Trump may be trying the Kissinger move trying to reward them to split them from China. It will not work!

[Aryeh Jay]

You hear yourself right? The "Nazis" led by a Jewish man were going to invade Russia?

I mean - have you been following this area of the world?

There may have been a few far right elements in a few platoons down in that region - driven to extremism by the constant civil disturbance that has been sponsored by Putin for well over a decade. One the one hand, yes, things get complicated when a strong-man government like the USSR or former Yugoslavia or even Saddam Hussein's Iraq collapse - and then the local rival ethnic tensions and grudges can resurface until a new equilibrium is reached.

On the other hand - Putin.

But Nazi's INVADE Russia, led by a Jew?

You're not biased in any way so it doesn't matter to me.

I'm just saying what the non biased fair and balanced Russian new media reports from President Putin.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Really? I'm not allowed to post that after what the Republicans said 20,000 times a day about Biden.
Wow. Inconsistent much?


They sure are. Biden is right of Australia's right wing, and no one in America seems to be talking about nationalising healthcare to save $1 TRILLION a year or more while guaranteeing universal coverage.
Yet the Overton Window has moved so far to the right that Trump's new normal is sort of 'ho-hum' to citizens who have not really read about the history of this stuff, but those who know can see huge policy reversals between Biden and Trump.
So if Biden is too right wing for our right, imagine what Aussies make of Trump and his betrayal of western civilisation?


OH - just like that we're snuggling up to Putin and betraying the Budapest Memorandum - forever tarnishing America as a Judas? How much more do you want to confirm what David Brooks said about the rest of the world never trusting America again - even after Trump - because Americans themselves elected that Trump? LIKED and VALUED his betrayal of the west!?


OK - once again!

President Trump does not seem to notice or care that if you betray people, or jerk them around, they will revile you. Over the last few weeks, the Europeans have gone from shock to bewilderment to revulsion. This period was for them what 9/11 was for us — the stripping away of illusions, the exposure of an existential threat. The Europeans have realized that America, the nation they thought was their friend, is actually a rogue superpower.​

Talk about trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted - or in this case coming up with plans to ruin the engagement party and sabotage the relationship - except the 'couple' are already a decade the other side of their wedding and honeymoon!
What are you talking about?
This deal is done!
Russia and China and Iran have annual military exercises together. Russia only has 2 real sectors in the economy right now, energy and arms. They sell their energy to China, and buy in almost everything else. The 2 are wedded to each other militarily and economically.
You pretending Trump is some kind of genius by snuggling up to Putin is not even naïve... but I don't think I'll unpack what it is... because of forum rules!



Wrong again! TRUMP has already ENSURED THAT!

At the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had about a third of their nukes.
In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the UK, America, and Russia PLEDGED to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine transferring its nuclear weapons to Russia and joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. PLEDGED! Russia invaded and now Trump is cheering them on!
What nation is ever going to trust the US again after that betrayal? The message is loud and clear. Keep your nukes - or get your own! Trump may have just triggered the largest proliferation humanity will ever seen - until "Oh oh - Armageddon by accident" finally gets us.
And Trump was so ignorant about all this HE had the gall to tell Zelensky - "You're gambling with WW3!"



Do you know how many analysts have predicted would have happened if the west had fully funded Ukraine?
Our economies are so much bigger than Ukraine's that eventually we would have worn Russia down. There are forces in Russia that would eventually have rejected Putinism and moved on him - probably leaving Russia more moderate.

If ONLY Trumpism had hit in a less vulnerable time - and the only country Trump would have REALLY hurt was America!


Are you SURE about that?

How long before the whining starts about the cost of that?





Oh come on! Putin does NOT want to reduce Russia to a radioactive glassed over parking lot!
Sure - there is sabre rattling.

But if we had supplied Ukraine - and not put boots on the ground - we might have burned through Russia's other leadership structures to support Putinism.

Didn’t you know that after Biden stepped out age was no longer an issue. It was on all the legitimate news podcasts.

 

[eclipsenow]

I'm just saying what the non biased fair and balanced Russian new media reports from President Putin.

Ah - I think you might be dripping with so much sarcasm that I didn't quite comprehend what you were saying in your original post.

I think I might have been a victim of Poe's law.
Did you know Poe's law originated on these forums?
It's probably better to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(I mean - I get sarcasm works sometimes but it's got to be obvious - with emojis and explanation even.)

​

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.[1][2][3]​

​

Poe's law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious".[4]​

​

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]​

​

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.​

The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]​

​

Its original conceptualization held that online parodies or sarcasm on religious views are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of religious views.[5] In part, Poe was simply reiterating common advice about the need to clearly mark online sarcasm or parody, otherwise it would be interpreted as the real thing[5] or used by online trolls,[6] extremists, and fundamentalists as sincere expressions of their authors, particularly if they match their own views.[7] Some abuse the law by publishing extremism or defamation without a smiley or other indication of satire, and if there is too much criticism towards it, reply that it was only an irony. As early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz, in a post on Usenet, wrote:​

​

Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.​

Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, , has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.[8]​

In 2017, Wired published an article calling Poe's Law "2017's Most Important Internet Phenomenon", and wrote that "Poe's Law applies to more and more internet interactions." The article gave examples of cases such as on 4chan forums with the usage of the OK gesture as a white power symbol and the Trump administration where there were deliberate ambiguities over whether something was serious or intended as a parody, where people were using Poe's law as "a refuge" to camouflage beliefs that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.[9] Some treat Poe's law as part of contemporary kitsch culture;[7] another view maintains that Poe's law could lead to nihilism, a situation where nothing matters and everything is a joke.[6]​

​

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Ah - I think you might be dripping with so much sarcasm that I didn't quite comprehend what you were saying in your original post.

I think I might have been a victim of Poe's law.
Did you know Poe's law originated on these forums?
It's probably better to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(I mean - I get sarcasm works sometimes but it's got to be obvious - with emojis and explanation even.)

​

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.[1][2][3]​

​

Poe's law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious".[4]​

​

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]​

​

The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]​

​

Its original conceptualization held that online parodies or sarcasm on religious views are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of religious views.[5] In part, Poe was simply reiterating common advice about the need to clearly mark online sarcasm or parody, otherwise it would be interpreted as the real thing[5] or used by online trolls,[6] extremists, and fundamentalists as sincere expressions of their authors, particularly if they match their own views.[7] Some abuse the law by publishing extremism or defamation without a smiley or other indication of satire, and if there is too much criticism towards it, reply that it was only an irony. As early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz, in a post on Usenet, wrote:​

​

In 2017, Wired published an article calling Poe's Law "2017's Most Important Internet Phenomenon", and wrote that "Poe's Law applies to more and more internet interactions." The article gave examples of cases such as on 4chan forums with the usage of the OK gesture as a white power symbol and the Trump administration where there were deliberate ambiguities over whether something was serious or intended as a parody, where people were using Poe's law as "a refuge" to camouflage beliefs that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.[9] Some treat Poe's law as part of contemporary kitsch culture;[7] another view maintains that Poe's law could lead to nihilism, a situation where nothing matters and everything is a joke.[6]​

​

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I knew Nathan Poe, he was a friend of mine, and Aryeh Jay is no Nathan Poe.

 

[The Liturgist]

Really? I'm not allowed to post that after what the Republicans said 20,000 times a day about Biden.
Wow. Inconsistent much?

You can post whatever you want. Furthermore, I never posted any comments about President Biden during the election campaign. I was not aware that I was personally responsible for the conduct of all Republicans, or vicariously representative of them, and thus it is logically fallacious to accuse me of inconsistency based on what others may have said during the campaign.

I do believe Biden was the victim of ageist discrimination from his own party insofar as enormous pressure was put upon him to pull out of the race despite his desire to continue. And many Republicans expressed such a view during the campaign.

If you want to talk about inconsistency however, the allegations of mental incompetence raised against Trump during the first administration including remarks suggesting he was likely to launch a nuclear strike if not removed and replaced by the Vice President, compared to the removal of Biden from the ballot while seemingly denying that he had experienced any deterioration of mental acuity (in which case he should have been allowed to run, whereas if he was experiencing a lack of mental acuity, and was not simply having a bad night in terms of his debate performance, then according to the arguments made by democrats, VP Harris should have taken over at least temporarily.

There were also policies enacted under Biden vis a vis Ukraine which actually did increase the risk of a nuclear war relative to when Trump was in office.

 

[eclipsenow]

I knew Nathan Poe, he was a friend of mine, and Aryeh Jay is no Nathan Poe.

Internet fame and glory are yours!

 

[eclipsenow]

There were also policies enacted under Biden vis a vis Ukraine which actually did increase the risk of a nuclear war relative to when Trump was in office.

First - I blame the Presidential system for serving up to of the oldest candidates in history. You should adopt some of the Westminster party rules. The parties have the power to hold a spill and remove the unpopular and / or crazy from the top job - whether or not they've been medically certified as crazy or not.

Second - I'm less worried about Trump's age than his malignant narcissism.

Experts have been warning about this since before the last election. The alt-right love what he does - but the experts could see the alarm bells years ago and pretty much predicted today's cultural split and breakdown.

Teams of mental health professionals have diagnosed Trump as having Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder. “According to psychologist John Gartner, Trump clearly exhibits four key symptoms of malignant narcissism -- the "most destructive" personality type -- including paranoia, narcissism, antisocial personality disorder and sadism.”
Psychologist-backed documentary labels Trump 'malignant narcissist' - France 24
Republicans defend Trump correctly pointing out that he never visited their clinics. I have a bit of a background in social sciences, and agree that normally a professional evaluation SHOULD be with the client in their clinic. Narcissism is different. Narcissists are some of the world’s best liars - to themselves as well as the psychiatrist. Self-reporting from the narcissist is next to useless. Even back in 2015, primitive Ai could diagnose a narcissist MORE accurately from their social media feed than than a psychiatrist running off self-reporting! Trump accused of ‘malignant narcissism’ – but how accurately can you diagnose someone you’ve never met? | City St George's, University of London

Narcissism is dangerous in a world leader. On this basis - over 200 mental health professionals wrote a letter warning of the dangers. Books: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President: Assessing Dangerousness - PMC

Even his own niece is a psychologist who has diagnosed him!
Mary Trump Diagnoses the President
The documentary “Unfit” is on YouTube. It goes on to show how narcissism appeals to certain populations and helped fascists in the past take over. The rage and emotional power of a narcissist appeals because:-

• A disenfranchised working class feel like someone is finally saying what they feel!
• The narcissist simplifies complex geopolitical situations down to their gut-felt, primitive picture. It’s raw an appealing, where other more educated and nuanced politicians sound like a university lecture.
• The narcissist will also find simple solutions to complex problems in their own country, blaming all their problems on “undesirables”. With Hitler it was the Jews. With Trump it is the immigrants. Beware any politician that resorts to what sociologists call Othering - blaming everything on “Those others - that group!”

 

[Pommer]

Ah - I think you might be dripping with so much sarcasm that I didn't quite comprehend what you were saying in your original post.

I think I might have been a victim of Poe's law.
Did you know Poe's law originated on these forums?
It's probably better to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(I mean - I get sarcasm works sometimes but it's got to be obvious - with emojis and explanation even.)

​

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.[1][2][3]​

​

Poe's law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious".[4]​

​

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]​

​

The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]​

​

Its original conceptualization held that online parodies or sarcasm on religious views are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of religious views.[5] In part, Poe was simply reiterating common advice about the need to clearly mark online sarcasm or parody, otherwise it would be interpreted as the real thing[5] or used by online trolls,[6] extremists, and fundamentalists as sincere expressions of their authors, particularly if they match their own views.[7] Some abuse the law by publishing extremism or defamation without a smiley or other indication of satire, and if there is too much criticism towards it, reply that it was only an irony. As early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz, in a post on Usenet, wrote:​

​

In 2017, Wired published an article calling Poe's Law "2017's Most Important Internet Phenomenon", and wrote that "Poe's Law applies to more and more internet interactions." The article gave examples of cases such as on 4chan forums with the usage of the OK gesture as a white power symbol and the Trump administration where there were deliberate ambiguities over whether something was serious or intended as a parody, where people were using Poe's law as "a refuge" to camouflage beliefs that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.[9] Some treat Poe's law as part of contemporary kitsch culture;[7] another view maintains that Poe's law could lead to nihilism, a situation where nothing matters and everything is a joke.[6]​

​

Poe's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can find mine on the wiki that is (supposedly) rational.

 

[eclipsenow]

You can find mine on the wiki that is (supposedly) rational.

Sorry - did you coin an internet law? Please - tell me more.

 

[Pommer]

Sorry - did you coin an internet law? Please - tell me more.

Mine was satirical and basically said that a person’s mind can be changed by obtaining information on the internet and that the nature of this change was from having “no-opinion” to holding a “wrong-opinion”. This was 18 years ago and was absolutely prescient.