime and for the judiciary to step up to the plate by acting quickly and vigorously to uphold the constitution. Did the Dems (the party apparatchicks) pick up on that and amplify it? In a pigs eye!
2. So far two, count 'em, two, "blue state" AGs have set up websites where state residents can document how the Social Security system is mooning them. Again, where is the Party (qua party, not individuals or the "left" rump) pushing each and every Democratic AG to do ditto?

Supremes captured, big Law capitulating, Universities capitulating, DNCC "crickets", some individual Unions are doing some push back but there's not exactly a thunder of union solidarity with threats of strikes or sit-ins.

We're beginning to see some opposition in the form of Anti Musk demos and now the "Hands Off" demos.

Erica Chenoweth writes that when the number of non violent protestors gets to the 3.5 % of the poplation mark, that success becomes very likely. The US populatin is roughly 347 million, so let's see....by some quick higher arithmentic that comes to about 12 million?

I guess that could happen, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

>22 modalursine: I want to be cautious about that 3.5% number. From my understanding the claim is not that 3.5% is sufficient to ensure success, it's that 3.5% is necessary. I haven't read Chenoweth's research deeply enough to know how that claim is grounded, but most articles I've seen cite the claim that no nonviolent movement engaging 3.5% of the population has failed to achieve its aims. Stipulating that, I note that it does not actually support the claim, it just says that if we sort successful nonviolent campaigns by percentage of engagement, we get 3.5% as the lower bound.

I'm happy to use 3.5% engagement as a useful benchmark, but I think it's important to let it be neither an obstacle to action ("we're waiting for 3.5%") or a trigger for rash action ("we have 3.5%, so we're sure to win!"). It's a useful target, but organizers can neither be cowed by being below that number nor should they be satisfied with hitting it.

I would also point out that the best way to get people involved in nonviolent direct action is to model the behavior, by performing nonviolent direct action. I would love to see (and should probably find time to organize) trainings and information sessions on nonviolence before every rally and protest that we have. The more people who come to protests understanding what nonviolence is and with some idea of what constitutes nonviolence, the stronger and more effective we are.

Pathetic.

>24 LolaWalser: Anything in particular, or just "pathetic" in general?

>25 kiparsky: Not sure what Lola was referring it, but I would concur if its the Democrats being clueless and largely silent opposition while complete lawlessness is evident on so many fronts the greatest problem is t pick the ones to focus on for greatest effect.

>23 kiparsky: Well, it's sort of a good news/bad news story. The number (3.5%) has no theoretical basis; it's just an observation of hers that in her data set, no movement that had acheived that number had failed. As it turns out, there are a few counterexamples where participation was over the "magic" number, but still didn't win. She later (I think) clarified that the 3.5% number wasn't a guarantee, either way, simply that with that many participants one's chances were pretty good.
On the other hand, she compared violent to non violent movements and found (very rough, this is from memory and it was some while ago that I first read her book) and found that violent movements win 25 or 30 % of the time, but non violient ones win a bit more than 50% (I seem to rememer 53% as her number but I'm not claiming to be reliable on that score). Thne point, I think, was to emphasize that not only is non-violence the "high road" so to speak morally, it actually is the more effective tactic empirically speaking.

For me, the take away point is to put a number on what a mass movement with non hallucinatory chances of success consists of. IT's not that 1 person less than 12Million means we're doomed or that 12Million and one would make us invincible, it's just that we can be fairly sure than if a mocement has say 5 or 10 million, the chances are slim (well, slimmer than at 12 million for the US), but on the other hand, you don't have to turn out 50 million or be doomed.

Finally, since all that is just empirical, it's possible that current conditions in the US are such that none of the numbers gathered from elsewhere and elsewhen apply with any regularity.

Fair enough. It's good to have a target. But of course, the way to get to the target of 3.5% of population participating in nonviolent direct action is to have lots of nonviolent direct actions - ideally, successful or at least inspiring ones.

I recommend Thomas Ricks' recent book on the civil rights movement, in which he analyzes that movement as a military campaign. Quite a solid piece of work, I thought.

Social Security Administration ‘will be using X to communicate’ moving forward

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5245029-social-security-administrati...

The Social Security Administration (SSA) unveiled Thursday that it would use the social platform X to make announcements going forward, instead of traditional press releases or memos typically posted to the agency’s website.

“The agency will be using X to communicate to the press and the public — formerly known as Twitter,” Linda Kerr-Davis, SSA Midwest-West regional commissioner told employees in a call Thursday, according to Federal News Network (FNN).

Fact check: Trump makes false claims about China, Japan and the EU at Cabinet meeting (CNN)

President Donald Trump made a series of false claims in televised remarks Thursday at a meeting of his Cabinet, including inaccurate assertions about US relations with China, Japan and the European Union...

The problem, of course, is that many of Trump's supporters and enablers don't seem to care about facts.

>27 modalursine: The numbers are good to know, but I believe the conclusion to not be fully thought out. Movements do not exist in a vacuum, and it is rare for only a single movement to be advocating for change. It also assumes the only objective of a violent movement is to succeed on their own merits, and never to support a nonviolent movement by showing the alternative.

The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. is a good example of this. Success is often attributed to the nonviolent (often anti-violent) movements such as MLK, and credit is not given to the influence of the Black Panthers, who acted as the proverbial stick to the carrot provided by MLK.

When looking at events (historical or otherwise) it is important to see the full context and complexity, and recognise that sometimes a combination of factors together is important. No-one tries to judge if someone's left foot or right foot is better at winning races for a good reason.

Note: I do not advocate for or against any action or type of action, just for analysis to be made with context.

>32 Amuhn: But also keep in mind that the Civil Rights Movement (cf. This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed ) was not up against the full might of the U.S. national security state.

There's yet another dimension that I'm not sure Chenoweth addresses; but if there's a violent movement with the same aims, the non violent party can make the pitch "You should deal with us now, and make the concessions we're asking for, because if you don't there are crazies right behind us who will be happy to trash the place and we won't have the credibility to oppose them"

I have no idea what role the calculation (on the part of the ruling authorities) that the non violent movement would either turn to violence or be surplanted by another more violent movement has played historically in the case of non violent movements which have in fact succeeded.

On the third hand, I don't see the organizational heft, the strategic moxie, nor the intensity of committment to reversing the autogolpe that we have seen in the Civil Rights movement of the '60s.

Maybe it's too early in the cycle, so let's all just hang in there!

Shrug

Sean Donahue is nominated as the top lawyer at the EPA. Senator Whitehouse reviews his qualifications:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIpWXOhRA9J/?igsh=YzVtZ3Q5cTh4cm8z

Howard French ‪@hofrench.bsky.social‬ | April 21, 2025 at 9:14 PM {bsky.app}
Author, most recently of Born in Blackness: Africa, Africans, and the Making of the Modern World, journalist, professor, columnist at Foreign Policy. ...

WSJ: No confidence. Worst April since the Great Depression.
{Graph: gold, dollar S&P since 2 April 2025) https://bsky.app/profile/hofrench.bsky.social/post/3lneiv63rys2l
--------------------------------------------

Dow Headed for Worst April Since 1932 as Investors Send ‘No Confidence’ Signal
Hannah Erin Lang | April 21, 2025

Few think administration’s negotiations with trade partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain

{Paywall}
https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/dow-jones-stocks-worst-april-1932-74fe82ac
_______________________________

Donald Trump's unpredictable tariff policies have unsettled the venture capital world, further darkening an already gloomy outlook for IPOs {Start-ups}
Lauren Goode | 21 April 2025

{Paywall after a few articles}
https://www.wired.com/story/tariffs-startups-ipo-investments/

Color me clueless, but could someone explain in small words so my little 1/4 watt brain can understand, how it comes to pass that the rich and powerfull, who mostly get their way in government policy by means fair and foul suddenly find themselves screwed blued and tatoo-ed (I believet that's the proper term of art?) by a government that seems intent on tanking the econony and shorting the dollar, to the benefit of none but a small but merry band of ultra billionaire crackpots?

Meanwhile, Trump imposes tariffs on other countries for not buying food products from the US ...

USDA withdraws proposal to reduce Salmonella in poultry
Chris Dall | April 25, 2025

... The withdrawal of the Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products, which was proposed by the Biden administration in August 2024, was posted today in the Federal Register by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

The rule would have defined raw chicken and turkey products containing certain levels of Salmonella (higher than 10 colony forming units per gram) or any detectable amount of the most highly virulent Salmonella serotypes as adulterated and prevented them from being sold. It also would have created a routine sampling and verification program to identify adulterated products and required poultry slaughterhouses to develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to prevent contamination by Salmonella and other enteric pathogens.

Salmonella is one of the leading causes of foodborne illness, with an estimated 1.35 million infections, 26,200 hospitalizations, and 420 deaths annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FSIS estimates more than 167,000 Salmonella infections annually are linked to chicken and turkey products ...

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/foodborne-disease/usda-withdraws-proposal-reduce-salm...

Huge profit for Trump; "the most brazenly corrupt thing a President has ever done"

How Trump team turned a dinner invite into a crypto boon worth millions
Drew Harwell | 24 April 2025

Nearly two dozen crypto wallets acquired more than 100,000 $TRUMP meme coins, worth roughly $100 million, after the team said top buyers could join the president for dinner.

GIFT ( wapo.st/4iAatO1 )
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/04/24/trump-trump-memecoin-cryto/

Americans, including Republicans, losing faith in Trump, new polls reveal (Guardian)

Americans, including some Republicans, are losing faith in Donald Trump across a range of key issues, according to polling released this week. One survey found a majority describing the president’s second stint in the White House so far as “scary”. Along with poor ratings on the economy and Trump’s immigration policy, a survey released on Saturday found that only 24% of Americans believe Trump has focussed on the right priorities as president. That poll comes as Trump’s popularity is historically low for a leader this early in a term. More than half of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance as president, and majorities oppose his tariff policies and slashing of the federal workforce... More than half of voters said Trump is “exceeding the powers available to him”, and 59% of respondents said the president’s second term has been “scary”...

>42 johnny1991: The US must be the only democracy, to the extent that you still count as one, that has no institute of vote of no confidence. Still, he could be impeached if enough Republicans grow a spine and a brain. It's not as if there's a dearth of crimes to call upon. He's even more lawless this time around since the Supreme Court granted him immunity for any and all while incumbent.

>44 johnny1991:

While Trump won a clear victory, it is pure hyperbole to call it a landslide. As far as I can see he won just under 50% of the popular vote while Harris got just over 48%. That's a fairly narrow margin, hardly a landslide.

>44 johnny1991: What landslide? Sorry, but a statistical tie is not a landslide. You keep making the same mistake Trump makes, you assume the rest of the world is as dumb as you are, and falls for the stupid shit that you fall for.

>44 johnny1991: I have to wonder if you even know what landslide means. But that is beside the point. You have no institute to remove the President from power before the end of the term just because his/her policies are highly unpopular and the people want new elections.

BTW, this isn't a place where typical Trumpet trolling will get you anywhere. Well-read and well-educated people are not easily trolled. But to troll you back, good luck keeping the orange turd in office and out of prison.

>48 SandraArdnas:

I do have to laugh. Did you know that the Democrat party used to be the party of the 'uneducated' and now it is entirely of the 'educated' or too ill to sign your own ballot? Makes one wonder if education does indeed equal indoctrinated? Which also begs the question, why does everyone in D.C. vote for the same party?

>49 TheToadRevoltof84: I do have to laugh that a long-term member needs reminding this is an international community. Not to mention that my comments indicated loud and clear I'm from the 'rest of the world' on their own.

You are apparently not of the educated kind I was thinking of when implying LT membership is well-read and well-educated.

>47 johnny1991: It's a landslide, or else what? You're going to hold your breath until you turn blue?

The word "pathetic" comes to mind again. Don't know what it is about you, but it's kind of sad to see you trying so hard and with such little effect.

>50 SandraArdnas:

Oh so haughty thou educated hath become and now you too? I do not need to bother you and your superiority. If you ever need your shoes polished, please do mail them. Or I can pick tomatoes with your immigrant slaves.

If the polls are even approximately correct, the Trump administration's policies as of today are unpopular by a margin far exceeding the margin of victory.

Among the many things in this life that puzzle me, some of the more befuddling are:
1. In the current epoch, what "the people" want (as determined by polls and focus groups) and what US policy actually is are hardly ever aligned. Mostly it's the ecomomic and political elite, the "donor claass", that call the shots. How could the "donor class" be happy with the destruction of the US economy and international standing?
2. Despite being deeply underwater on so many crucial issues, the administration's approval is still in the 30 and 40 % range. That's a definite minority, but it's a hefty one and arguably represents enough popular support to keep an otherwise unpopular dictator in his seat. How popular was "Stalin" ?
3. How is a law abiding majority going to oust a lawless minority? I'm sure it can be and has been done, but how that works, or would work right here in River City is above my pay grade for the moment.

PS, If "Stalin" is a bridge to far, how popular is the Islamic Regime with the ordinary Persian (no pun) ?

>55 johnny1991: If you want to use your special version of English where all the words mean what you want them to mean, could you give us a glossary?

I mean, if you want to say that a statistical tie is a "landslide", fine, but this is going to be a lot easier if you just include some hints. Maybe your special words that mean what you want them to mean could be marked with a star, and you could give us a definition at the bottom? Like this:

"Trump won by a landslide*"

* landslide: a marginal victory won by the candidate that I preferred

landslide - yes, if you are talking about land area but if you are talking about percent difference in votes polled then what you are talking about is as noted by >57 kiparsky: - * landslide: a marginal victory won by the candidate that I preferred

Johnson vs Goldwater: 61%: 38%
Nixon vs McGovern : 60%: 37.5%
Reagan vs Mondale: 58% : 40.6%
Rooseveldt vs Landon: 60%: 36.5%

Trump vs Harris: 49.9%: 48.3

Polls at the time were mixed. Nate Silver gave Harris ~50% chance of winning the swing states, other polls gave Trump 54% chance of ditto

Polls said it would be "close" meaning a few percentage points and lo and behold, it was close, i.e. less than 2 percentage points (1.6% if you want to be technical)

Whatever you want to call it, landslide or squeaker, the numbers are the numbers, and the polls. for Trump vs Harris were not in fact far off.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

>52 TheToadRevoltof84: More nonsense pretending to be smart sarcasm?

>55 johnny1991: No it's not. Adopting your cult leaders maxim that you just need to pretend to be self-confident and that will make your claims both convincing and true only works among your cult. Landslide victory would mean he has overwhelming popular support. He barely passed 50 percent. Cry harder Trumpet.

>62 johnny1991: Unless he starts WWIII, which isn't impossible, the orange turd has little effect outside the madhouse country that elected someone with dozens of felony convictions, the IQ of a fruit fly and the Goebels sense of public responsibility. Well, he's on course to sink us all into recession, not just the US, but otherwise, the turd is not in a position to drain even my toilet.

Now, I think you had more than enough attention and you're better left to stew in your ardent desire to spread the turd gospel.

>62 johnny1991: That's actually true. As you can see from the polls, the landslide response to his massive ineptitude - sorry, "draining the swamp", as you put it* - is already building. Turns out people don't like it when you tank the market and wipe out their retirement savings. Who knew?

*apparently for >62 johnny1991:, "draining the swamp" means blowing up the economy, destroying our military and infrastructure, and putting massive numbers of Americans out of work. And apparently we have to let them use their special version of English, otherwise they whine endlessly, so I'll just translate as we go.

Was it Marcus Aurelius, who advised "Nolite alere trollios" ?

>65 modalursine: Technically, I think this is less of a troll and more of an idiot.

>66 kiparsky: We homo sapiens, despite the grandiose name we give ourselves, are subject to an appaling number of congnitive deficits and logical falacies; among which is the tendency to convince ourselves that those who disagree with us on consequential matters must either be rogues or fools (or even more horrifying, both at once).

Now sometimes, not without effort mind you, I can manage to understand how certain people's opinions which seem either stupid or evil to me at first glance can be plausible or at least not totally stupid and not totally devil inspired when seen from a given context or life experience.

But I struggle mightily to rescue myself from Rogue and Fool theory (or as my cousin Amy puts it "People are stupd") when confronted with MAGA marks who imagine themselves among the enlightened or at perhaps even to be one of the cons.

I console myself with the ancient wisdom: "Against ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain. "

>62 johnny1991: Instead of whining and crying, it would be advisable for yall to become productive people and join this train.

There's a distinct correlation between productive states and voting blue, and unproductive states and voting red. Trump could tell Alabama that it's time it starts pulling its weight and West Virginia it's time to stop whining about nobody wanting coal, but nope, Trump is going to throw shade at California.

>67 modalursine: Certainly it would be a fallacy to assume that those who disagree with me are either stupid or evil. We see that fallacy demonstrated every day. However, if someone repeatedly insists that they are a fool, then I tend to believe them. For example, if someone consistently ignores reality, or insists that things which are demonstrably not so are indeed so, or hopes that others will ignore their repeated failures of inference, then I have no problem calling that person an idiot.

Calling them a troll, on the other hand, suggests that they are insincere in their idiocy, that they are intentionally making inflammatory statements in order to elicit a response. I believe that >62 johnny1991: is sincere, and an idiot.

I don't call them evil, since I'm not sure what that would mean, but I will note that they seem to sincerely hold beliefs which if acted on tend to cause great harm, which some people might see as evil.

Bearing in mind that LibraryThing is a book site for members to catalogue their books, I would be interested to see johnny1991's library. After all, they've been a member for ten whole days now, so they've had time to catalogue at least a couple of books.

>53 modalursine:

How popular was "Stalin" ?

This is a complete digression (I hope), but Stalin seems to have been very popular with the contemporary masses.* Before we go down the racist route of explaining that by the Russians' essential criminality/monstrosity/etc., you should recognise that your (USian; the West's) own propaganda constructed "Stalin" as an unmitigated monster, twin to Hitler. But this was not at all how the average Soviet citizen viewed him. So you can't get to a real answer to your question from the assumption of "master criminal" or whathaveyou.

However, this would require also to recognise other bits of propagandistic maneuvering, like the far greater emphasis on the staged trials and political persecutions within the anti-Stalinist/communist discourse than, again, within the life of ordinary citizens. It would also require to know what a shocking portion of the West seems to ignore: that the WWII was won by the Soviets.

*There was definitely an orchestrated, imposed-from-on-high personality cult around him, but the feelings were nonetheless real.

>69 kiparsky: "The heart of another is a dark forest".

It's really a pretty old question, but I like the more recent formulatiuon by Prof Peter (he of the "Peter Principle").

He calls it "Innocente's Problem" after his (fictional, of course) graduate student, Cesare Innocente who asks "Prof Peter: Are the people who run things, the shakers and makers, are they very smart people who are ...how you Amercians say... "putting us on", or are they idiots who mean it" ?

Now it's probably a great failure of imagination on my part, or maybe just lack of exposure to the relevant sub-cultures of our fair land, but I find it much easier to conceive of people who are petty, cruel, vindictive, vengeful, villanous, venemous, and violence prone than to imagine that someone could be so ill informed, bordering or worse than bordering on the delusional as to sincerely mistake just who and what Agent Orange is.

Still, Innocente's problem remains..who knows what's going on in some nut's nut ?

In the end, something that Mrs P insists on, it doesn't much matter.

If someone is truly committed to a crackpot counterfactual...the earth is flat, Sherlock Holmes was a real historical charcter, Trump cares about anything beyond grift and self aggrandizement... is not open to rational argument or even willing to acknowledge well established facts or acknowledge that there are subject matter experts who really do know their ears from their elbows, then there's no use engaging.

Those people don't need intelligent interlocutors, they need psychiatric intervention which I for one am monumentally unqualified to render.

>70 John5918: He's in the George Macy group, so *surely* he has a few volumes, at the very least?

>71 LolaWalser:

Stalin was a horrible person.

Hitler's obsession with German superiority lost the war. He wasted so many resources on the impractical that he failed to provide his forces with the practical. If he had not wasted so many lives to get rid of the garbage and murderous Stalin before the war, he could have ransacked him after it whilst using the evil man to conquer much of the world. They were allies after all, in the first bit of the war.

Russia didn't win the war, Hitler's arrogance coupled with Japan's lost the war.

Keep your drivel to yourself.

>75 LolaWalser:

Keep your Commie propaganda in a bag of muffins, somewhere on the coast of Walla Walla with a purple leprechaun guard.

>76 TheToadRevoltof84:

Eh.

>71 LolaWalser: You're painting Stalin as a run of the mill communist dictator, which he certainly wasn't. Mass purges are a historical fact, not propaganda.

As for his popularity, it's dubious even historians have a way of making relatively precise assessments, but I'd wager it dropped mightily by the end, despite the propaganda machine. It could contain information about famine, but at some point there was hardly anyone who did not have first hand knowledge of people disappearing, so that must have become common if unspeakable knowledge. My bet would be the majority breathed a sigh of relief when he died. Living in the atmosphere where any well-connected apparatchik can have your head for whatever reason is no fun.

>71 LolaWalser: The Ghost of the Executed Engineer: Technology and the Fall of the Soviet Union talks about two engineers who were watching the purges, amazed about the treason in their society, who, when their friend who was completely loyal was arrested for treason, went into the police station confident it was all a mistake and they could explain that to the police. So, yeah, Stalin was very effective at propaganda.

own propaganda constructed "Stalin" as an unmitigated monster, twin to Hitler. But this was not at all how the average Soviet citizen viewed him.

That's not how the average German citizen viewed Hitler, either. But while Stalin didn't engage in the sweeping absolute genocide that Hitler did, Hitler seemed to treat the in-group a lot better, without the purges and internal paranoia that Stalin had.

WWII was won by the Soviets

That's not really a meaningful assertion. The British Empire and the US were in the war, and any counter-factual that takes them out distorts everything. The Soviets didn't even fight against the Japanese, and imagining a WWII where Japan bombed Vladivostok instead of Pearl Harbor is not trivial. The Soviets did huge damage to Germany and probably could have won Axis minus Japan versus Soviet Union, but that's not the claim you're making.

But wait: here's something amazing I found:

English Wikipedia, Lend-Lease article: "Khrushchev claimed that Stalin told him that Lend-Lease enabled the Soviet Union to defeat Germany." And it comes with a cite, "Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich; Khrushchev, Serge (2004). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Commissar, 1918–1945. Penn State Press. pp. 638–639. ISBN 978-0271023328." So according to Nikita Khrushchev, Joseph Stalin was of the opinion that WWII was not won single-handled by the Soviets.

>79 prosfilaes: Slim little book Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy gives credit to Russia, of course, but also factors such as lend-lease, merchant marines in the North Atlantic, and of all things, standardized manufacturing. Apparently, German officers had individual control over designs, if I recall correctly, with wonderful vehicles as a result, but impractical on the battlefield. Allies went for simplicity and standardization, which meant that vehicles could be fixed in the field by anyone with mechanical bent, and with interchangeable parts, broken down vehicles could be scavenged for reuse.

>82 johnny1991:

You're right, it's very complex. But I think it's worth remembering that Britain and France went to war with Germany because, as part of the Great Power geopolitics of that era, they had signed a military treaty with Poland, and when Germany invaded Poland they honoured that treaty. During Germany's earlier expansionist invasions and annexations they chose not to respond with violence, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously travelled to Munich to try to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the crisis, which Germany reneged upon. The hype about Hitler being evil came about as a result of the experience of German warfare by British, French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegian and other civilians, which governments certainly leveraged for propaganda purposes. It was only later in the war that people became aware of the Holocaust genocide - that was not the reason for going to war.

And yes, Hitler was somewhat surprised and disappointed that Britain would not agree to make peace with him and allow his continued expansion in Europe and his crusade against the untermenschen.

Likewise, the USA went to war with Germany two years later because, in solidarity with Japan, Germany declared war on the USA four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

>82 johnny1991:

Apart from the first sentence, this post is simply bizarre. That's as much as I'm going to say because attempting to unpick its misconceptions would be like attempting to loose the Gordian knot without a sword.

>85 johnny1991: My wife's grandmother lost her entire family, except for her brother (who escaped, hid in the mountains, and ended up in a relocation camp outside of China after the end of the war), to Hitler's camps. This is a woman that I knew, and spoke with. She was lucky -- she came to the United States in 1935, to live with an uncle. We have letters from Hungary describing the men and boys being taken off to the work camps. Saying that the "holocaust thing" was developed after the war is ridiculous. There are still people alive that remember the after affect.

>85 johnny1991: Well, the allegations of genocide were publicly disseminated before the USA/Canada got seriously involved in the war in Europe . . .

This sort of ignorance or misinformation illustrates exactly what I referred to in >84 librorumamans:.

Canada declared war on the German Reich on September 10, 1939 and was seriously involved from that point until VE Day in 1945.

>81 johnny1991: You get educated so that you can do something of value with your life

Fair comment.

One of the big problems we have in our civilization today is that the elders don't want responsibility. They should be the caretakers of our civilization, worried mainly about the future of our society and how to steer it, but instead most of them are busy relaxing and thinking of their retirement

A sweeping generalisation. It's worth remembering that most elders have already "done something of value" with their life and have often had to handle huge responsibilities. Some are indeed relaxing a bit due to age-related health issues, but many are still leveraging the time they now have on their hands to be very active in a variety of ways which are compatible with their age, health and energy levels - volunteering, grandparenting, mentoring, involvement in local community issues, demonstrating about civil and human rights issues, writing, providing institutional memory and firsthand history, and much more.

WHEN do we recognize that Republicans/Conservatives have no clothes when it comes to fiscal responsibility??
The last time the US balanced budget was under Clinton (Democrat).
In Canada, it was under Chretien (Liberal).
Trump1 generated huge deficit, and Trump2 is poised to repeat:

Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent about $220 billion more in first 100 days than last year
John Kelly, Nancy Cordes, Julia Ingram | April 29, 2025

... the government is now spending more, day to day, than was spent in nine of the last 10 years. The exception: 2021, when the government was spending trillions to fight the coronavirus pandemic and prevent an economic disaster...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-promised-cuts-spent-200-billion-more/

>84 librorumamans: What we have here is an excellent example of the multiple bad things defense. There is so much wrong with what has been said that you don't know where to start.
I'm surprised the poster hasn't focused on Hitlers delivering on one of his big promises to the German people. In 1933 he said at a rally, "Give me 10 years and you won't recognize your towns." By the end of 1943 he had delivered on that promise. The round-the-clock bombing had reduced a huge portion of the German cities to rubble and, in the case of Hamburg (Operation Gomorrah), to ashes.

So! Our friend Johnny1991 thinks it's all the Jews fault. Ha! That's just what the Lizard People want you to think.
Oh Wait! Maybe it's the illuminati...Oh Wow man, the colors! That Owsley stuff sure is great!

>95 johnny1991: He actually didn't and he was as pure evil as you can get. He belonged in the psychiatric institution of the closed type. The fact that you think this is a grey area of some sort is a rationalization to explain to yourself your own support to an utterly incompetent pathological narcissist. If HItler had some good ideas and wasn't all bad, surely the orange turd isn't either.

Also, you're not cataloguing any books because you don't read. Trumpet victim playing with invented conspiracy about powers that be banning you would not fool kindergarten children. Unless you break TOS, no one's going to ban you and TOS is quite forgiving for anything outside commercial spam and peronal attacks. Crack a book or two on the subjects you want to discuss.

>94 johnny1991:

I've never heard of the "Me Generation", and the majority of people I know who are over 65 are very active and constructive, so in my experience it certainly isn't a fair generalisation. Must be different where you come from.

>92 johnny1991: post-war embellishments like build smokestacks at Auschwitz

I haven't been to Auschwitz but I have visited Dachau and Bergen Belsen. It's a sobering experience which I highly recommend.

>99 johnny1991: "Trump is mostly good and so was Hitler"

Or in other words, "If you liked Hitler, you'll love Trump!"

You really are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't you?

>99 johnny1991: I rest my case :D

>92 johnny1991: What a load of utter bullshit. When I said the only survivor in her family was her brother, I meant it. My wife's grandmother lost her father, mother, multiple siblings, nieces, nephews, and cousins, plus neighbors and friends she grew up with. All were murdered in Hitler's camps. The work camps were an early destination, not the final one.

Yes, of course, many in the United States and Europe lost family in the war - but if you were Jewish, you didn't lose a small number of military aged men. You lost EVERYONE, unless you were very lucky. The men and boys mentioned in those letters did not come home. The women were taken later, and there was no one left to write letters for them. This is not an after the fact embellishment - this is a contemporaneous detailing of fact.

This is not just some historical account from a book. I have names, and, in some cases, faces to tie to the losses suffered by my wife's family, both written and verbal, from my grandmother in-law.

Hitler was the worst sort of evil, and trying to paint it any other way is ignorant, or worse, equally evil. He likely didn't even care about the fate of the Jews, Romany, homosexuals, political opponents, and other undesirables. Instead, these murders were just a means to an end... Which is, if anything, even worse.

>101 johnny1991: You have the reasoning abilities of Trump. (*whispering* that means none, must have flown away with the ego baloon).

While the powers that be will not ban you for stupidity and lack of morals, we thankfully can block you and rid ourselves of it as we see fit. Hallelujah

This is quite a hostile crowd!

The fact that Trump and Hitler are being compared here is just silliness. It's strange to say that the Hitler apologist, is at least as historically literate as the rest of this group, I dare say more so in some regard. Lots of Sci-Fi lovers pretending to be historical and moral know-it-alls. Well, I wouldn't get your feet in the stirrups of that 'High-Horse' just yet...Hitler loved the advancement of German culture through science and engineering, just like many of you on this board. I think many of you calling everyone evil and threatening, blocking and belittling is similar to Hitler. I think most of you are more like Hitler than Trump!

"A man is known by the company he keeps". Trump has surrounded himself with non entities qualified only to be to be obsequious instruments of his pleasure, sycophants, grifters, chuckleheads, crackpots, and billionaires who want to create a new world order with themselves annointed God Kings at the head of it all.

If you want to see the constitution "suspended" and the rule of law replaced by the whims of an autocratic mad king, Trump is your lad.

On Jan 01, 2025 the US economy for all its flaws was the envy of the world. Today? Not so much. We've now got a regime founded on chaos, cruely, and corruption.

What does one suppose caused this reverse Midas effect? Sunspots? Some little bastard butterfly in Brazil flapping his wings at the wrong moment? The mysterious workings of the Invisibe Hand? The Elders of Zion ?

Or just maybe, it's the guy driving the bus headed straight for the cliff at full tilt?

>93 johnny1991: I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you, I'm sure you can figure out what I meant if you want to.

So we have here someone who lives in Canada and does not know that Canada fought all the way through World War II, and also someone who doesn't know what 'semantics' means. (Just to clarify: facts are not semantics.)

Sorry. Wrong thread

>105 TheToadRevoltof84: Gee,I wonder why people are hostile to Hitler and Trump apologists. Let's focus on Trump, though assuming Hitler is a foregone conclusion is obviously not certain for some. Even if we set aside all of Trump's personal failings, which are more than enough to despise both him and anyone who would put that idiot into position to run any country, let alone a world power that can screw up the rest of the world, there's still his actual policy to consider. Take your pick from random few: trampling your own laws left, right and center (from blatant corruption to ignoring court orders to assaulting freedom of speech), threatening annexation of a half a dozen countries, human rights violations galore, tanking the US and consequently the world economy, thus screwing not only the brainless who voted him in, but also all of us who had no say in the matter.

If you want more examples or want me to elaborate these in detail, I'll happily oblige. Put that criminal in jail where he belongs.

>78 SandraArdnas:

You're painting Stalin as a run of the mill communist dictator, which he certainly wasn't. Mass purges are a historical fact, not propaganda.

Please read more carefully and don't impute to me total absurdities. I never said nor implied that Stalin's mass purges didn't happen -- I was discussing the relative size of their looming shadows in Western propaganda vs. Soviet routine, or the lives of an average citizen. The main point I was making, however, is that Stalin WAS popular (which is why Khrushchev's combat for destalinization was very dangerous, difficult, and genuinely brave).

Bet on whatever you like. For people looking for actual information, there is plenty around.

>79 prosfilaes:

That's not really a meaningful assertion. The British Empire and the US were in the war,

Yeah, whatever. Yugoslavia liberated itself (if there were only one reason to admire Tito, it would be that he managed to keep both the Russians and the West out of the country, while politicking aid from both) but I have yet to meet one American who has any notion of that. Drop the self-centredness. I'm just saying, the insanely US-centric, MAGAtty WWII mythology ("we saved Europe!") taught in American schools is yours alone.

The Soviets won WWII for everybody. The Soviets beat the Nazis. Without the Soviets -- yes, Stalin's USSR -- the West would have made peace with Hitlerist Europe (perhaps excluding the UK, although I, at least, will never be certain about that) and let everyone east of the Rhine drown and burn in Naziland.

The US showed up in Europe to stop the Red Army more than to end the Nazis.

But the main point is this: that to an average Soviet citizen Stalin (edited to add: to the generations before 1956 in particular) was the "little father" who won a terrible war.

>107 librorumamans:

So we have here someone who lives in Canada and does not know that Canada fought all the way through World War II, and also someone who doesn't know what 'semantics' means.

He could be twelve, or he could be of the Qonvoy Nation.

Happy election, by the way (belatedly)!

>110 LolaWalser: This is literally the first time I've heard anyone assert that Stalin was genuinely popular. Can you provide us with some suggestions for sources which I could read to find out more?

Also, when you say "western propaganda", can you say something about what you're including under that heading, so we can be clear on what you mean? I ask because you seem to divide the material on Stalin's period into "western propaganda" and "soviet routine" (not actually sure what that means) and I'm not sure if there's anything else or if those two buckets comprehend all source material on the subject. Obviously, I'm thinking of academic histories by scholars in the US and Canada and western Europe. Are those "western propaganda" here, or are they just not part of the picture?

>113 kiparsky:

This is literally the first time I've heard anyone assert that Stalin was genuinely popular.

And this is literally the first time I hear anyone who doesn't know this. Although I suppose one could wonder about the "genuinely". What would a "false" popularity look like? As I wrote above, there was definitely an official personality cult around Stalin --does that make popularity less genuine? Does all the promotion people do for pop stars make their popularity less genuine?

Stalin wasn't just popular, he was beloved. By all? Absolutely not. By a lot? Well, according to the things I've learned, read, seen, heard my whole life (which makes referencing a tad difficult, while I could talk about this for hours) -- yes.

you seem to divide the material on Stalin's period into "western propaganda" and "soviet routine"

No, I would divide things between "Western propaganda" and "reality" --the latter of course being very complicated given that there are many different overlapping "realities". There is the reality, in Stalin's USSR, of how he (Stalin) is perceived by, say, Osip Mandelstam, who will lose his life for writing a snarky poem about the dictator, and then the reality of, say, some anonymous Ivan we know nothing about because anonymous Ivans by definition don't write books or otherwise draw political attention to themselves.

Look, it's about understanding that other people who exist in different contexts have different point of views to yours.

What constituted "Soviet routine" is different in Western propaganda/imagination and in actual (now past) Soviet reality. The most common vision of the USSR I have met here (vaguely, in the US, on LT/forums, among Westerners) is what I describe as the eternal 1933, or 1953, and it's an eternal bread line, on a freezing grey afternoon, and glum people with grey faces shivering in the street, thinking dark thoughts about the secret police and party machinations... very recognisable, no? But the reality is different. The reality is that time flew in the USSR as elsewhere, that people lived, worked, partied, fornicated, married, shopped, went on vacations, looked for work, followed fashions, went to the cinema, read books etc. Which vision of the USSR is "more" real? Does the question have any sense?

I don't know if another example may help or not, but the issue is very similar to that raised by some recent East Germans (or originally East Germany-born) writers and historians like Jenny Erpenbeck and Katya Hoyer. (See e. g. Hoyer's Beyond the wall). In short words, there is more to the DDR than the filter "Stasiland". Western, anti-Communist propaganda of course ADORES filter "Stasiland" and it sure can't be denied that the Stasi did this and that etc. And yet the majority of East German citizens somehow lived lives beside, beyond, or completely unaware of that filter -- witness their shock at discovering they had files in the Stasi archives etc.

Appelbaum's tendentious neoliberal trash conflates the "gulag" with "USSR" and yet even Solzhenitsyn begins his Gulag Archipelago with entreaties to the readers to take him seriously and don't think he's inventing stuff. But if every contemporary of his were constantly thinking about the gulags this would hardly need mentioning.

I'll point out again that this is not a question about the existence of the gulags, or the bread lines, or whether there was ever a freezing grey day in 1953 -- or whether Stalin mass-purged people -- but whether, and how large, with what shape, meaning etc. these topics loom in one's life, perception, imagination...

TL; DR -- one's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter

>110 LolaWalser: I am not imputing anything. I was stating how your post reads i.e. as if the 'relative size of their looming shadows in Western propaganda' is grossly inappropriate, as well as if the Soviet routine was largely unaffected and/or oblivious of mass purges.

The main point I was making is that is it absolutely certain his popularity was not more or less the same throughout his rule. However popular he was at the start was significantly higher than at the end. (And destalinization was brave and dangerous primarily because of well-positioned powerful people in the existing power structures, not because of how the general populace felt). But whatever. You like pontificating and will surely impute Western bias even to those of us who grew up within the system we apparently do not have a clue about.

>115 SandraArdnas:

The main point I was making is that is it absolutely certain his popularity was not more or less the same throughout his rule

I completely agree with this and wrote nothing to oppose it, in the original post or later. (In fact, in one of those I edited specifically to add a temporal distinction, between older generations and those after -- arbitrarily --1956). OF COURSE Stalin's popularity wasn't at the same level in 1925 (basically unknown to the masses), 1933, 1936, 1941, 1945... or 2000.

You like pontificating

And you like ripping into me. I'm a Communist, deal with it-- I asked you before kindly to ignore my posts if they irritate you so.

and will surely impute Western bias even to those of us who grew up within the system we apparently do not have a clue about.

Unless you're talking about Stalin's Russia, your clues are no more worth than most others'.

>111 LolaWalser: the insanely US-centric, MAGAtty WWII mythology ("we saved Europe!") taught in American schools is yours alone.

Yes, most country's versions of history tend to focus on themselves and tend to hype up their own importance.

The Soviets won WWII for everybody. The Soviets beat the Nazis.

Did you mean to reply to >79 prosfilaes:? Because it pointed out that the war was against more than just the Nazis, and that Stalin himself attributed the US's lend-lease program to them winning the war.

Without the Soviets -- yes, Stalin's USSR -- the West would have made peace with Hitlerist Europe

Aw, because the Soviets were so selfless in fighting. The instant Hitler marched into Poland, the Soviets, let's see here, marched in the other side, conquering the Baltic nations and splitting Poland with Hitler. The Soviets only got in the war because they attacked, like the US and unlike Britain and France and Canada.

Again, this is a counterfactual. It did not happen, and we can not know for sure what would have happened if it did happen.

How long would a Stalin-Hitler peace treaty have lasted if Hitler didn't attack the Soviet Union? That's a counterfactual, but we know that Britain, France and Canada didn't form peace treaties splitting land with Hitler and attacked Hitler when the Nazis crossed into Poland.

The US showed up in Europe to stop the Red Army more than to end the Nazis.

Which is a topic I might discuss with someone less vehemently anti-American, but suffice it to say that Hungary and Czechoslovakia forcing the Soviets to reconquer them in the 1950s and 1960s, and the whole events of 1989 when all the countries the Red Army conquered but left as independent states fled the Warsaw pact, and the events of 1991 where the Baltic states fled the Soviet Union, seem to argue that's not an unreasonable action.

to an average Soviet citizen Stalin (edited to add: to the generations before 1956 in particular) was the "little father" who won a terrible war.

And the main response is this; nothing you have said proves or disproves that. It's really hard to measure honest opinion in an authoritarian state. Certainly in democratic states, the tendency is more "we won the war, now the question is whether what you, the current government, is offering better than what the opposition is offering."

>117 prosfilaes:

Now I remember why I had blocked you--this USian dunderheaded arrogance and justification of using the nuclear bombs on Japan.

Look, forget it, this is not the thread for it, and Im not interested in your opinions on WWII, I've heard that rubbish many times before.

>114 LolaWalser: On second thought, never mind.

>121 johnny1991: I wonder if your view would change if you thought Jews were white people. Or indeed, if you thought they were people at all.

>121 johnny1991: I'm perfectly calm. This sort of attitude is something I've lived with my entire life. I'm very used to it. I'm a good white Southern man (without the ridiculous attitudes of the South that you appear to have, from, apparently, Canada) that was born and raised in an 80% Republican district, taught to respect my elders and "Yes ma'am, yes sir" and do what you're told. And, for the record, I personally lost no family. My grandfather and several great uncles served, and returned home unharmed, except for the memories. It's just that this willful disregard for provably real events is almost comically transparent as a retconning to excuse beliefs that are repugnant to anyone with empathy and compassion.

Also, for the record, it's not old history. This was my wife's grandmother. It affected my wife's entire early life, including issues in her family with hiding anything different from those around them because of the ingrained fear of being dragged out of their homes and murdered.

There's no competition, because the people that lost over 60% of their entire global population win. You're denying that, which is absolutely ridiculous. Those that lived through it know, and those descended from those who lived through it know. Holocaust denial is not only patently ridiculous, it's stupid and dismissive of great human suffering. You probably also think that there were advantages to Africans dragged from their homeland into this country in being slaves. Those attitudes frequently go together.

>121 johnny1991: tales of survivors, many of which were clearly bogus. If it was real, I believe there would be more compelling, real evidence of it

That's a stunningly ignorant statement to make. How are you so sure that the survivors' tales were "clearly bogus"? First hand witness and victim accounts are highly valued in almost all judicial systems, including your own. What about the witnesses amongst the British and other Allied soldiers who actually liberated the camps and saw with their own eyes? As for "real" evidence, one thing the Germans were very good at was keeping records, and they meticulously recorded almost everything that went on, routinely, not under torture. This was one of the best documented genocides in history, so if you don't believe the historical record on this, what do you believe? What do you consider an acceptable level of "compelling real evidence"? I agree with >123 ljbryant:, "Holocaust denial is not only patently ridiculous, it's stupid and dismissive of great human suffering".

Do you also deny the 1904-08 Herero and Namaqua genocide, the 1915-16 Armenian genocide, Stalin's genocidal purges, the genocide in the Belgian Congo, the 1994 Rwanda genocide, the Darfur genocide in the early 2000s (and arguably again today) and the current genocide taking place in Gaza? All of these are well attested, despite efforts by the perpetrators to deny and cover them up, much greater actually than the efforts the Nazis were able to make to cover up their Holocaust genocide as the victorious Allies had access to all their files and records as well as having taken possession of the camps themselves where hard physical evidence was in abundance.

And the 1969 moon landing?

>124 John5918: And this eyewitness testimony is all the evidence we have. No decoded German communications. Nada. Conveniently, all the evidence was said to be destroyed during the war

No it's not. There is abundant evidence, both physical evidence from the liberated camps and thousands of pages of documents captured from the Germans. I don't know where you get the idea that "all the evidence was said to be destroyed during the war". There are museums and archives full of documents, including online archives. There are eye witness accounts from hundreds (thousands?) of witnesses and survivors, as well as from Allied and German soldiers. You actually post a random sample of these accounts and bizarrely use them to deny what they say. If you find it "quite absurd and hard to believe" it's because it is absurd that human beings would do such a thing to other human beings; but nevertheless they did. All of the accounts are remarkably consistent and come independently from a diverse range of people of many nationalities scattered across many countries. What greater level of evidence are you demanding? And I would not describe Auschwitz, Dachau and Bergen Belsen as "tourist destinations". They are memorials, chilling reminders of what human beings can do to each other, places of pilgrimage.

>127 johnny1991: Lots of people who died from disease and starvation, probably.

Which is signs of intentional extermination.

the problem is that it's such a politicized subject that nobody on either side would trust the results.

To quote the Expert Report by Professor Richard Evans (2000)

"Thus for example there has long been a considerable difference of opinion amongst historians as to when the Nazis reached a decision to undertake a systematic extermination of all the Jews in Europe; some, though not many, have put the decision early in 1941; rather more have argued for a date in late July or early August 1941; some have favoured October 1941; more recently one younger German scholar has argued for December 1941 and another for late March or early April 1942. All these estimations have their merits and demerits, and the argument continues, based on a detailed examination and comparison of the documentary record. However, the position can broadly be summed up by saying that there is a general consensus that a decision was taken at the highest level some time between the beginning of 1941 and the Spring of 1942, and most probably between June 1941 and April 1942. The limits set by the available evidence do not allow of a date, say, in January 1933, or January 1943. The view that, for example, no decision was ever taken, or that the Nazis did not undertake the systematic extermination of the Jews at all, or that very
few Jews were in fact killed, lies wholly outside the limits of what it is reasonable for a professional historian to argue in the light of the available evidence."

You could read the whole report; I suspect the judge's decision in Irving v. Penguin Books (where a Holocaust denier decided to use the law to try and silence his critics) is a little easier going, and may be more palatable to you as Irving gets to rebut at every point.

The only politicization on this subject is from the side that wants to deny what we have huge volumes of evidence and eyewitnesses to prove. Historians have long been of agreement for it.

>127 johnny1991: So, if you believe that the Holocaust never happened, then surely this must be the single biggest hoax in the history of humanity. Who do you suppose came up with this idea? How did they get the soldiers to testify to something they never saw? How did they fake the photographs that appeared around the world when the camps were liberated, and how did they get the journalists on board, and how did they make sure none of them ever let slip that it was all a gag? How did they get all of those people who claimed to be victims to cooperate, and how did they manage to coach them all to get all of their stories straight? How did they get an international tribunal to hold a trial about something that, according to you, never happened? How did they get the people who were tried and convicted for their participation to plead "just following orders" and not "it never happened"?

I'm sure you can come up with stupid answers to all of those questions. Those answers will all have the same basic shape: you're going to insist that the conspiracy is bigger and bigger. All of the soldiers? In on it. All of the journalists and photographers? In on it. All of the so-called victims? In on it? The judges? In on it. The defendants at Nuremberg and later (up until last year, if I'm not mistaken), all in on it. Standard stuff for fantasy writers: when you run out of world, just make up some more.

But the thing that's harder to figure out is how you're going to explain why, after inventing all of this logistical nightmare and recruiting hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum to bring off this hoax, you think they couldn't have bothered to forge some documents to support their claim.

And let me remind you that you're on record as saying that no such documents exist, so if you decide to change your story and say, oh, yeah, they did exist all along but they're forgeries, you'll really be letting yourself down quite badly. Your other option is to just pretend you never saw this - I know that's a favorite move when you have no idea how to respond, we've seen it often enough. That would be also deeply pathetic, even for you, but it's an option, and we'll all know what it means.

So, let's have your answer, if you've got one. Or your silence, if you haven't.

>127 johnny1991: the problem is that it's such a politicized subject that nobody on either side would trust the results

There is no "either side". There is the vast body of evidence and scholarship which has ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt what happened, and there is a tiny politicised fringe of neo-Nazi apologists who promote a different and false narrative which is political, not historical. You even post documents which confirm the Holocaust and claim that they do the opposite because you personally think they are unbelievable.

we have a ton of German records and we also decoded all the Germany communications for several years without their knowing. And in all that, no evidence of an extermination program?

See >129 prosfilaes:.

>128 johnny1991: Why don't you post some pictures of German documents

Because I don't speak German. Because loads of eminent historians and scholars have already done so and you could easily find them if you searched, although if you twist witness testimony to mean the opposite of what it says, then I doubt whether you'd be convinced by them. Because I'm aware that nothing I or anyone else says will change your opinion as it is not based on facts or evidence but on political ideology.

>130 kiparsky:

I'm just trying to imagine the thousands of British soldiers who liberated Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen, the Russians who liberated Auschwitz, and the Americans who liberated Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbürg, Dachau and Mauthausen, keeping silent about it for decades. These were young men, mostly conscripts, for whom the war was probably the most important (and at one level exciting) thing which had ever happened to them, and the liberation of the camps was probably one of the most shocking and horrifying things they had ever experienced even amongst all the other horrors of war. They never ever told their mates, their sweethearts, their wives, their priests and pastors, their lawyers, their member of parliament or congressperson, inquisitive researchers and investigative journalists, later their children and grandchildren, that they had been ordered to lie about these fake death camps which never actually existed? Who ordered them to do so? How many junior officers and sergeants had to be involved in passing on these orders, and later to perjure themselves in denying them? How did nations as diverse as Britain, Canada, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, the USSR and the USA not only agree on this course of action but actually jointly implement it? The logistics of implementation would be incredibly complex. And of course we know that all British and US soldiers always obey to the letter without question every single order they are given, and have never been known to be disobedient or rebellious, don't we?

I think the British comedians Mitchell and Webb sum it up in a series of conspiracy videos, not on the Holocaust but on Princess Diana's death, the moon landings and aliens.

>128 johnny1991: You won't, but if you wanted to, here are three places you could start.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/gallery/documenting-the-holocaust-exam...

https://wienerholocaustlibrary.org/2025/01/27/wiener-digital-collections-thousan...

https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/documents

And by academic reputation, the seminal book to read would be Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews. You might try the abridged edition: The Destruction of the European Jews (Student One Volume Edition)

>109 SandraArdnas:

Actually, I think it would be useful for us to tackle these one by one. You provide one sample of any of your/the broader categorical examples and they we can examine it. Lets go after the bigger samples though, so it was covered by both sides and reported sufficiently enough to get some data and examination. Random snippets of random events jammed into partisan rile-up cages won't make it possible to have any meaningful discussion.

Medicaid cuts are not popular.

https://bsky.app/profile/larrylevitt.bsky.social/post/3lo4h64ixxc26
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-april-2025-pu...

- Larry Levitt ‪@larrylevitt.bsky.social‬ | May 1, 2025 at 9:48 AM:
Executive Vice President for Health Policy, KFF. www.kff.org/person/larry-levitt/

Trump Rages Wildly Over Humiliating GDP Data as Aides Soothe His Fury
Greg Sargent | 1 May 2025

We just learned that President Donald Trump’s economy contracted in the first quarter. Trump unloaded twice over this bad news, attempting to blame Joe Biden for it. Meanwhile, some of Trump’s aides went full North Korea, bowing down before him and offering adulation in shockingly abject terms. So how long do Trump’s advisers think they can keep him in a protective cocoon, shielding him from the realities of his disastrous reign? ... New Republic senior editor Alex Shephard, who has a good new piece arguing that Trump’s unpopularity will only get worse due to basic structural facts about his presidency, ... explains why the sycophancy of Trump’s aides is only working against him—and why insulating him against outside facts will only get harder and more damaging ...

https://newrepublic.com/article/194651/trump-rages-wildly-humiliating-gdp-data-a...

>135 margd:

Amazingly Democrats had to take down their ads on this same topic, because they were actually lies! Ha, but shill gonna shill. What do you even get out of this but anxiety/depression meds? Do you get the meds free?

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/04/29/states-may-have-adjust-medicaid-reforms-s...

>136 margd:

Amazingly, Trump's economy when doing well was Obama's...but when the economy is struggling under Trump just 100 days in, it's Trump?

Holocaust denialism, check.

>134 TheToadRevoltof84: So which one would yo prefer to start with? Should we start with he fact that you basically abolished democracy even before his election by making the President above the law? So that he can become the President while avoiding prison at the same time. Let me remind that the practice of even sovereigns in monarchies being subject to the laws of the land started with Magna Carta in 1215

ETA:
Regarding your blatant denial of facts of economy, just to get the straightforward yes/no: Is it your claim that your economy is doing fine and his policy in this respect is sound? We will come back to this as more and more consequences raise their not so pretty heads, so I want a Trumpet to make a claim and stick to it.

>140 SandraArdnas:

Okay, go. We'll start with that. Cite the example and I'll try to provide a refutation.

>138 TheToadRevoltof84: Yes, liar, since the economy tanked as a direct result of Trump's idiot tariffs, and all of his other moves.

But of course you're going to give us more lies about how it's all Biden's fault, or maybe it's because of "the illegals", or maybe you've got comfortable enough with us to blame it on the Jews - sorry, the international banking conspiracy - damn, no, I mean "the global elites".

>140 SandraArdnas:

It's my claim that the economy, regarding the stock market, is pretty much a rigged game. Currently we live in a government/big business collusion regarding the economy/legislation and that is almost as bad as any other form of government. I'm not in favor of tariffs generally, but I believe that as a tactic it may produce some favorable results if negotiations can be had. My point is obvious as a statement and Trump 1.0 economy was much better than the Biden economy on all fronts. Blame whatever you want, it's still too early to tell how this will all shake out.

>141 TheToadRevoltof84: Cite what? Am I supposed to search for theSupreme Court ruling on his immunity? Are you unaware of it? Do you deny it? Comment on it you clown instead of pretending to hold some high ground by avoiding to actually say anything.

>143 TheToadRevoltof84: So, you're avoiding committing to anything. Color me surprised. I still insist. Will Trump's economic policy be a positive change or not. Just yes for positive. No if you think it will be negative or no change. DO NOT insult our intelligence by avoiding with demagoguery yet again. If you do, you have no credibility to discuss anything. You're just a mindless cult follower.

>144 SandraArdnas:

I think so. Make your actual claim with a little meat behind it, so that I have something to refute. I mean, the same Supreme Court has been ruling against him off and on, so I can't just have ~ the Supreme Court ruled he's immune, so he's sidestepping democracy.

>145 SandraArdnas:

So, I have to agree with Trump or agree with you? Sorry, but that ain't how life works. I think there's a lot of people at risk of losing a lot of money that are working against Trump, so those factors make it very hard to predict long term. I think I'll take the "I'm rubber and you're glue" route on your last remark, especially given the remarks.

>145 SandraArdnas: This lying shitsack has already blown all of its credibility, see its attempts to deny that Trump claimed that the Nazis of Charlottesville were "very fine people", and particularly its lying about sources.

Don't expect anything from arguing with this one - if you're having fun, knock yourself out, but good faith is not part of its repertoire.

>145 SandraArdnas:

It is up to you to decide, ultimately. But, if you're saying he sidestepped democracy, after he was elected democratically, because the Supreme Court said he had immunity after the election, I'll need more to refute.

As Kiparsky states in >148 kiparsky:, I'm not carrying the mark of the beast here, so I don't really have any credibility. I'm just saying that your current remarks are self-defeating, so I need more info.

>148 kiparsky:

Kip, it really is okay to be wrong about the Charlottesville event. Nobody here is going to look down on you. I've disagreed with you in the past and thought you were a pretty intelligent guy, although wrong many times. I've pasted the entire transcript for you to read, but you keep giving me edits and calling me names. Possibly, one may say, dehumanizing me, like, well... a Nazi would.

I want you to know, as I've said many times, you don't owe me a thing and you can have fun mocking me if you'd like. I was suspended off these boards due to fascists before, but honestly I'm just trying to recoup time and keep track of reading whilst having fun debating the brainwashed.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/full-transcript-of-trumps-both-sides-charlo...

>150 TheToadRevoltof84: Now he's trying to gaslight y'all, beautiful.

Listen, liar, if you want me to stop calling you a fucking liar then stop fucking lying. How hard is that? It's not like it's a good lie, nobody's ever going to believe it unless it's your little Nazi friend, and they're too busy trying to convince us that Hitler was a very fine person, so I don't think they're going to be much help to you. Let it go. Admit what anyone can see: Trump was asked about the murder of Heather Heyer, and the first words out of his mouth were "they were very fine people".

I mean, I don't mind pointing out that you're a liar, it's not like it's a hard thing to do, so don't bet on me letting this go.

>150 TheToadRevoltof84: The end of all conversations with fascists and racists is, "I'm not the racist--you're the racist." and "I'm not the fascist--you're the fascist." It's so predictable, and to see you do it confirms it.

>151 kiparsky:

On this board you might have some concurring opinion, but actually the facts are on my side regarding your hoax.

You sent a clip of the video and I don't remember even hearing Heather Heyer's name appearing until 33 seconds in, and the question he was responding to is in that transcript, and the very first words were:

Q The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did.

You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

Q George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

THE PRESIDENT: George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down —

Excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?

Q I do love Thomas Jefferson.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.

And, you're saying I'm gaslighting? Interesting, your hoaxing is exactly that.

ChoosingTherapy.com says:

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where someone distorts reality to make others feel confused and question themselves. Gaslighting may include deliberate deceit, passive aggression, defensiveness, sarcasm, and undermining someone else’s experiences. While anyone can gaslight, it’s a common tactic abusers use to exert power and control in their relationships.

>152 Cardboard_killer:

Okay. All? And consider how this might be either way around right now.

I'm not just right about the Charlottesville question, but I'm so right, Kip's going to apologize and tell me that he's sorry and thinks very poorly of his behavior and how he wants to bake me a cake and send it through the mail with a nice little card.

>153 TheToadRevoltof84: LOL. "I'm not gaslighting, you're gaslighting". So good of you to confirm >152 Cardboard_killer: so quickly. If I thought it was intentional I'd give you points for wit, but I suspect you're not actually that clever.

I notice you leave out some very significant words from your "transcript". Do you think I am so stupid, and everyone here is so stupid that we won't notice that you've left them out?

>146 TheToadRevoltof84: So, your argument is that it's OK that the Supreme Court ruled him above the law as long as he is President because in some other unrelated cases it ruled against his wishes? Seriously? You find it perfectly fine that any individual is above the law? It is not in contradiction with the everyone is equal before the law and as such unconstitutional?

>156 SandraArdnas: Let's also remember that he should have been convicted and sentenced as a private citizen long before the election, but he was able to run out the clock because of a corrupt judge.

>147 TheToadRevoltof84: You don't have to agree with me at all. You have to start debating properly if you want to be taken seriously, which is what I'm trying to make you do.

So far, all you've contributed is Trump-talk, meaning empty phrases with merely emotional impact, but no substance or rationale, and most importantly no consistency. Every point made can be changed to anything else under the sun when the situation changes and we are all to forget something entirely different was claimed a few days ago. So, to avoid that, I insist on you taking a clear stand on Trump's specific policies and then stick to those later on. If you believe he will improve the economy, than that is the reference point 6 months from now or whatever. You are not to simply avoid facing that you were wrong by making it about something or someone else. But since you basically know it's going to be a disaster, you don't want to risk appearing a fool.

in short, that was a convoluted NO, you don't expect him to improve the economy at all. Which begs the question which of his empty promises made you vote for him.

>158 SandraArdnas: Every point made can be changed to anything else under the sun when the situation changes and we are all to forget something entirely different was claimed a few days ago.

That's a very diplomatic and tactful way of saying that the lying sack of shit is a fucking mendacious little turd. Well done.

>155 kiparsky:

I pasted the transcript...they don't even think about the Heyer name as the question he's answering. That's how far off you hoax is. By the way, I do like pies better than cake. I do hope you'll write the card too.

>156 SandraArdnas:

Bring a real pointed argument. You're just saying things as if they are absolutes. So your argument is that the Supreme Court is in his back pocket? Because he was democratically elected... What are we debating? I don't believe politicians have been treated the same as citizens for 75 years. Seriously, what is your argument? No, he didn't destroy democracy, obviously, do you have a new argument to make?

>158 SandraArdnas:

I do expect Trump to improve the economy. I assume that is why he's using tariffs as a bargaining chip. I do hope that meaningful businesses will come to the US.

>161 TheToadRevoltof84: Yeah, I'm going to shelve you as willful demagogue not worth the time. I DID bring a very specific and poignant argument. It is fucking undemocratic and unconstitutional to proclaim anyone above the law.

I don't give a flying fuck if they did it because they are in Trump's pocket, because they are incompetent, or because they dropped acid and thought they were drawing circles when passing that ruling. The fact of the matter is they gave him immunity for any and all crimes. Everything else is you trying to weasel this into something else, into the territory of kindergarten spats discourse, in which you'll swim far more easily.

You've abandoned democracy at that point since you've given someone a pass for all previous crimes, as well as free reign to commit any he wants while in power. Everything that's happening now is just a continuation of it and it remains to be seen whether you'll save yourself from the path you're on, which is to become the West Russia, meaning a full dictatorship with a relatively small circle of oligarchs having any say at all in shaping your society.

I'm not going to respond to you any further since meaningless babble pretending to have a point is not my thing.

>162 TheToadRevoltof84: Well, I'll call you on that when recession hits. I predict you will have a million unrelated things to say to avoid saying, blimey that was a mistake, perhaps I should think more critically and get better info in the future.

>160 TheToadRevoltof84: So you're saying you didn't even notice that your transcript was wrong?

All this time you've been whining, and you didn't even bother to check your facts? If you were a bit clever I'd say this would be a learning opportunity, but in your case the phrase might seem like I'm mocking your disability.

>165 kiparsky:

Well, I guess I didn't double check the transcript. But if you can identify why it's wrong we can together investigate if it helps the spirit of your argument.

>166 TheToadRevoltof84: So, you're admitting that you had not a clue about what was actually said in that video, since you were working from a dodgy transcript rather than actually listening to the words for yourself? Cool, nice one.

So now that you've heard what actually happened, we're good, right? No more questions on your part?

>167 kiparsky:

I watched your video, it had most of that content in it. I'll stand by >166 TheToadRevoltof84: and I'm still waiting for the...golly I'm sorry for my outlandish behavior Toad, I'd love to send you a peanut butter pie. I can't believe I propagated such a silly hoax.

I think you're both being a little stupid here. It's clear that Trump explicitly disavowed white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and it's clear that Trump waved a hand at a bunch of white supremacists and neo-Nazis and a bunch of people who marched against them and said "There's good people on both sides".

>168 TheToadRevoltof84: Well, that's disappointing, but I guess we can't really expect you to hold a position for more than a few minutes at a time. By which I mean a rhetorical position, of course, I'm sure you do fine at yoga. You must be, if your muscles are as flexible as your opinions.

I'm not sure there's much to be said about why your transcript is wrong. Could be that someone made a mistake, could be they were trying to deceive people, could be that cosmic rays flipped some bits on a server somewhere, could be you intentionally sourced it from people who specialize in producing deceptive content - I don't know or care. The fact is it was wrong, and now having watched the video you can see that, when asked about the murderers of Heather Heyer, Trump's reply was "very fine people", even if you're incapable of saying so.

I mean, seriously, I don't know how you can possibly insist that he didn't call them "fine people", when you have heard him say exactly that.

And don't give me any crap about fans of bad art who just happened to turn up on the same day that the Nazis called their rally. I mean, seriously. Have some self-respect. I know you love Trump and you want to have his babies and whatever, but try to have a little dignity. People who turn up at Nazi rallies and wear Nazi uniforms and shout Nazi slogans but aren't Nazis?

Come on, dude. Just... come on. Who accidentally turns up to a Nazi rally? Who accidentally turns up at a Nazi rally and stays there?

>170 kiparsky:

If you watched the whole interview or if you read the whole transcript and not just watch the clip, you'd have the whole context for the words after the Heather Heyer bit. That transcript only provided the question they perceived he was answering.

There are a lot of people that love history that showed that day and many others that admire R.E. Lee. You're not wrong about the torch carrying crowd, but not everyone on the other side was wearing black and carrying weapons either.

>164 SandraArdnas:

er-oh, maybe, maybe no... is dat be a shnark it the vawter?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-roars-we-re-winning-as-wall-street...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/01/donald-trump-brought-a-plan-the-left-brou...

>172 TheToadRevoltof84: You are so clueless it is not even funny. Bye until I call you on your cluelessness to see how you wiggle and weasel.

>173 SandraArdnas:

It has to be a little bit funny? Here I am, thinking I know something about something and maybe the only something I know is the something I know I don't?

>171 TheToadRevoltof84: So you're saying that a bunch of statue fondlers turned up to a Nazi rally, saw the Nazis and the Klan weenies and the rest of them with their torches and heard them shouting racist and antisemitic slogans, and decided to stick around and stand with the Nazis and the other white supremacists, and those are the people that Trump called "very fine people"? Is that your answer?

>176 johnny1991:

See >131 John5918:, >133 davidgn: and other posts from me and other people.

So, what I'm getting from all of this is that you want to be a Nazi, but you have qualms about mass murder, so you're trying to pretend that the mass murders never happened so you can be a Nazi and still feel okay about yourself. And that's kind of sad, in so many ways.

>173 SandraArdnas:

Ruh-Roh, Relma!

https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-china-release-details-of-agreement-to-dramati...

Bessent said that the Biden administration had failed to make China abide by previous trade agreements.

“We had an excellent trade agreement with China — and the Biden Administration chose not to enforce it,” he said. “The Chinese delegation basically told us that once President Biden came into office, they just ignored their obligations.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/both-countries-will-become-stronger-trumps-trade-...

Of course you big business lovers will say this hurts U.S. Auto-Makers, but, really...

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/01/donald-trump-brought-a-plan-the-left-brou...

>183 TheToadRevoltof84: Do you use the brain at all? I'm not even following the links because I know what you're doing: when you find anything even remotely indicating Trump's idiotic moves have a positive effect, you eagerly post it, not spending a nanosecond to put the news in context, because let's be honest you don't read the other ones, if you even read these beyond the title and lead. To illustrate with one example: when you crash the market and it loses trillion of dollars, a spike upwards after indications he'll ease on tariffs does not mean he's successful. It actually indicates how misguided the policy is. Moreover, burning down the house but then taming it somewhat by using a fire-extinguisher does not make you a hero, you're still the arsonist.

Consider this my answer to any future attempts by you at this game.

>184 SandraArdnas:

Since Kip's apology comes with a Peanut Butter Pie, I think I'll take something like an Apple Pie? Whatever your best fruit pie is will do. You don't have to send a card or anything...

>184 SandraArdnas: I've learned two things here: first, that arguing with a lying sack of shit is a waste of time. Second, that demanding an apology is as close as this particular lying sack of shit comes to conceding that you've won the argument.

>185 TheToadRevoltof84: Are you high?

You've forfeited the right to be taken seriously a while ago, so in order not to waste my time completely and since you insist on talking to me, perhaps you can satisfy my curiosity. How is it possible you don't find Trump repugnant? He's certainly the most repugnant person to run for any kind of office in my lifetime that I know of.

Here we have a guy on record as saying being rich and famous means you get to take women by the pussy, they want and expect it. Yet, here you are all doe eyed adulating him. It does not compute in a normal human brain. He's a criminal convicted on both sexual and corruption charges, he habitually spouts disgusting stuff like that pussy comment, or his genocidal plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza and build a luxury resort there, as just two examples. How do you stomach that? What do you tell yourself?

>187 SandraArdnas:

Trump represents the Baby-Boomer generation of US quite well, honestly. I don't think he's any more repugnant or corrupt than most of the recent politicians of this era, but I can't stand most of them. I believe with pretty sound apparent evidence that very few modern politicians aren't corrupt to a higher degree than he is. But, even with someone like AOC, whose ideas I hate, although I believe is still willing to twist like a politician isn't corrupt in many respects, I would be forced to vote for the moderate Democrat like Trump over a hard lefty.

I voted for the Federalist Party in 2016 when Trump won. I voted for Trump, though when he went against one of the most corrupt politicians of the modern era in 2020, he lost. Then, I was forced to vote for him again against a poor candidate in 2024... But, I don't get to make those decisions based on personal character. I do believe that most politicians aren't investigated and would turn up some ugly crimes if they ever were.

I have started to like him more than I did in the past, but I do hope that Republicans will actually go for a real conservative like Rand Paul in the future.

>186 kiparsky:

Kip, you're still bitter about your failed hoax? I thought we were past that?

>188 TheToadRevoltof84: Ah, I see, you stomach it by pretending he is no different than most. Thank you. Goodbye