Why don’t Donald Trump’s supporters seem to care about the lawsuits against him?
...
These lawsuits — some completed and some pending — show a person with blatant disregard of the law. No former president ever has been indicted, let alone 91 times.
But why doesn’t this seem to matter in the polls? If anything, the verdicts against Trump and the indictments seem to have helped him politically.
...
Some seem to view this as reflecting what they like about Trump: his willingness to flout norms and even the law. His aggressive contrarianism appeals to his supporters.
But this attitude is frightening. The core of the rule of law is that no one, not even the president, is above the law. If voters are willing to ignore Trump’s violations of the law, the message that sends about approving lawlessness is scary. If he wins the presidency, he surely would begin by believing that he need not follow the law and that his constituency will support him even when he blatantly violates it.
For decades, conservatives have identified themselves as the champions of “law and order.” It is ironic and perplexing that they could embrace a candidate who shows so little regard of the law.
Kise asked Engoron to relent on his refusal to allow Trump to address the court even if he did not agree to the judge’s terms of what topics were off limits, the Associated Press reported.
Engoron then asked Trump directly whether he would keep his comments limited to the facts in the case.
"Well I think your honor that I think this case goes outside just the facts," Trump responded and then proceeded to flout those guidelines that would have barred him from making a political speech or from attacking courtroom staff and the judicial system.
“We have a situation where I’m an innocent man. I’ve been persecuted by somebody running for office and I think you have to go outside the bounds," Trump said.
“This was a political witch hunt,” he added.
"What’s happened here, sir, is a fraud on me,” Trump continued. "They want to make sure that I don't win again and this is partially election interference."
James, Trump added, “hates Trump and uses Trump to get elected.”
Lashing out at the judge, Trump said, “You can’t listen for more than one minute.”
Engoron told Trump’s lawyer to “control your client,’’ before cutting Trump off altogether after roughly five minutes.
They are the perfect globohomo insects. Don't forget they were the first who started living in pods - voluntarily.
...
They traded their ability to produce testosterone just for some more IQ points.
no wonder they all look alike
Truly insect people
**** this why I hate Asians the most collectivistic hive mind Borg disgusting rice eating bug eating race id give everything to destroy Asia in nuclear fire I’d pay my life saving for it to happen
**** gooks plz we need to launch ICBM at Asia and India now!
They were shaped by nature to be a collectivist bug people over the course of many tens of thousands of years.
Their lack of hunger and drive, their lowly compliance.
the shift to full-scale representative democracy (e.g. French Revolution) was operationally indeed a Freemasonic plot to serve the Zionist agenda, but developmentally just a further stretch of a unique tendency that already existed in the Western psyche, and which finds independent expression in jury trials, peer-review journalism, compulsory schooling and other institutions characteristic of Western-style modernity. The essence of this tendency is best described as Western plebian hubris: a refusal to recognize the existence of a few enlightened individuals incomparably superior to everyone else in the same society and who therefore deserve absolute authority as rulers, judges and other arbitrators. Alfred Rosenberg laments: “It is a significant world historical fact that however religious the European of earlier times was, however much a religious longing is again occurring (admittedly still concealed for many, but nevertheless in many places deep), however many mystics and devout men the west produced—absolute religious genius or completely autocratic embodiments of the divine in one man, is something that Europe still does not possess.”
This plebian hubris was by no means egalitarianism; on the contrary, it merely replaced the qualitative belief in the superiority of high-grade individuals worldwide over low-grade masses worldwide with an ethnocentric belief in the superiority of “white” over “non-white” regardless of grade, implying, for example, precedence of ”white” commoners over even “non-white” royalty, which provided the psychological priming for the uniquely Western phenomenon of colonialism.
Even prior to formal attempts at governments voted into power by an electorate, Western mentality differed from that of the rest of the world in its lack of belief that kings were living gods (Alexander was deified by Persians and Egyptians but never really by Greeks themselves), instead implicitly believing that kings owed their position to their popularity among the governed. (Judeo-Christianity supplements this with the notion of constitutionalism: that laws are not codification of a monarch’s will, but rather that the monarch too(!) is subordinate to laws which come from Yahweh (e.g. the Ten Commandments (an early example of a constitution). This meshed harmoniously with Aristotelian notions of “natural rights”, with a constitution supposed to be a definition of these “rights”.) Thus Western civilization has always been averse to true autocracy and especially to absolute monarchism, instead consistently exhibiting a marked tendency not only towards plebiscite but also towards separation of powers. It is misleading to claim that Solonian Athens was democratic while Lycurgan Sparta was non-democratic; Spartan ‘kings’ in practice had to share power not only with ephors, gerousia and apella, but even with each other, for not one but two(!) ‘kings’ (hence the quotation marks) were in place at any one time – all these are anti-autocratic and anti-monarchist measures which any self-respecting (ie. non-Western) monarch would find personally insulting to be subjected to, of which Hitler had personal experience: “This annual meeting had something of farce about it. I would offer my resignation. Two accountants, in the space of two hours, would succeed in checking a balance for a total movement of funds of six hundred and fifty millions. The President of the Assembly, elected ad hoc, would conduct the debates and proceed to the election of the new Committee. Voting was by a show of hands. “Who is for, who is against?” he would ask. His silly questions would arouse storms of mirth. I would then present myself to the Registry of the Court to have our documents registered. The anti-democratic parties, just like the democratic parties, had to go through these grotesque ceremonies.” The Magna Carta signed by John Plantagenet reflects the same Western inclination towards limiting the power of ‘kings’ (a.k.a. constitutional ‘monarchism’), a notion utterly incomprehensible to any authentically non-Western mind. This is to say nothing of the power-juggling between papal authority and royal authority throughout the Catholic period. This is yet another reason why National Socialism, whose attitude towards autocracy is much nearer that of non-Western antiquity, cannot be considered part of Western civilization.
“The pharaohs of Egypt, the emperors of China and Japan, the Incas and the Fuehrer embodied Gods, were possessed by a God, becoming the projection of God, here on earth.” – Miguel Serrano
It is worth noting that the Roman Empire could be considered divergent from Western civilization despite heavy early Western influence (Roman Republic era), as it alone among all states in European history prior to the Third Reich more closely resembled the non-Western world in its Imperial Cult encouraging its citizens to view its emperors as living gods, as Hitler notes: “”Caesar” personified the supreme authority. The Japanese also have their own expression to indicate the highest authority: they say “Tenno”, which means “Son of Heaven”.” Furthermore, it is as Rome became more autocratic that it placed greater emphasis on voluntary citizenship – awarded upon completion of service in the Roman Army - and less on ethnic background
People who study judo or Tae Kwon Do or karate wear “gis” and talk about “masters” and “dojos.” It is all about some mysterious system with ceremony and decorum. An obsession with Asian-ness is standard for any American who becomes a “sensei.” The students attribute deep wisdom to the “master,” who is likely to believe that anyone who uses strength to win a fight is a brute.
The Western view is different. We proudly used war and fighting to make our boys into men, but we never pretended that a Kung-Fu-Panda-type master of some mysterious cult was the wisest man in the world.
A hydraulic empire, also known as a hydraulic despotism, hydraulic society, hydraulic civilization, or water monopoly empire, is a social or government structure which maintains power and control through exclusive control over access to water. It arises through the need for flood control and irrigation, which requires central coordination and a specialized bureaucracy.[1]
...
A developed hydraulic civilization maintains control over its population by means of controlling the supply of water. The term was coined by the German-American historian Karl August Wittfogel (1896–1988), in his book Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (1957). Wittfogel asserted that such "hydraulic civilizations"—although they were neither all located in the Orient nor characteristic of all Oriental societies—were essentially different from those of the Western world. According to Wittfogel, most of the first civilizations in history, such as Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Pre-Columbian Mexico and Peru, are believed to have been hydraulic empires.[2] Most hydraulic empires existed in arid or desert regions, but imperial China also had some such characteristics, due to the exacting needs of rice cultivation.
The Maurya Empire in India was classified by Wittfogel as a grandiose Hydraulic Economy.[3] Kautilya while referring to the udakabhaga (water-cess, cess being a term used in India, Scotland and Ireland for an additional tax) lists various kinds of irrigation, viz., irrigated by manual labour, by carrying water on the shoulder, by water lifts, and by raising water from lakes, rivers etc. Some scholars believe, there is a clear reference to canals for irrigation in the Arthashastra, in a sutra which points out that water was set in motion by digging (khatapravrittim) from a river-dam (nandinibhandayatana) or a tank.[4]
Apart from Ancient Egypt and the Kingdom of Kush, the Ajuran Sultanate of the Horn of Africa was the only other hydraulic empire in Africa. Beginning in the 13th century, the Ajuran monopolized the water resources of the Jubba and Shebelle rivers. Through hydraulic engineering, they also constructed many of the state's limestone wells and cisterns that are still in use today. Its rulers developed new systems for agriculture and taxation, which continued to be used in parts of the Horn of Africa as late as the 19th century.[5]
...
The typical hydraulic empire government, in Wittfogel's thesis, is extremely centralized, with no trace of an independent aristocracy – in contrast to the decentralized feudalism of medieval Europe.
Rawal Rudrabhoj Bhati
@rudrabhoj
I do not want to fight gorajeets anymore, but listen I’ll give you all a script. Look at this video, the condition of white people in England at the height of the empire. The glories that the white nationalists claim isn’t theirs. A small minority of aristocrats and merchants who are really middle eastern farmer dna rich (Anatolian farmer) attained all these glories. A microscopic minority.
And unlike us, the Indian ruling class, which universally has a paternal affection for their subjects, European aristocrats treated these white trash, mostly whg enriched, as cannon fodder. Their condition was extremely miserable. This is why socialism followed by Marxism was born there. This is why all the popular movements there from Paris commune to Russian revolution and really are even fascism and nazism were anti elite, anti aristocratic and pro socialist.
American revolution tried to incorporate the ideals of European aristocratic high culture and impart it to masses. It give America a real head-start. But since the reforms of Roosevelt and New Deal even that was scrapped. Entire modern European history is all about the conflict between its aristocratic minority which really achieved greatness and white trash majority.
Neo Nazis and white trash have more in common with the executioners of the Russian royal family, both genetically and culturally, than they have with the likes of Kaisers, Tsars, Kings, Princes and Dukes- the people who really attained greatness and whose legacy white nationalists steal.
Only white trash non aristocrat to have ever attained anything of worth was Adolf Hitler. But we can really see where it landed white people and Germanic nations to- to genocide, humiliation and mass r*pes.
So whenever these gorajeet bandars try to put you down coz muhhh British raj, remind them that they are way bigger victims of European imperialism than you would ever be. The gorajeet attacking you, his great grandfather was a construction labourer and generations of his female ancestors were humiliated by European ruling class by jus prima noctics. They have no achievement over you other than living in a country created by a really successful aristocracy while you are born in one ruled by fat kallu Indian babus.
Berlin is planning to solve the housing crisis (which has been exacerbated by a huge influx of “refugees”) by mandating that single renters occupy only one room.
Absurd Reaction to the Housing Shortage
Maximum one room per person: Berlin wants to cram in tenants
...
Instead of new buildings, citizens are being penned in
When feeling defensive about their love for Donald Trump, it's become common for MAGA Americans to pretend it's about "his policies," not his personality. This is, of course, a lie, and not just because none of them can produce an example of a Trump "policy" they like. Everything that decent people find repulsive about Trump — his criminality, his racism, his genital-grabbing misogyny — is what draws the MAGA base to him, like flies to garbage. We know this because his poll numbers with GOP voters rise with his number of felony indictments. We know this also because his primary opponents share his "policies," yet none of them can compete with Trump's villainous air.
Now there's even more evidence that what really gets the MAGA juices going is a politician who is extravagantly evil: The impeachment and trial of Texas's attorney general, Ken Paxton, a man so audaciously malignant that he might make Trump jealous.
Paxton's unbridled corruption has been long understood by Texas Republicans, who have, until recently, not had a problem with it.
Donald Trump Jr. went full gaslighting mode, by claiming the floridly corrupt Paxton "will survive and will continue to combat the Swamp in Texas."
No, there is not a sinister plot. The evidence is overwhelming that Paxton took massive bribes, including assistance in adultery, to help a friend in criminal trouble and then retaliated against employees who spoke out about it. The man oozes corruption from every pore. He's so bad that the Texas GOP felt he had crossed a line.
It's unlikely that Paxton's supporters are unaware that the man is pure scum. As with Trump, they love Paxton because, not despite, his massive corruption. When people like Paxton or Trump break the law with impunity, it reinforces a core MAGA belief
In MAGA's view, conservative white men should get to break whatever law they want, if only to prove they can get away with behavior that would ruin anyone else. What is privilege, if you can't flout it?
Across the West, the vast majority of voters are fed up with the status quo, furious at the political class and desperate for alternatives. They believe society to be broken, that the post-industrial economy and globalisation generally aren’t working for them
Almost wherever one looks, from New Zealand to the Netherlands, hundreds of millions no longer feel in control, valued or even consulted by the self-satisfied ruling class.
economic growth has been feeble for years
women are having far fewer children than they tell pollsters they would like
In Europe, including Britain, there is a popular consensus that there has been and remains too much immigration.
while Western publics are very concerned about climate change, they aren’t prepared to see their living standards decimated to deal with it.
the global Right-wing revolution is gaining ground regardless. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni is prime minister. In the Netherlands, the anti-net zero farmers’ party has surged. Across the Continent, including in Scandinavia, mainstream parties are adopting once unthinkable policies on immigration. In Spain, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, a rising star, is advocating Thatcherite populism. In New Zealand, the centre-Right is ahead in the polls and the libertarian ACT party has rocketed. In Argentina, one leading presidential contender is an anarcho-capitalist. In Paraguay, the Right-winger Santiago Peña has won the presidency. Benjamin Netanyahu regained power last December.
Is the Silent Majority, racists, bigots, and sexists?
The "silent majority" was the phrase Nixon coined for the people who were in favor of the Vietnam war.
We used to rightly call this the lunatic fringe. They got past fringe and are now just the lunatics.
Climate change will spur more and more migration, as people leave inhospitable places. Things will get much, much worse, not better. The last thing we need is right-wing "policies."
As for living with people you don't want to live with...I have no idea what you mean. Move?