Other stuff

[Gavagai]

That. 2014 he praised Putins invasion. 2016 said Crimea would rather be with Russia and that they didn't seize it at all. Its not like it was a one time thing. Again you have the argument Biden should have done more, but Trump was actively saying what Russia did was ok, but yet you think Trump would have done more? The argument doesn't follow.

It was said behind closed doors and we know about it from hearsay (and with no context). I don't understand how you call it appeasement, given that there were no Russian representatives at the event and Trump couldn't expect the Russians would even know he said it. I have the impression that you just throw everything that can be vaguely associated with pro-Russian stance into one heap without paying any attention to the role the fact plays in causal chains. I have already said what Trump has done, and Biden has done and failed to do. These were important things with real-life consequences. You put them at the same level with some inconsequential anecdotes about who said what at some closed-doors meeting.

[Gavagai]

Please redirect the last to the American thread. I've sworn NEVER to let that lie pass unchallenged. 

I don't want to go ad hominin but even assuming I agree with 1 & 2 ( I don't) that hardly proves he would intervene in Ukraine. #3 he lies a lot even for a politician; not exactly a high mark for morality.

The purpose of that particular response was to provide evidence for Trump's kindness. It has nothing to do with Ukraine and little to do with his overall morality. I understand that the "overthrow democracy" story means a great deal to you but for me it is of no interest.

So you are willing to cherry pick only arguments that show Trumps good side and ignore everything else? I mean you can make the devil look good that way.

I focus on what is important and ignore what is unimportant. I said that we have a different perception of what is important and what is not very long time ago. This is completely fine.

[Mjmd]

Again, wasn't a one time thing. He said it in interviews and on the campaign trail. Besides provide lethal aid what makes you think Trump would have intervened. Trump was many things, but war monger was not one of them (and that was one of the few things I liked about him).

[Mjmd]

Please redirect the last to the American thread. I've sworn NEVER to let that lie pass unchallenged. 

I don't want to go ad hominin but even assuming I agree with 1 & 2 ( I don't) that hardly proves he would intervene in Ukraine. #3 he lies a lot even for a politician; not exactly a high mark for morality.

The purpose of that particular response was to provide evidence for Trump's kindness. It has nothing to do with Ukraine and little to do with his overall morality. I understand that the "overthrow democracy" story means a great deal to you but for me it is of no interest.

So you are willing to cherry pick only arguments that show Trumps good side and ignore everything else? I mean you can make the devil look good that way.

I focus on what is important and ignore what is unimportant. I said that we have a different perception of what is important and what is not very long time ago. This is completely fine.

Ignoring overthrow of the worlds most important democracy but then saying that same person is moral because his children and wife don't seem to publicly hate him is not good argument.

Edit: Selective argument. I knew there was a term.

[Gavagai]

Ignoring overthrow of the worlds most important democracy but then saying that same person is moral because his children and wife don't seem to publicly hate him is not good argument.

I distinguish between morality and kindness, I do not believe that attempting to overthrow democracy was a thing that actually happened. Also, I am a monarchist and I do not think that there is anything immoral in overthrowing democracy by itself.

[Mjmd]

Ignoring overthrow of the worlds most important democracy but then saying that same person is moral because his children and wife don't seem to publicly hate him is not good argument.

I distinguish between morality and kindness, I do not believe that attempting to overthrow democracy was a thing that actually happened. Also, I am a monarchist and I do not think that there is anything immoral in overthrowing democracy by itself.

That explains a lot. I did a whole defense of democracy in the American thread. As for it happening the Jan 6th committee did an excellent job documenting using mainly Republcian sources.

[Mjmd]

To avoid ad nauseum in why peaceful transition of power is important I wrote a defense of democracy here:

https://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/show...4&page=242

[Jowy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...reelected/

I still remember how Democrats portrayed Bolton as some sort of lunatic back in the early days of Trump administration. It is hilarious how nowadays they take seriously every word he says.

I still think he is a lunatic to be fair. There is a reason I excluded from my list things from former admins. Are all of them true? Probably not, but there are is a lot of stink, so you have to assume a turd somewhere.

I think a large part of US media, Democratic political elite, and most of Republican political elite invested an enormous amount of effort into manufacturing a portrait of Trump as an incompetent, evil wannabe-dictator. From my observations, this portrayal is very far divorced from reality, in some cases tragically so (for example, I think Trump is one of the few politicians in the modern world who has genuine kindness and some concept of honor which is likely explained by his non-political background) but neither Trump, nor his allies have competences to adequately deal with this character-assasianation. Can't really fault them as one would need exceptional talents to survive such concentrated and skillful effort.

Just to point out he did try to overthrow US democracy. If you want to see that whole argument you can go the American thread.

Okay this is funny again 

[Gavagai]

To avoid ad nauseum in why peaceful transition of power is important I wrote a defense of democracy here:

https://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/show...4&page=242

I agree that peaceful transfer of power is important but this also happens in monarchies.
I understand democracy narrowly, as a system where the government derives legitimacy from the popular vote in which all adult population can participate. This is the idea I find incredibly problematic for reasons I will not list here. There are other good practices of governance that are usually associated with democracy: division of powers, rotation of high offices, rule of law, etc. I more or less agree those are important but there is no logical connection between them and the popular vote.

[Mjmd]

I have a feeling this would be a longer argument and I would encourage you to read the couple pages of discussion there and then we can discuss later. I also can't tell if you are trying to red herring away from current argument.