AlChemicalResearch said:
just to clarify, I'm not doing a whataboutitism, I'm only addressing the attitude that he is "unusual and unprecedented" in what he is doing and teh level he is doing.
The only difference I can see, even from your post bending over backwards to make it not about that: he is not subtle about it. Bush and Cheney are worth tens of millions "on paper". You don't understand, their contracting companies are worth tens of billions, they are worth tens of billions. But now they can slip silently in the shadows wielding power and influence, shielded by the paperwork of their companies. Trump just is a bull in a china cabinet. That's the only difference between Trump and the rest of them. When you act like what he does is some how unusual and unprecedented, you come off as unhinged and out of touch with reality.
if your goal is to reduce the power and influence of Trump, the last 11 years has shown us, you can't start screaming and gnashing your teeth, making every action done by the man, corrupt or not, into some sort of ultimate evil that requires each and every citizen to sacrifice everything, even their life, to put an end to. If your goal is to be holier than thou, go ahead continue acting like he's Hitler.
Oh and if you want to bring up dealings with foreign governments, Hilary Clinton sold weapons grade uranium to Russia through one of her subsidiaries, while she was Secretary of State under Obama. On one hand, that negates your point he didn't stop his business dealings with foreign governments, and on the other hand it negates the general point that he is friends with Russia, or somehow has an unusual and unprecedented friendship with Russia. At least he didn't provide them with weapons grade uranium.
Well, since your reply opened with "I'm not doing a whataboutism" and closed with Hitler, Russia and Hillary Clinton, I figure it's worth laying the whole thing out once with times attached, mostly for the sake of anyone else reading along. You have a very manipulative way of replying to people that avoids addressing anything they say and routinely changes what it is they were saying to give your arguments more weight. This might work on most people, but I think just bringing it back to the discussion every time someone strays from the point tends to make that inclination more apparent.
To be clear with the context of the conversation, lowbrow said Trump works for free. I said he doesn't, that he's padding his pockets through the office and doing it out in the open, and to a scale that is magnitudes different from any of his predecessors, and I listed how he's done so just in 2025 through his own reportable income and public statements. I never said anything about Hitler and I never said anything about Russia. You brought both of those in and then argued against them, which is your whole MO so far in this thread.
Your first reply to me (Sat 5:11 PM) already said he's "just unusually vocal and frank about it," which was literally one of my premises going in and was never in dispute. Your next reply (Sat 5:35 PM) said "I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was agreeing with you, they're all corrupt," when what I'd actually written was that the scale is incomparable to JFK or Biden's own corruption, which is the opposite of what you said you were agreeing with. And by Sunday my own opening line gets handed back to me as the thing I'm supposedly "bending over backwards" to avoid conceding.
So... you adopted my own argument on arrival, described the negation of my conclusion as agreement, and then presented my premise back to me as a concession, which is a pretty telling. 
The same thing happens to every specific claim you make once someone checks it. "Sold weapons grade uranium to Russia through one of her subsidiaries" (Sun 6:15 AM) became "wasn't yet weapons grade," became "might be legal, sure, I never made the claim it was illegal," became "my main claim is you sound unhinged" (Sun 10:43 AM), and your own source by your own summary has the exports going to Europe and Asia. Funnily enough, this had happened earlier in the conversation when Lowbrow called it a steelman while adding "illegally" to a claim I or Sudly never made. In a twist, nobody added "illegal" to anything you wrote and you brought it in yourself, after the facts got checked, as the exit.
"Proof Epstein was rewriting US laws and telling politicians how to vote" (Wed 8:06 PM) turned out to be suggested wording for a Virgin Islands sex offender law and some texts with a non-voting delegate, which became "never said he was Mossad," which became "enough evidence for speculation."
"They made well over 2.2 billion" became "worth tens of billions, shielded by the paperwork." The claim goes in big, gets challenged, comes out small, and the last sentence is always a mental health assertion against whoever challenged it rather than addressing the claim itself.
And the reason none of that ever costs you anything is the standard you've set up for yourself. "If you, as a regular citizen, see something, it's because you were meant to see it" (Thu 7:17 PM).
"If you really think what you're allowed to see on the news is reality, then you are gone" (Thu 8:03 PM). Bush and Cheney's disclosed wealth is just "on paper," but the tens of billions are real and conveniently invisible. Unfortunately the reality is that under that standard anything anyone can actually show you is staged and anything you assert is unfalsifiable by design.
Worse, you're using that tactic to attempt to force anyone posting, to defend people they were never arguing had clean hands to begin with, or particularly align with. It's extremely transparent to anyone paying attention.
Your theory of elections is that Trump wins because his critics are hysterical and loses because the opponent was "relatively reasonable" (Sat 5:57 AM), which is a... theory. You said there are "MILLIONS of reasons" the left ignores, and when Bigbadwooof actually asked for them (Sat 5:55 AM) your top two were the EPA and the crypto scam, which are the critiques this thread has been making the entire time, but you had oddly added that "no one else really is" raising the crypto stuff about ninety minutes after sudly posted "paying himself billions with insider trading and cryptocoin scams."
At 8:36 Wednesday night the crypto rug pull was "fucking wild" and the one exception to "not unprecedentedly corrupt," and by 8:53 the same night it was "a drop in the bucket." The positions you hold seems to track whoever you happen to be arguing with at the time rather than anything that's actually been established as a real position you hold.
Meanwhile the actual claim hasn't moved an inch. He takes the salary because the law requires it, takes billions on top of it through the office, does it openly, and is the only president in the disclosure era to keep his businesses while holding it. Nothing in this exchange has really touched any of that.
Edited by PatrickKn (09/27/26 01:03 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Spores for European Microscopy
christopera 
Holybullshit 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
fireworks_god
dopestone
lonestar2004
Clordio
Gogol
Diploid