What Legacy Does Trump Leave?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I read the manifesto he left behind on Substack.

1713834518024.png
For now, it hasn’t been taken down – likes, comments, and restacks are disabled, but the document itself is being left up to read.

It appears that he was schizophrenic. I don’t say that to be dismissive or cruel.

From other Substackers some comments I found insightful:
Sometimes, the schizo operates in a sort of shamanic mode, their right-brained intuition picking up gestalt understandings of reality that their left brains are helpless to interpret. The result is a different kind of babble: one in which the individual pieces make no sense at all, and are often flatly wrong, but which nevertheless have been arranged into a semi-coherent picture that is not so far off from the truth, and may even provide deep insight into it, may even be more true than how most people see the world.
Click to expand...
Social stress is at the breaking point. There’s war and rumours of war: regional, global, and civil. The economy is falling apart: high interest rates, high inflation, low wages, low employment, a housing bubble that’s rendered housing unaffordable. The Gini coefficient is off the charts. Decades of unprecedented levels of internal migration and international immigration have shattered communities. Relations between the sexes have never been worse. Confidence in institutions is universally abysmal. People are atomized, alone and lonely, unable to trust and therefore disconnected from those around them, while simultaneously frightened and anxious.
Click to expand...
We’re living in what Robert Anton Wilson called Chapel Perilous – a liminal conceptual twilight in which we can never be quite certain whether what we see is natural, supernatural, or a product of our own fevered imaginations.

We’re on edge, unsure what to believe, and unsure what’s coming next.

We’ve done the species-level equivalent of eating a fistful of peyote caps before going skydiving over a warzone in a country we’ve never even heard of.

Of course we’re going crazy. Who wouldn’t?

Some of us will go too crazy, and they will do crazy stuff, becoming a danger to themselves, to others, or to both. Maybe to you, maybe to those you love. Maybe the ones who go crazy will be the ones you love.
Click to expand...
Maintaining some approximation of psychological stability in the coming years is going to be a challenge. There are, I think, certain principles that can be applied. Keeping yourself grounded, touching grass as it were. Staying connected to the actual human beings around you, not only online, but talking to the people physically there with you. Focusing on what and who you can see and touch, directly. Basic stuff.
Click to expand...
The most important thing, I think, is epistemic. Don’t get too wrapped up in any one narrative. Don’t become too emotionally invested in any one, specific thing as The Truth.
Click to expand...
 
Fabulous story ... then many political hacks will not accept stories for fear of what's buried there ... they require ana*lysis ... sort of like digestion in yer hedmon ...
 
I don't follow the trials and tribulations of Donald Trump very closely.

Correct me if I am wrong on any of these points:

Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to face criminal charges.

A federal grand jury indicted Trump on 4 criminal counts.

Trump is pleading not guilty to these federal charges.

Donald Trump has not been convicted of any crime.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in each of the additional (84) state charges.

Even Conviction is not a strict barrier to employment or running for office.

Spoiler alert:

"There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” said his attorney, Todd Blanche. “They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime. You’ll learn it’s not."
 
WhyCzar said:
Spoiler alert:

"There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” said his attorney, Todd Blanche. “They put something sinister on this idea, as if it’s a crime. You’ll learn it’s not."
Click to expand...
My take on the above....no there's nothing wrong with influencing people through a campaign to get them to vote for you.
But influencing an election by foreign interference, not counting ballots properly, bribery, and influencing others in high positions (eg. through the offering of money or threats) is not. IMO
The examples apply to anyone running for president.
 
Would they also apply to anyone running for or holding the office of the Prime Minister of Canada?

For instance concerns about foreign interference in Canadian elections, including allegations related to China.
 
WhyCzar said:
Donald Trump has not been convicted of any crime.
Click to expand...

He hasn't been convicted. He has been found liable(?) (not the right word) for sexually assaulting E Jean Carroll. The judge said trump raped her.

He and his company have also been found liable for fraud
 
Civil cases do not speak of 'guilt' or 'innocence'" but instead "use the language 'liable' or 'not liable,'" as reporting of the jury's verdict repeated.

"So it is accurate to say that Donald Trump was liable for battery and defamation, but not that he was found guilty of battery and defamation."
 
WhyCzar said:
Would they also apply to anyone running for or holding the office of the Prime Minister of Canada?
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out before, our system works differently. The PM is merely the leader of the majority party in the house, not a separately elected Chief Executive, and can be removed at any time by their party, at which point they also cease to be PM. I doubt a party would risk going into an election with that many issues and scandals hanging over their leader and certainly not with a criminal conviction. I am not sure, offhand, if there are any actual rules about people with criminal convictions holding public office federally but a PM who could not hold a seat for that (or other) reason would likely also be turfed.
 
WhyCzar said:
I read the manifesto he left behind on Substack.

View attachment 9256
For now, it hasn’t been taken down – likes, comments, and restacks are disabled, but the document itself is being left up to read.

It appears that he was schizophrenic. I don’t say that to be dismissive or cruel.

From other Substackers some comments I found insightful:
Click to expand...
Nice to see good old RAW again :3
The lasagna is still flying
 
Mendalla said:
As I have pointed out before, our system works differently. The PM is merely the leader of the majority party in the house, not a separately elected Chief Executive, and can be removed at any time by their party, at which point they also cease to be PM. I doubt a party would risk going into an election with that many issues and scandals hanging over their leader and certainly not with a criminal conviction. I am not sure, offhand, if there are any actual rules about people with criminal convictions holding public office federally but a PM who could not hold a seat for that (or other) reason would likely also be turfed.
Click to expand...
And I always thought if a US president was IMPEACHED, they had to be turfed, is that not true?
 
WhyCzar said:
Would they also apply to anyone running for or holding the office of the Prime Minister of Canada?

For instance concerns about foreign interference in Canadian elections, including allegations related to China.
Click to expand...
Well if they have proof, why doesnt the opposition use it?
 
Waterfall said:
And I always thought if a US president was IMPEACHED, they had to be turfed, is that not true?
Click to expand...
They can't just be removed by their party on a simple vote of caucus or the membership as is the case in most parties here. Removing a US President requires impeachment in the House and conviction in a trial held before the Senate. Even if their party considers them a liability, they cannot simply vote them out of office midterm.
 
Mendalla said:
They can't just be removed by their party on a simple vote of caucus or the membership as is the case in most parties here. Removing a US President requires impeachment in the House and conviction in a trial held before the Senate. Even if their party considers them a liability, they cannot simply vote them out of office midterm.
Click to expand...
So they must have a conviction also, makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top