Hi, I'm a "liberal" by most definitions, not from the states but certainly would vote democrat if I could. 

I joined ATS recently because I believe that, in this era of echo chambers, it's important for us to seek out opinions that challenge our own, and ATS seems conservative-dominated. After I inserted myself unceremoniously into some divisive threads, someone by the name of ksihkahe called me out for being *checks notes* pedantic, disingenuous, a pearl clutcher, and worst of all: A defender of democrats. Intrigued, I decided to check out the link in their signature and it brought me here. In the spirit of this thread, and since work is very slow right now, I thought: The place could use some dissenters. Fuck it, why not join?

A bit about my relevant interests: I like forums, debates, people that don't shy away from getting to the bottom of a disagreement, capitalism, democracy, freedom, Pete Buttigieg, reading entire SCOTUS rulings for some reason, and Barack Obama.

If I'm not welcome here, please let me know, I'll be out of your hair.

(02-24-2025, 06:04 PM)TokenLiberal Wrote: Hi, I'm a "liberal" by most definitions, not from the states but certainly would vote democrat if I could. 

I joined ATS recently because I believe that, in this era of echo chambers, it's important for us to seek out opinions that challenge our own, and ATS seems conservative-dominated. After I inserted myself unceremoniously into some divisive threads, someone by the name of ksihkahe called me out for being *checks notes* pedantic, disingenuous, a pearl clutcher, and worst of all: A defender of democrats. Intrigued, I decided to check out the link in their signature and it brought me here. In the spirit of this thread, and since work is very slow right now, I thought: The place could use some dissenters. Fuck it, why not join?

A bit about my relevant interests: I like forums, debates, people that don't shy away from getting to the bottom of a disagreement, capitalism, democracy, freedom, Pete Buttigieg, reading entire SCOTUS rulings for some reason, and Barack Obama.

If I'm not welcome here, please let me know, I'll be out of your hair.

You are absolutely welcome here. We have several members from outside the US, though you are the first self-identified liberal to post. It would be my hope that you are not a unicorn, but the first in a line of open-minded people with opinions that did not come from a box. I don't really know what liberal means in the US or anywhere else in the West. I see a lot of liberals cheering for war and authoritarian rule, so I don't consider them liberal. I suppose you can fill in what that means over time.

For the record... because I am often a pedant with others of the fold. My statement:

Quote:If you choose to exclusively interact with people criticizing Democrats and exclusively choose to defend Democrats, then you're only going to get engagement from people criticizing Democrats. It's not a difficult concept.

There are plenty of sub-forums that have nothing to do with politics and you have chosen to not participate in them, so this whole schtick is coming off as disingenuous and premeditated pearl clutching.

If you choose, as my observation was not comprehensive. You have now chosen otherwise, marginally.

It comes off as, which is not a conclusion. Assuming you are looking to discuss, then you won't find quite the same naked hostility here as on ATS.

You are prolific, structure your thoughts well, and appear to retain information for longer than a single post... which is good. I'm delighted you are branching out and really trying to challenge your views, that's often a hollow statement. Really challenging views beyond the superficial is uncomfortable, but is the only way to grow.

It's very hard coaxing people out of echo-chambers and ATS most definitely has lost the potential for real nuanced discussion it once had in politics. Topics there that are a wealth of information can be found in aviation, though I'm not a huge fan. A number of UFO researchers of note have passed through, though much of that is now bandied about in mainstream sources routinely. There are also threads on ancient history with educated opinions... though the further back you go the higher the quality tends to be. I've probably found as much interesting or novel materials on accident as I have with intent.

For the record, the Democrats in the US are not liberal by any standard I've known. Unless endless war, cronyism, tribal warfare, and corporate profiteering have become part of the liberal platform. These things are par for the course in Western politics, but the Democrat party was supposed to be what stood in the way of all the things they now endorse. I think politics is mostly superfluous to the issues of corruption and gonzo materialism in 2025, which seems self-evident to me when babies are being murdered to thunderous applause and a small group of people get ever more wealthy investing in the misery of others.

I look forward to fleshing it out, if you're truly looking to get to the bottom of things.

The only things that I really don't care for are toxic rhetorical techniques that stifle real discussion and willful dishonesty, which with your stated purpose and intent shouldn't be a problem. You responded honestly and proceeded with your stated plan.

I can't promise to always engage... but when I do it will be a real response rather than regurgitations.

So, welcome. I hope you're challenged in the way you want and I hope you challenge others. Hopefully, you'll find more that you agree with and understand than things you can't or won't. Your beliefs will be challenged, but there is no better way to refine them.

(02-24-2025, 06:04 PM)TokenLiberal Wrote: Hi, I'm a "liberal" by most definitions, not from the states but certainly would vote democrat if I could. 

I joined ATS recently because I believe that, in this era of echo chambers, it's important for us to seek out opinions that challenge our own, and ATS seems conservative-dominated. After I inserted myself unceremoniously into some divisive threads, someone by the name of ksihkahe called me out for being *checks notes* pedantic, disingenuous, a pearl clutcher, and worst of all: A defender of democrats. Intrigued, I decided to check out the link in their signature and it brought me here. In the spirit of this thread, and since work is very slow right now, I thought: The place could use some dissenters. Fuck it, why not join?

A bit about my relevant interests: I like forums, debates, people that don't shy away from getting to the bottom of a disagreement, capitalism, democracy, freedom, Pete Buttigieg, reading entire SCOTUS rulings for some reason, and Barack Obama.

If I'm not welcome here, please let me know, I'll be out of your hair.

I thought I made it clear previously, though you may have missed it if you haven't read announcements.

Yes, everyone is welcome, in fact, I'm excited to hear your position on certain issues.

Welcome aboard.

(02-24-2025, 08:50 PM)Ksihkehe Wrote: You are absolutely welcome here. We have several members from outside the US, though you are the first self-identified liberal to post. It would be my hope that you are not a unicorn, but the first in a line of open-minded people with opinions that did not come from a box. I don't really know what liberal means in the US or anywhere else in the West. I see a lot of liberals cheering for war and authoritarian rule, so I don't consider them liberal. I suppose you can fill in what that means over time.

Thanks. I'm not particularly interested in what liberal means, really. It's just going to mean different things to different people. I decided to self-identify as such here because I think it's how conservatives tend to describe people on my side of the political spectrum, so I figured it would be meaningful to you.

Quote:Assuming you are looking to discuss, then you won't find quite the same naked hostility here as on ATS.

I'm mostly hoping I'll find people more willing to engage in longer discussions. On ATS I haven't had much luck with that. Also, I recently ran into the post character limit, and my post wasn't even long, which I'm somewhat irrationally annoyed by. I think longer posts should be celebrated, not forcibly shortened.

Quote:Really challenging views beyond the superficial is uncomfortable, but is the only way to grow.

Indeed. Things are all so polarizing now. Balanced discussion is extremely rare, and finding a media diet that doesn't slowly but surely nudge us into extremism takes a lot of energy for most people.

We might find that our core values are not that far apart. A consequence of the algorithms that supply us with our warm bath of emotional validation is that we end up living in different realities. You will think a lot of things that I believe are "simply not true", and the other way around. My hope is that we can bring our lived realities together a little. Ultimately, the facts are the facts, and if we can all rationally and critically review the evidence, we should be able to agree there at least.

Quote:For the record, the Democrats in the US are not liberal by any standard I've known. Unless endless war, cronyism, tribal warfare, and corporate profiteering have become part of the liberal platform. These things are par for the course in Western politics, but the Democrat party was supposed to be what stood in the way of all the things they now endorse. I think politics is mostly superfluous to the issues of corruption and gonzo materialism in 2025, which seems self-evident to me when babies are being murdered to thunderous applause and a small group of people get ever more wealthy investing in the misery of others.

There is already a lot here that I disagree with, but I think it's best to discuss it elsewhere.

Quote:I look forward to fleshing it out

What subjects would you be most interested in fleshing out? I'll pick one and make a thread to get us started.

(02-24-2025, 10:37 PM)M.U.D. Wrote: Yes, everyone is welcome, in fact, im excited to hear your position on certain issues.

Thanks, good to hear. Same question to you: What issues, specifically? I'll pick one and make a thread.

(02-25-2025, 07:30 AM)TokenLiberal Wrote: Thanks, good to hear. Same question to you: What issues, specifically? I'll pick one and make a thread.

Good idea.

(02-25-2025, 07:30 AM)TokenLiberal Wrote: Thanks, good to hear. Same question to you: What issues, specifically? I'll pick one and make a thread.

While I'm interested in hearing one, I had no specific one in mind.

I don't really consider politics an interest anymore. I realized at some point fairly recently that following politics was just situational awareness as it relates to other things rather than an interest. It seems most people that are interested in politics are interested mostly in aspects of it that pertain to them or their situation, from a side. This is logical, I guess. I view things from many perches.

I don't necessarily like or agree with some things, though I support them because they're necessary. I don't like or agree with abortion because in a better world we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies or life threatening complications requiring abortion, but it's simply not possible or practical. In the US this has become a wedge issue entirely based on marketing. The vast majority of the population finds the average European model for abortion law acceptable, with absolutists and abolishers keeping the topic divisive. Both of these extremist sides want irrational things, either unrestricted abortions through to birth (with some even suggesting post-birth abortion) or none at all (even in cases of rape or serious medical contraindications).

I guess I'm a rationalist? I don't like or support things that are irrational, within the bounds of whatever the discussion is. I think the entire financial and economic structure is irrational, but I can still discuss policies within that system independent of the irrational nature of the system itself. If you catch what I mean.

You said you disagree with several of my general comments, pick any you'd like. I also mentioned abortions here as an example, so maybe you disagree with something I said there. Those are all pretty steep hills to climb though. I mentioned endless war, cronyism, tribal warfare, and corporate profiteering, in the previous post. I don't see an upside to any of them. Most abortion arguments that find my position unacceptable are from ideologues or activists, both unlikely to pique my interest.

The world of topics is your oyster. If it's interesting then I'll certainly join in.

(02-26-2025, 04:03 AM)Ksihkehe Wrote: While I'm interested in hearing one, I had no specific one in mind.

I don't really consider politics an interest anymore. I realized at some point fairly recently that following politics was just situational awareness as it relates to other things rather than an interest. It seems most people that are interested in politics are interested mostly in aspects of it that pertain to them or their situation, from a side. This is logical, I guess. I view things from many perches.

I am interested in politics and economics because they deal with the big, all-encompassing question: What is the best way to structure our society? I also like the subjects because everyone has an opinion and they differ wildly; It gets us talking to each other.

Quote:I guess I'm a rationalist? I don't like or support things that are irrational, within the bounds of whatever the discussion is. I think the entire financial and economic structure is irrational, but I can still discuss policies within that system independent of the irrational nature of the system itself. If you catch what I mean.

I have little reason to doubt you specifically, but I have noticed on ATS that, while everyone thinks they are critical thinkers, many have dubious standards for evidence and take at face value whatever they are told by the people they trust (why anyone would trust Trump is beyond me). When questioned, they resort to ad hominem, and getting them to substantiate their claims proves impossible most of the time.

No doubt they would all call themselves rational, critical thinkers, and even have in some cases. Yet their emotionally charged arguments and knee-jerk responses betray they have no control of their emotions.

Quote:You said you disagree with several of my general comments, pick any you'd like. I also mentioned abortions here as an example, so maybe you disagree with something I said there. Those are all pretty steep hills to climb though. I mentioned endless war, cronyism, tribal warfare, and corporate profiteering, in the previous post. I don't see an upside to any of them. Most abortion arguments that find my position unacceptable are from ideologues or activists, both unlikely to pique my interest.

The world of topics is your oyster. If it's interesting then I'll certainly join in.

The abortion issue isn't of particular interest to me. As you said the issue is mostly solved in the developed world, the US is just lagging behind (I would say mostly due to the religious right impeding progress).

As for endless wars, cronyism, tribal warfare, and corporate profiteering: I don't think these are non-issues, but what strikes me about your take is that you seem to put the responsibility for them on democrats and democrats alone. I have a very different perspective. The endless wars the US finds itself in are mostly a result of neo-conservatism. Cronyism is particularly bad under Trump, who surrounds himself with loyalists and routinely fires career government officials for political reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by tribal warfare. Corporate profiteering is inherent in our economic system; The government has a critical role in keeping it under control, but Reagan in the 80s started a new (neoliberal) political order which emphasizes deregulation and made the problem worse. The republican party remains the party of deregulation.

I think we would do well to start at the very beginning: What makes a state successful? How do we measure its success? I'll make a thread.

(02-26-2025, 12:56 PM)TokenLiberal Wrote: I have little reason to doubt you specifically, but I have noticed on ATS that, while everyone thinks they are critical thinkers, many have dubious standards for evidence and take at face value whatever they are told by the people they trust (why anyone would trust Trump is beyond me). When questioned, they resort to ad hominem, and getting them to substantiate their claims proves impossible most of the time.

No doubt they would all call themselves rational, critical thinkers, and even have in some cases. Yet their emotionally charged arguments and knee-jerk responses betray they have no control of their emotions.

Yeah, that's not really any different than every other forum. The difference is that other forums now have corporate moderation that excludes things offensive to some arbitrary sensibilities that nobody in the US voted for, that often violate our law because they have acted as proxies for the government, and that are politically biased against people that don't support the alt-left. The digital ecosystem has been totally astroturfed and homogenized in the past 15 years.

It wasn't ATS knee-jerking 15 years ago when the the corporate government partnership decided to start putting pressure on forums where free speech wasn't heavily regulated. It wasn't ATS that lobbied ad-sharing monopolies to exclude open forums from participation. It wasn't ATS that pressured payment processors to deny service based on political opinions expressed by sites. It wasn't ATS that forced sites to ban people that didn't conform to whatever standards were imposed by outside parties. It wasn't ATS members running activist campaigns to get sites shut down. ATS became one of the few forums left that were not under corporate moderation standards and the quality of discussion declined from there. It wasn't ATS that wanted discussions to turn into slogans and sound-bytes.

ATS is a digital homeless camp for people that have been abused, called names, threatened, and unfairly treated for the better part of a decade. That they have nowhere else to go means that ATS gets the lowest common denominator from everywhere left of 4chan pol and right of Facebook. Thank the liberals you are fond of, the censorship has been mostly their domain for 15 years.

Go on Reddit and tell an activist (pick whatever activist you want) that they're betraying their lack of emotional control and see how that goes. The entire DNC activist base is fueled by emotion. It's no different than the right wing influencers on X that I'm sure you have plenty to say about.

Quote:As for endless wars, cronyism, tribal warfare, and corporate profiteering: I don't think these are non-issues, but what strikes me about your take is that you seem to put the responsibility for them on democrats and democrats alone. I have a very different perspective. The endless wars the US finds itself in are mostly a result of neo-conservatism. Cronyism is particularly bad under Trump, who surrounds himself with loyalists and routinely fires career government officials for political reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by tribal warfare. Corporate profiteering is inherent in our economic system; The government has a critical role in keeping it under control, but Reagan in the 80s started a new (neoliberal) political order which emphasizes deregulation and made the problem worse. The republican party remains the party of deregulation.

I don't seem to put the responsibility on Democrats alone. You brought up that you would vote Democrat if you could because you're a liberal. I merely pointed out my observations of the Democrat party as it relates to liberalism. You are the one that made the topic what it is, I merely responded topically.

Obama, a fan of cronyism, cleaned out the top ranks of career government officials and military brass and replaced them with politically aligned allies. For decades the press has not reported when all the people elected to the White House did the same or worse as Trump. Cronyism isn't particularly bad under Trump, it's just not been reported by the press when Biden did it, or Obama did it, or Bush did it, or Clinton did it. If you haven't independently done research on this, I'm not going to take the time to educate you on 30 years of bad behavior by our politicians. This statement you've made means you're heavily biased by what the press tells you. It's not enough to just verify that what the press says is true, not if you want to know the truth. You need to also know what the press has simply failed to tell you, which is perhaps the most significant power the press has... embargo of information. Virtually all of the pearl clutching over Trump, the accusations of him making all kinds of money on being President, the "crimes", the harm to "our democracy", are nothing new and have simply never been important enough for the press (which is mostly Democrat and funded by a small group of very wealth people). The press has lied relentlessly, shamelessly, and eagerly, for years about Trump.

Were you aware that 51 former high level intelligence officials interfered in the 2020 elections in favor of Joe Biden, including the former CIA director? Did you know that they signed a document they knew to be false to be plastered across the media? Concurrently, active intelligence operatives violated our founding documents to end-around the 1st amendment and get highly damaging information about Biden censored. Biden himself, when in office, further violated our founding documents in censoring critics of his policies (if you believe he was even competent enough to be held accountable for the things that happened during his term). I'm willing to bet there is a lot you don't know and I am not really interested in digging up ten years of information and sources. It's not important to me. If it was important to you to know the truth I wouldn't have to, you'd have already done it.

The wars have all been bi-partisan for decades. Our politicians on both sides of the aisle make a great deal of money investing in defense contractors, accept campaign donations from them, and they support constant US foreign misadventures.

Corporate profiteering as a government function is not intrinsic to our financial system, corruption is merely intrinsic to all modern governments.

The Democrat party is full of neocons, they literally got the nod from Dick Cheney. The only way to tell the difference between the modern Democrat party and the Republican party is they tell slightly different lies and they cloak themselves in Kente cloth or pride flags.

Quote:I think we would do well to start at the very beginning: What makes a state successful? How do we measure its success? I'll make a thread.

I've read the classics, I've been in government, and I have discussed this topic at length in the past, but I have yet to have a productive conversation about modern politics based on these things.

It's unlikely this will be something I would be interested in, but you are welcome to post whatever you like. There are other members that may be interested, but we're a small forum.

This is probably a better place to bullet point the parameters for, and ways to quantify, a successful state. If you are widely read on it, it shouldn't take a thread to hash it out and for the most part nobody wants to argue much about meaningless idealist political philosophy. We are so far from anywhere near capable of having a successful state it's almost entirely irrelevant except as philosophy. A better topic would be what prevents a state from collapsing under the weight of its own bureaucracy and how to enact those safeguards. At least it would apply to the real world.

(02-26-2025, 03:27 PM)Ksihkehe Wrote: Yeah, that's not really any different than every other forum.

It is, in my experience.

Quote:The difference is that other forums now have corporate moderation that excludes things offensive to some arbitrary sensibilities that nobody in the US voted for, that often violate our law because they have acted as proxies for the government, and that are politically biased against people that don't support the alt-left. The digital ecosystem has been totally astroturfed and homogenized in the past 15 years.

It wasn't ATS knee-jerking 15 years ago when the the corporate government partnership decided to start putting pressure on forums where free speech wasn't heavily regulated. It wasn't ATS that lobbied ad-sharing monopolies to exclude open forums from participation. It wasn't ATS that pressured payment processors to deny service based on political opinions expressed by sites. It wasn't ATS that forced sites to ban people that didn't conform to whatever standards were imposed by outside parties. It wasn't ATS members running activist campaigns to get sites shut down. ATS became one of the few forums left that were not under corporate moderation standards and the quality of discussion declined from there. It wasn't ATS that wanted discussions to turn into slogans and sound-bytes.

The effect you're describing is, as far as I know, mostly due to advertisers not wanting to be associated with controversial things. I'm not a fan of it either, and have never stayed long on any forum with strict content moderation. But you seem to think the (US?) government is involved. Any chance you could substantiate that?

Quote:Go on Reddit and tell an activist (pick whatever activist you want) that they're betraying their lack of emotional control and see how that goes. The entire DNC activist base is fueled by emotion. It's no different than the right wing influencers on X that I'm sure you have plenty to say about.

I have, though it wasn't on Reddit. I have no love for the far left. I am more alarmed by the rise of the far right though. After all, the far left is still a minority in the democratic party, whereas the GOP has been entirely taken over by its populist wing. And the far right has been gaining ground in Europe, too. After the fall of the neoliberal order, a new political order is being formed, and it's not one I like.

Quote:I don't seem to put the responsibility on Democrats alone. You brought up that you would vote Democrat if you could because you're a liberal. I merely pointed out my observations of the Democrat party as it relates to liberalism. You are the one that made the topic what it is, I merely responded topically.

Fair enough. Because the prevailing wisdom on ATS is that democrats are evil and Trump is a saint, I was too quick to ascribe that position to you as well. To be clear, I do believe the democratic party is the party that most represents liberal values right now, but this is because, from my perspective, the GOP has gone crazy. It's being led by a narcissistic, unqualified grandstander with an IQ below 90 and daddy issues, who is dismantling the US constitutional order from within. And the rest of the party is just sitting by, doing nothing.

Quote:Obama, a fan of cronyism, cleaned out the top ranks of career government officials and military brass and replaced them with politically aligned allies. For decades the press has not reported when all the people elected to the White House did the same or worse as Trump. Cronyism isn't particularly bad under Trump, it's just not been reported by the press when Biden did it, or Obama did it, or Bush did it, or Clinton did it. If you haven't independently done research on this, I'm not going to take the time to educate you on 30 years of bad behavior by our politicians. This statement you've made means you're heavily biased by what the press tells you. It's not enough to just verify that what the press says is true, not if you want to know the truth. You need to also know what the press has simply failed to tell you, which is perhaps the most significant power the press has... embargo of information. Virtually all of the pearl clutching over Trump, the accusations of him making all kinds of money on being President, the "crimes", the harm to "our democracy", are nothing new and have simply never been important enough for the press (which is mostly Democrat and funded by a small group of very wealth people). The press has lied relentlessly, shamelessly, and eagerly, for years about Trump.

It's not a good look to immediately call me biased and uncritical just because we have a difference of opinion. I think you can do better. When we start viewing everyone who disagrees with us like they must be stupid (which I know is tempting), it becomes much harder to understand their point of view. If I am to spend time here, I expect you to make an honest effort to understand where I am coming from, and not dismiss my point of view as biased or uninformed out of hand.

Quote:The wars have all been bi-partisan for decades. Our politicians on both sides of the aisle make a great deal of money investing in defense contractors, accept campaign donations from them, and they support constant US foreign misadventures.
[...]
The Democrat party is full of neocons, they literally got the nod from Dick Cheney.

True enough. Neoconservatism, much like neoliberalism, has embedded itself into the US government and culture. Due to the overwhelming popularity of these movements at the time they took shape, democrats were essentially forced to adopt them. I do believe both of these are on their way out though. The population has been souring on fighting foreign wars for decades, and the neoliberal order has been falling apart since the great recession. To your point, I think the main reason the democrats are losing right now is because they are still perceived to be representing these movements, and that is their own fault. They have failed to come up with an alternative to Trumpism, at least so far.

Quote:Corporate profiteering as a government function is not intrinsic to our financial system, corruption is merely intrinsic to all modern governments.

Corporate profiteering is not the same thing as corruption. I didn't know you were talking about corruption. Corruption might be a good topic for us to talk about, but I think it deserves its own thread. I might have time to make one tomorrow, but first: Would you be interested in diving into the subject?

Quote:We are so far from anywhere near capable of having a successful state it's almost entirely irrelevant except as philosophy.

I don't know about that. I think some European states have managed pretty well. I tend to bring up Denmark and Switzerland as good examples.

(02-26-2025, 04:57 PM)TokenLiberal Wrote: I don't know about that. I think some European states have managed pretty well. I tend to bring up Denmark and Switzerland as good examples.

I'm not breaking this into individual quotes as I expect you can follow a narrative. I didn't say corruption and corporate profiteering are the same. Corporate profiteering is a problem because our regulatory agencies are corrupt and have revolving doors with the biggest players in industry. It's not really up for debate as I have observed this with my own eyes in real time and have been party to litigation over it.

Do not confuse stupid and ignorant. Stupid is a lack of intellect and ignorant is a lack of information. I am not basing my conclusion on a difference of opinion. I am basing it on you making factually inaccurate statements about the politics in the country I have lived in my entire life. The country has moved increasingly toward alt-left radicalism since Obama took office. It is irrelevant to me that the press went with it or that Europeans are already further left. Europe is not the US. We had over a billion dollars in damage from alt-left riots during Trump's term that left many people dead, government buildings burned down, and retail areas abandoned. There were dozens of Democrat politicians that supported this, contributed to efforts to bail violent rioters out to continue rioting, and there were prosecuting attorney activists that declined to charge this roving band of violent terrorists. This is not a disputable fact as I have lived through it.

My degree is in environmental science and my career was in public health. These are both fields that are now infested with activists rather than scientists. I am acutely aware of the political ebb and flow that has gone on here. You are presenting a story that flies in the face of what has actually happened in my country.

Obama did many of the exact same things Trump has and nobody had a problem with it. It's a bunch of fake outrage because Trump isn't just doing what the neocons and globalists in the intelligence community want, not following the entrenched DNC and RNC paradigm of taking turns in office while fleecing the citizens, and no longer is ignoring that the US has been waging war both physically and psychologically on the rest of the world for far too long.

The pants wetting over Trump is just nonsense, but you're welcome to have whatever opinion you like. The over the top nature of your opinion just makes it clear there's no point in discussing it with you if that's your position and you're unable to focus on tangible policy issues. Trump has plenty of bad qualities and has made plenty of bad decisions, so I don't feel the need to discuss nonsense about his intellect or that he's a dictator. It flies in the face of what has actually happened, which is that the bureaucracy that slowly built itself up feeding on the pork that goes into the black hole of DC tried to take down a lawfully elected President. They lied, they committed crimes, and they subverted our founding documents. Now, they will rightfully and justly be excised from the positions of trust they abused. People that didn't commit crimes or violate their oaths have nothing to fear, which is more than can be said for conservatives (or liberals that disagree with the DNC) under Biden.

I don't have any need to impose my beliefs on you. You've made a bunch of specious arguments without any evidence, but want me to provide evidence of things I consumed in first person a decade or more ago. It ain't happening because it's not important to me and you probably aren't going to alter your opinion based on new evidence. You think you will, you want to think you will, but nothing will actually do it. I can show you documents, but you'll find them inconclusive. You will have no problem with 2nd order thinking while attributing every crime imaginable to Trump, but will suddenly require notarized confessions when it relates to Obama or Biden.

I get testy when I think I'm being engaged dishonestly, so if you have a thesis you'd like to present about Trump or anything else feel free. I judged you unfairly on ATS, but you have total freedom here to fulfill your mission. If your information is incomplete, I may provide more context. If it's just your opinions about things, absent facts, you are welcome to post them here. I don't really care to change your subjective opinions about things that simply are not reality here in the real world USA I live in.

Basically, shit or get off the pot. I have plenty of posts here that give an idea of my views. Feel free to read them and tell me I'm wrong. If you're clever and interesting, I'll respond. You can also post a full thread (rather than the survey you posted) and I'll engage there. I'm not in any rush and I don't mind reading long posts. The irrational Trump as a Bond movie villain thing doesn't interest me and the rhetoric about how everything he does is so unprecedented just isn't true. I live here, I have lived here, I worked in several government positions, and I am very informed on what's gone on here.

I've been far more thorough and engaging than you'll get most other places. You can earn more engagement by not boring me. I will do my best not to bore you in return. If nothing else, you have my respect for being willing to participate on what you assumed was a hostile forum. I'm not hostile, but I also don't play grab-ass if somebody is pissing on my head and telling me it's raining.