thoreau wrote: ↑
02 Oct 2019, 19:07
It's what people want me to say, so I'll say it. Because the Party's final, most essential command is to ignore the evidence of my eyes and ears.
Or, you know, some people here just disagree with you on those things—which I'd be the first to say is not
trivial if those things are important to you. However, nobody's trying to intimidate or coerce you into saying what you don't believe, that I see. If people has been and I've missed it, I'd say that's worth a lot more hostility than the passive-aggressive layering-sarcasm-until-someone-gets-genuinely-confused routine. (And that I would owe you an apology and I would back you in that hostility.)
I mean, to be blunt, I don't much go into the issue because—while I'd readily stipulate that Trump has almost certainly done something illegal and corrupt involving the Russian government before and/or after the election—you've only really recently started allowing much daylight between your arguments and Taktix's in terms of unsubstantiated projections of what that corruption might entail. You balk at some of the more outre specific suggestions he makes, but if Trump does it and it might benefit Putin in the minds of one or more people on a tiny libertarian forum, well then that's proof right there
And that's fatiguing to engage., because Trump is, as best I can tell, a mercurial malignant narcissist with a short attention span and encroaching dementia. If he were doing anything to deliberately pursue a pro-Russia agenda, he'd have to have at least one actual, dedicated minder feeding him big-print single-page briefings on the matter to keep him anything like on-track. And given he says and tweets anything that pops into his head, including what he just watched on Fox News (ETA: and federal crimes!), and that he thinks he's completely unaccountable? I think he would have outright told
us about it if he was intentionally trying to do anything
to benefit Russia, finishing it off with how that proves he's a smart president.