3 ms·

I can fully understand how people on both the left and the right could have ideological differences with Trump, how they can hate the way he interacts with peop

by pc86 2y ago

I can fully understand how people on both the left and the right could have ideological differences with Trump, how they can hate the way he interacts with people, think he's picking unqualified cronies for high level jobs, etc. I disagree with the last one but I can at least see how a reasonable person would get to that conclusion. "Trump is committing treason because he is instituting tariffs" or "Trump is a Russian asset" is not a position any reasonably intelligent person can come to without being blinded by partisanship. It's simply not a serious position to have.

jeremyjh 2y ago
If Trump were a Russian asset, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than what he is already doing? Hell, he is running Putin's playbook on Canada and Greenland. Did you vote for that? NATO is already over because none of our allies can expect Trump to honor our treaty obligations.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > If Trump were a Russian asset, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than what he is already doing? Rhetoric is a poor substitute for actual evidence. Many moons ago, the fringe right used a similar argument to imply that Barack Obama was pro-ISIS. After his hasty withdrawal from Iraq, ISIS filled the power vacuum. Their "caliphate" grew for years and years, with no significant intervention from the US! At the time there wasn't a great answer to the question "If Obama were pro-ISIS, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than he already has?". Yet (hopefully) we all know that this was simply bad faith, conspiratorial rhetoric. He was obviously not pro-ISIS, and there was no evidence whatsoever that he was. So how could people possibly have entertained such an idea? Easy--they already hated Barack Obama, so they were willing to give the conspiracy theory the benefit of the doubt. Do yourself a favor and apply the old tried and true standard: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It'll save you a good deal of embarrassment.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Obama could have invited ISIS to talks with his security advisor. He could have made any sanctions on them toothless. I'm sure there's more.
  - jeremyjh 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - varispeed 2y ago
    Have you seen Obama disseminating ISIS propaganda?
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      Your conspiracy theory isn't coherent enough to be implied. Make the argument.
      - jeremyjh 2y ago
        Trump and his administration do spread Kremlin falsehoods and talking points. This was a major sticking point in Gabbard's confirmation. For instance, she spread the false claim that Ukraine was developing bioweapons that are a threat to Russia. Trump himself repeated the false claim that Zelensky has a poor approval numbers and is preventing elections because he's a dictator. Trump also said Ukraine started the conflict. In his last admin he said that "Crimeans want to be Russian".
        marcusverus 2y ago
        >Gabbard Tulsi isn't Trump. > Zelensky Trump quite reasonably called Zelensky a dictator. Ukraine can legally skip elections while under martial law, sure. But seeing as Zelensky has the power to end martial law at any time, he is single-handedly preventing Ukranian elections, depriving the people of Ukraine of their voice during what is potentially the most pivotal span of time in Ukranian history. Surely you still call Putin a dictator, even though he attained his status without directly violating the constitution? > Trump also said Ukraine started the conflict. Are you referring to that time Trump uttered the words "you never should have started it" in one of his word clouds while speaking to a journalist? That is evidence that he is in thrall to the Russians? > In his last admin he said that "Crimeans want to be Russian". The vast majority of them are Russian, ethnically and linguistically. All polling prior to the 2014 invasion showed that a significant majority would support annexation by Russia. Don't worry, you can know this fact--and even repeat it out loud!--without the bad men in the Kremlin gaining control over your mind.
- throwaway17422 2y ago
  Regardless of what his intentions might be which are all speculations as far as I'm concerned, he managed to convince Europe to rearm in 1 month, which is a net positive for Europe and America (assuming America still sees that as a positive) and a massive blow for Russia.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  How about stopping to supply Ukraine with weapons?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - vel0city 2y ago
    He's been trying to do that as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/world/europe/trump-ukraine-aid.html?unlocked_article_code=1.804.kbgf.72fPGwubkCbe&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/world/europe/trump-ukrain...
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      Considering there's nothing stopping him really, what does "trying" mean exactly?
      - vel0city 2y ago
        By that I mean he did it, briefly, then probably got a lot of push back internally and rolled it back. The whole event seemed like a chance to drum up an excuse to drop support for Ukraine, but ultimately wasn't enough of a reason to present. I don't really see another way to take that. Have you watched the full exchange on it? And I mean his first impeachment was because of his impounding of aid to Ukraine. Acting like he hasn't been working towards killing support for Ukraine is ignoring his actions and his own statements.
alex1138 2y ago
At least some of his appointments make perfect sense as well (Tulsi, RFK, Bhattacharya)

by pc86 2y ago

jeremyjh 2y ago

If Trump were a Russian asset, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than what he is already doing? Hell, he is running Putin's playbook on Canada and Greenland. Did you vote for that? NATO is already over because none of our allies can expect Trump to honor our treaty obligations.

marcusverus 2y ago
> If Trump were a Russian asset, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than what he is already doing? Rhetoric is a poor substitute for actual evidence. Many moons ago, the fringe right used a similar argument to imply that Barack Obama was pro-ISIS. After his hasty withdrawal from Iraq, ISIS filled the power vacuum. Their "caliphate" grew for years and years, with no significant intervention from the US! At the time there wasn't a great answer to the question "If Obama were pro-ISIS, what could he possibly do to advance their interests more than he already has?". Yet (hopefully) we all know that this was simply bad faith, conspiratorial rhetoric. He was obviously not pro-ISIS, and there was no evidence whatsoever that he was. So how could people possibly have entertained such an idea? Easy--they already hated Barack Obama, so they were willing to give the conspiracy theory the benefit of the doubt. Do yourself a favor and apply the old tried and true standard: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It'll save you a good deal of embarrassment.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Obama could have invited ISIS to talks with his security advisor. He could have made any sanctions on them toothless. I'm sure there's more.
- jeremyjh 2y ago
  [flagged]
- varispeed 2y ago
  Have you seen Obama disseminating ISIS propaganda?
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    Your conspiracy theory isn't coherent enough to be implied. Make the argument.
    - jeremyjh 2y ago
      Trump and his administration do spread Kremlin falsehoods and talking points. This was a major sticking point in Gabbard's confirmation. For instance, she spread the false claim that Ukraine was developing bioweapons that are a threat to Russia. Trump himself repeated the false claim that Zelensky has a poor approval numbers and is preventing elections because he's a dictator. Trump also said Ukraine started the conflict. In his last admin he said that "Crimeans want to be Russian".
      - marcusverus 2y ago
        >Gabbard Tulsi isn't Trump. > Zelensky Trump quite reasonably called Zelensky a dictator. Ukraine can legally skip elections while under martial law, sure. But seeing as Zelensky has the power to end martial law at any time, he is single-handedly preventing Ukranian elections, depriving the people of Ukraine of their voice during what is potentially the most pivotal span of time in Ukranian history. Surely you still call Putin a dictator, even though he attained his status without directly violating the constitution? > Trump also said Ukraine started the conflict. Are you referring to that time Trump uttered the words "you never should have started it" in one of his word clouds while speaking to a journalist? That is evidence that he is in thrall to the Russians? > In his last admin he said that "Crimeans want to be Russian". The vast majority of them are Russian, ethnically and linguistically. All polling prior to the 2014 invasion showed that a significant majority would support annexation by Russia. Don't worry, you can know this fact--and even repeat it out loud!--without the bad men in the Kremlin gaining control over your mind.
throwaway17422 2y ago
Regardless of what his intentions might be which are all speculations as far as I'm concerned, he managed to convince Europe to rearm in 1 month, which is a net positive for Europe and America (assuming America still sees that as a positive) and a massive blow for Russia.
lostmsu 2y ago
How about stopping to supply Ukraine with weapons?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vel0city 2y ago
  He's been trying to do that as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/world/europe/trump-ukraine-aid.html?unlocked_article_code=1.804.kbgf.72fPGwubkCbe&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/world/europe/trump-ukrain...
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    Considering there's nothing stopping him really, what does "trying" mean exactly?
    - vel0city 2y ago
      By that I mean he did it, briefly, then probably got a lot of push back internally and rolled it back. The whole event seemed like a chance to drum up an excuse to drop support for Ukraine, but ultimately wasn't enough of a reason to present. I don't really see another way to take that. Have you watched the full exchange on it? And I mean his first impeachment was because of his impounding of aid to Ukraine. Acting like he hasn't been working towards killing support for Ukraine is ignoring his actions and his own statements.

alex1138 2y ago

At least some of his appointments make perfect sense as well (Tulsi, RFK, Bhattacharya)