Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#224
New Comment Rating: 3 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.A Forum Topic 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF,, ANY STUFF III 5.NEW MONGO STUFF, OLD MONGO STUFF, ANY MONGO STUFF III Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
E -rratic
M - indless
O - afs
C - rying
r - entlessly
a - bout
T - rump.
He's ready to take over one of the largest in area countries in the world:
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
phart must be delighted that his leader is acting as a pissmaker.
He must also be delighted I quoted fox "news" rather than an extreme left source like NY times.
You mean every day, every hour.
That guy is violating the laws every minute.
It's #10 in this summary of the "Dictator’s Playbook":
Dictator’s Playbook: Common Tactics Used by Autocrats
1. Systematic Disinformation and Falsehoods
Dictators deliberately spread lies, distort facts, and flood the information environment with contradictory or false narratives to confuse and overwhelm audiences, weakening public trust in objective truth and fact-based reporting. Methods include high-volume, multichannel false messaging that makes truth hard to discern.
2. Delegitimizing and Attacking the Media
Independent media are portrayed as hostile, biased, or “fake news” to erode public trust. By undermining the credibility of objective reporting, dictators make people doubt realistic or critical accounts of their actions. Modern autocrats often manipulate rather than fully censor media, using legal, economic, or rhetorical pressure to silence dissent.
3. Controlling and Manipulating Information Channels
Beyond attacks on the press, dictators control or co-opt broadcast and social media, sponsor proxy outlets, and use state propaganda to shape narratives domestically and sometimes internationally. This includes bot networks and troll factories to amplify regime messaging and drown out critical voices.
4. Politicizing or Capturing Institutions
Independent institutions (judiciaries, election authorities, regulators, law enforcement) are systematically weakened or staffed with loyalists so they no longer act as checks on executive power. This erodes democratic safeguards.
5. Quashing Criticism and Dissent
Critics, opposition figures, and civil society actors are harassed, criminalized, or intimidated. This can take legal, economic, or extra-legal forms, creating a climate of fear that discourages open criticism.
6. Scapegoating and Dividing the Population
Dictators often blame social, ethnic, religious, or external “enemies” for societal problems, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality that distracts from governance failures and mobilizes support through fear or tribalism.
7. Corrupting or Manipulating Elections
Even when elections nominally occur, dictators rig or coerce outcomes through gerrymandering, fraud, voter suppression, legal changes to term limits, or claims of fraud when they lose, all to maintain a veneer of legitimacy.
8. Reinforcing Executive Power and Weakening Checks and Balances
Emergency powers, constitutional changes, and legal reinterpretation expand the ruler’s authority at the expense of other branches of government.
9. Creating a Cult of Personality
Leaders often project an image of indispensable savior or national guardian to build unquestioning loyalty. This ties popular identity to the individual rather than to institutions or shared governance.
10. Distraction Through Major Events or Manufactured Crises
When a dictator faces embarrassment, scandal, or a legitimacy threat, they often launch a big action, controversy, or crisis narrative to shift public attention. This may include major military moves, controversial policies, “provocations,” or spectacle-driven events that overwhelm or bury negative news. These distraction tactics serve to reroute public scrutiny away from problems that could weaken their grip.
Why These Tactics Work:
- Erosion of shared facts: If truth is contested and people can’t agree on basic facts, collective criticism and accountability become much harder.
- Information overload: Flooding citizens with numerous, contradictory messages creates confusion and apathy, reducing resistance.
- Delegitimization of critics: By attacking institutions and critics as traitors or enemies, autocrats weaken social cohesion and independent oversight.
- Spectacle over scrutiny: Large distractions or crises capture collective attention, pushing deeper systemic issues out of the public eye.
Thanks for putting these things together so nicely.
Much appreciated.
It nicely summarizes all the research on the tactics used by autocrats.
Here is one of those sources: only registered users can see external links
I haven't read books on the subject, but obviously someone in the Trump regime
studied this for many years. Or, it was just Trump getting private courses from
Vladimir Poetin and Kim Jong-un. For all we know, Kim Jong-un presented Trump
with the exact same list, in one of his "beautiful letters". He follows it to the letter.
I'm sure that trump hasn't read any of this. For one thing, I don't think he has the capacity of reading anything else except short text messages.
But, yes, he has people around who can read-- they're paid to do so I guess, and inform him.
Are you an idiot?
Don't reply.
You are.
Idiot? You are a useful idiot for the liberal socialist.
He's ready to take over one of the largest in area countries in the world.
you only care about it for the US, and NO ONE ELSE.
The Joint Arctic Command (JAC), the main Danish military body in Greenland, is responsible for defense and surveillance in the vast Arctic region. They use patrol ships, helicopters, and even dog sled teams for patrols, with plans to increase fighter jet presence and drones. A small but significant number of Danish military personnel are stationed at various locations, including Nuuk and Thule Air Base.
There is also a U.S. Military Presence: Pituffik Space Base. The U.S. operates this key installation (formerly Thule Air Base) under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark, focusing on missile warning, space surveillance, and satellite control.
I'm afraid that phart is cognitively dysfunctional that he's unable to understand or think. He'll insist with his nonsense.
He'll keep believing that the US must snatch Greenland and if don't want too bad. They should defend themselves, he says, when we try to fuck them up. He'll never question the fact that the US isn't allowed to fuck them up. He can't question anything that his imbecile dear leader utters.
You are the 1 that just calls me names like a 5 year old
I wrote about the absurd motion of your supreme leader to try to snatch Greenland, a sovereign nation who does not want to be invaded.
You said
"I aint to concerned about greenland. if it doesn't want to be taken over it can fight back."
That's why i called you an asshole. Because you go along with an act of terrorism and aggression of your supreme leader.
I call you names because that's the only language you can understand. You have no capacity to understand what justice, peace, empathy mean. All you know is how to bend to a dictator and agree with everything he does.
That's why there's no adjective or noun to describe you. Asshole, fucktard, fascist, war-lover, inhuman, pathetic, bullshitter, redneck, and hundreds of other words are not sufficient to describe the fact that you're not human.
Greenland loves peace. Unlike you.
There are words to describe you thankfully.
Arrogant asshole is the first 2 that come to mind.
But you are a necessary component in the bigger scheme of things.You are the stern reminder of the fact a functional safe society filled with productive happy humans has enemy's.
I know you don't know much history, but that should even be clear to you.
Those terrorists are just asylum seekers with "Mom" and 'autism awareness' tattoos, abused for justifying your crimes against humanity. Do you think that Hitler didn't come up with terms like "terrorist" and "vermin" for the Jews?
You are just as dumb to believe Trump as Germans were to believe Hitler.
He'll keep repeating, verbatim, what the dictator says. That's common among countries who've gone through totalitarian regimes. It's the unthinking, low intelligence, brain fucked, ignorant individuals that these regimes rely upon. (In addition to those who financially benefit from dictatorship.)
--------------------------------------- added after 15 minutes
“We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.”
Fuck you.
It clearly stated so.
So fuck you.
EU does not want Greenland to be taken.
Fuck you asshole.
The UN is totally against any country annexing another.
Fuck off, piece of shit.
International law specifies this as an act of aggression.
Fuck you fucktard.
What part of the above sentences don't you understand fuckhole hillbilly fascist gun loving warmonger redneck?
I'm not as patient as Ananas2xLekker to write to you because you've no clue of anything beyond your village and do not know anything but blind obedience to a dictator.
So let me conclude with the ONLY language you understand:
Fuck you.
un, eu, nato, all just Zits on America's ass draining it of it's money, resources and military ability's. If it had not been for America, you would be typing german now.
ungrateful idiot.
Besides,why do you care about greenland? you claim to live in UK, where they worship kings that have their wives murdered in tunnels so they can marry their mistress's and shit.
The US had only one reason to defend freedom in Europe, in WWII;
it would have resulted in a competing evil superpower,
which would probably come to take over the US at some point.
NATO was created to in 1949, primarily to bind Western Europe to the United States militarily and politically, rather than allowing it to drift toward neutrality or the Soviet sphere.
It resulted in a big chunk of the world picking the Dollar as world currency, following American ideas of capitalism, and allowing the US to dominate capitalism. The US also wanted to be dominating in military strength, building bases all over the world.
From its creation, NATO was designed to ensure U.S. military dominance in Europe, to prevent Europe from becoming strategically independent, and to prevent neutralism or accommodation with the USSR.
Europe paid for NATO by giving up strategic autonomy and buy buying very expensive weapons from the US.
NATO has overwhelmingly served US strategic, economic, and political interests.
European participation was not 'charity' from the US, it was the price Europe paid to live inside a US-led global order that primarily benefited Washington.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe saw the reality: NATO is not designed to defend Europe. NATO in fact assured that any major war with Russia would be fought on European soil, not American soil. The invasion of Ukraine was the first time that Russia posed an existential threat to Europe, and the US refused to take direct risk. The enemy who was the reason for creating NATO was rewriting borders by force in Europe, with direct implications for NATO members next door. The US explicitly ruled out direct military intervention, out of fear of escalation with Russia.
NATO deters only as long as the US is willing to accept risk.
Europe learned:
- It cannot outsource existential defense entirely to the US.
- It bears the primary risk of war on its own continent.
- American support is conditional, not guaranteed.
Never before was NATO tested in it's defense for Europe. And the first time it needed testing, the US FAILED it's responsibility.
However, after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5, the ONLY time in its history.
This was done even though:
- The attack was not carried out by a state.
- It did not originate in Europe.
- It did not directly threaten European territory.
Still, European allies contributed troops, intelligence, logistics, and political legitimacy to a US-led war in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, NATO stretched its mission for the US:
- NATO reinterpreted collective defense to include:
-- Non-state actors
-- Attacks originating outside the North Atlantic area
This was a political choice, not a legal necessity.
Europe accepted that stretch in solidarity with the US.
The contrast with Ukraine. When Russia invaded Ukraine:
- A state actor invaded a European country
- With tanks, missiles, and occupation
- Creating direct instability on NATO’s borders
Yet:
- NATO refused to stretch its mission again
- The U.S. drew a hard line at direct involvement
- The justification was escalation risk, not treaty text
So the pattern is:
NATO was flexible when the U.S. needed help, but rigid when Europe
faced the consequences.
Conclusion: When the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, NATO stretched its mandate and fought a war far from Europe for America. When war returned to Europe in Ukraine, NATO refused to stretch its mandate again. That tells you who NATO is most willing to adapt for.
In short: The only time NATO has ever invoked collective defense was to defend the United States, not Europe.
UNGRATEFUL IDIOT!!!
for decades? The liberal media are significantly better, but not enough to pull someone out of a right-wing echo chamber. Many hundreds of billions of dollars are spent yearly, by the wealthy and corporations, to perfect the right-wing indoctrination, and to keep 'liberal' alternatives loyally serving capitalism and defending the status quo. It's an uneven playing field.
As soon as a media company becomes too much of a threat to the wealthy, they are either not getting any money anymore or getting their management replaced. They exist by the blessing of the corporations
that own them. Liberalism and wokeness doesn't threaten them, but anything even close to socialism is immediately squashed or censored.
Republicans have been dominating local school boards for many decades, to influence the history taught to children. They pretended that children are indoctrinated with 'critical race theory', but the opposite is true. Conservative Christians have also fought for years to get alternatives for evolution in schools, as “Creation science”, later rebranded as “intelligent design”. Besides that, the conservatives have constantly battled to get courses on logical/critical thinking removed from the classes. All their efforts to keep the public gullible have clearly produced the desired results.
We might think that we have enough critical thinking skills to understand
when we are lied to as much and as consistently as phart has been lied to all his life, but would we have learned those critical thinking skills,
if we grew up in a red rural area? I have the IQ for it, but I'm not sure.
He's been indoctrinated all his life in his redneck hole and has developed a completely perverse view of the world. He has no clue of anything but his village. And there comes a dictator who boosts his beliefs by lying.
He's not even able to understand simple things in simple English. I informed him that Greenland does not wish to be invaded. He can't understand the sentence and keeps saying "we want Greenland, we are going to take it" and he calls this peace.
Honestly, I've never met such an idiot in my entire life.
Whatever happens in the next 355 days one thing is for sure, MAGA/Trump time will end on January 1, 2027. That’s when we’ll bring back the real American dream.
You are the filthiest piece of shit I've ever spoken to.
Filthy nationalist fascist.
He doesn't want to see that there are Americans, like you , who are true human beings and not vermin like him.
It was used by the union army to describe southern farmers fighting with the confederates to try to save their family's and farms from being destroyed by the sorry ass union soldiers.
You are a childish ,liberal peace of shit communist.
Like I said, the only thing you understand is:
Fuck you.
Your response shows EXACTLY what you are: NOT a, member of the human species.
Justice concerns us all, except, Americans of your kind.
Greenland is a sovereign country that does not want to be forced to be taken by force by American creeps.
The island has the largest deposits of rare-earth elements outside China. Two thirds of the planet's fresh water outside Antarctica are frozen in Greenland, and its rock flour has unusually strong ability for soil regeneration and direct air capture of carbon. only registered users can see external links
Besides Trump is not the first 1 to realize that America could do alot more with greenland that greenland is doing with it's self.
As of 2021 Greenland's annual GDP was $3 billion, 0.007% that of the United State
with just that bit of info, it is obvious if the rare earth materials were mined for example the lives and economy of that island would be far better off.
Greenland does NOT want to be invaded.
I didn't want the Edison light bulb to go away but it did.
We Americans want a better life and we want to choose what we buy and so on.
We also want to be safe, and have affordable resources. Greenland is full of resources that could improve our lives. They are doing NOTHING to improve their own economy or to better the world. they are sitting on it and freezing.
Why not offer to take it off denmarks hands and improve it to it's own advantage and ours?
I understand english just fine, it is YOU that can't understand simple logic when it comes to improving the safety of our nation and it's economy.
Thru out history conquest has improved the conquered
"What did Romans do to conquered people?
Instead of punishing conquered nations, Rome often treated them as allies, encouraging them to take part in the glory and wealth of building the empire."
"+Was Rome bigger than the US?
Erik Bishop if drawn up today, the Roman Empire would include swathes of desert making its landmass greater than the USA."
And you fully support that I am sure.Because they tacked the slaver issue onto the end of the paperwork to justify the invasion.
Now do you see what I am trying to do here? I am trying to show your hypocrisy.
But you are the idiot for thinking you know it all and I don't.
--------------------------------------- added after 40 seconds
Greenland is protected by international law.
If the US invades, the US, you, village the law.
Who came up with these international laws?
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”
This essentially makes aggressive war illegal, except in two cases:
- Self-defense (Article 51) if a country is attacked.
- Authorization by the UN Security Council to maintain or restore international peace.
Who “came up with” it?
These rules were drafted during the San Francisco Conference of 1945, where the UN Charter was created. The drafting involved representatives from 50 founding nations of the UN, including major powers like the U.S., U.K., Soviet Union, and China.
The idea itself wasn’t entirely new, it built on the lessons of World War II and earlier efforts like the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, (primarily initiated by the US and France), which tried to outlaw war as a policy tool.
The U.S. played a major, leading role in organizing and shaping the United Nations and its charter.
The U.S., under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a driving force behind the idea of a post-WWII international organization to prevent future wars.
American diplomats, particularly Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr. and others like Alger Hiss, were heavily involved in drafting and negotiating the UN Charter.
The U.S. helped structure the Security Council and pushed for mechanisms that would prevent unilateral aggression.
U.S. could offer a better economic deal to Greenland than Denmark or Europe do
We could just buy the damn island
Just think they might get past that old wood shoe tech and actually buy a pair of Wolverines or a pair of Nikes!
The whole discussion started because I said, like every other country except the aggressor US says, Greenland does not want to be invaded. The whole world says so, and it's OBVIOUS.
I ve never met anyone who apertures aggressiveness, except you.
I don't support "invading" Greenland and harming people, but I do support the idea of bartering with their handlers and taking over the place and making use of it's natural resources for it's own betterment and that of the world
The only reason I hear from him, is that there are lots of Russian and Chinese ships navigating around it. So what? There is about 2000 miles between the US and Greenland.
They keep the lights on with constant socialist support from Denmark. That's not what the US would do. Your ideology
is pull yourself up by your own bootstraps or starve.
If I had even the slightest hope that it would be better for them, I would support you having it. With Trump? Nope, nothing!
And you don't either, but you are just willing to lie for him.
Emperor Tangerine can GO FUCK HIMSELF!
that is what I am trying to get leo the second hand lion to understand, if the people of greenland want to be left alone they can resist and fight back. grow a pair in other words , Besides, china has already bought a dangerous amount of the US already.
New Comment Go to top