Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too? by 6ixStringJack

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 21:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 92168
PAGE 73 of 73

Monday, October 13, 2025 4:21 PM

Shut up fag. You lost the election 9 months ago, BIGLY. Stop crying about it and move the fuck on.

If you want a Civil War, your endangered species dies overnight and the war is over almost as soon as it began.

Go for it. I dare you.

--------------------------------------------------

For all that I've blessed, and all that I've wronged. In dreams until my death, I will wander on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 13, 2025 4:49 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Shut up fag. You lost the election 9 months ago, BIGLY. Stop crying about it and move the fuck on.

If you want a Civil War, your endangered species dies overnight and the war is over almost as soon as it began.

Go for it. I dare you.

President Trump Wants You to Buy His New $599 Watch So Bad He’s Appearing in the Ads Himself

A Trump-starring commercial for the new “Fight Fight Fight” chronograph is airing regularly on Newsmax.

By Oren Hartov | October 13, 2025

https://www.gq.com/story/trump-watches-newsmax-commercials

It’s been roughly a year since President Trump launched his own line of watches, which includes a $100,000 “Victory Tourbillon” made of solid gold as well as a “Fight Fight Fight” dive watch cased in stainless steel for $500. (A Wired article alleges that the tourbillon contains, ironically, Chinese components.) Now, despite some viral quality-control issues with the pink-dial “Inauguration First Lady” watch, the president is pushing his horological venture forward by appearing in new commercials airing on cable news.

“Check out this new red beauty, it’s one of my favorites,” Trump says in the spot, referring to Trump Watches’ new “Fight Fight Fight Chronograph Red.” “Wear it proudly on your wrist, and everyone will know exactly what it’s for, who it’s for, who it represents. It’s really gonna be something special—it’s from your favorite president.”

Last week, California governor Gavin Newsom took to X to retweet journalist Aaron Rupar’s post about Trump Watch commercials popping up regularly on Newsmax: “NO HEALTH CARE FOR YOU BUT YOU MUST BUY MY WATCH!!” Newsom wrote alongside the video.

The $599 “Fight Fight Fight Chronograph Red” comes individually numbered and uses a Miyota 6S20 quartz movement. According to the Trump Watches website, it’s “a major league timepiece worthy of a seat in The Oval Office” and “A future family heirloom, ready to pass down for generations.” The MAGA red dial too loud for you? You’re in luck: There’s also a two-tone version in steel and gold-hued steel.

The brand is also promoting a new 18-karat gold-plated “Fight Fight Fight Onyx” GMT with a Jubilee-style bracelet and a Miyota NH35 automatic movement. (At least, that’s what the Trump Watches website says, though the NH34 is the Miyota NH-series automatic GMT movement, whereas the NH35 is the three-hander.) While it’s seemingly a Rolex GMT-Master dupe, the watch costs $799 and boasts a real onyx stone dial. (Purchase is limited to three units per household, begging the question: What household is trying to buy more than three of these?)

Some fine print at the bottom of the ad states that “Trump watches are not designed, owned, managed, or controlled by Donald J. Trump, the Trump Organization, CIC Digital LLC, or any of their respective principals or affiliates.” Nice to have that reassurance that there’s absolutely zero conflicts of interest happening here—no matter how many times a day the President of the United States himself appears on your television screen enticing you to buy a watch.

https://gettrumpwatches.com/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 13, 2025 5:54 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Shut up fag. You lost the election 9 months ago, BIGLY. Stop crying about it and move the fuck on.

If you want a Civil War, your endangered species dies overnight and the war is over almost as soon as it began.

Go for it. I dare you.
President Trump Wants You to Buy His New $599 Watch So Bad He’s Appearing in the Ads Himself

This has nothing to do with the Civil War you're stupidly praying for, moron.

If some dumb asshole wants to spend $30k more on a watch than I paid for my house, more power to them. They ain't my daddy.

--------------------------------------------------

For all that I've blessed, and all that I've wronged. In dreams until my death, I will wander on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 6:40 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

This has nothing to do with the Civil War you're stupidly praying for, moron.

If some dumb asshole wants to spend $30k more on a watch than I paid for my house, more power to them. They ain't my daddy.

Clarence Thomas’s Legal Clerk Issues Dire Warning About Supreme Court’s Agenda
‘BOMBSHELL’

Legal scholar Caleb Nelson is worried about the “pro-president” direction the Supreme Court seems to be moving toward.

By Wiktoria Gucia | Oct. 14 2025 2:16AM EDT

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-clerk-issues-dire-warnin
g-about-supreme-courts-agenda/

A former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas has warned that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution “appears to be moving toward a sweepingly pro-president position.”

In an essay for the NYU Law Democracy Project, originalist legal scholar and University of Virginia School of Law professor Caleb Nelson argued that the Constitution’s text and historical context give Congress wide latitude to organize the executive branch and to impose limits on the president’s power to remove officials. https://democracyproject.org/posts/must-administrative-officers-serve-
at-the-presidents-pleasure

It’s an issue that is already front and center on the court’s docket, and one that Nelson warns “can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions” in the case of “a President bent on vengeful, destructive and lawless behavior.”

In September, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 emergency order allowing President Donald Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission leader Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position. Slaughter, who was appointed to the FTC in 2018 during Trump’s first administration, argued that she was “illegally” fired in a move that violated “clear Supreme Court precedent.”

The Court will hear arguments in the case in December, when it will consider whether to overturn the 1935 precedent that limits the president’s ability to remove independent agency regulators over policy disagreements.

“It is true that Article II vests the executive power in the President,” Nelson, who clerked for Thomas from 1994 to 1995, wrote in his article. “But Congress is in charge of creating offices within the executive branch, and the Constitution does not give the President unilateral power to dictate who will fill those offices or what their authorities and duties will be.”

While the current Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration since the president returned to office in January, Nelson hopes “the Justices will not act as if their hands are tied and they cannot consider any consequences of the interpretations that they choose” when deciding cases like Slaughter’s.

However, The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak believes “There is little question that the court will side with the president. Its conservative majority has repeatedly signaled that it plans to adopt the ‘unitary executive theory,’ which says the original understanding of the Constitution demands letting the president remove executive branch officials as he sees fit.”

Still, Nelson’s article has elicited a massive response from the legal community.

“Bombshell!” was constitutional law scholar and professor William Baude’s immediate reaction to Nelson’s commentary. “Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation of Article II,” he wrote.
https://bsky.app/profile/williambaude.bsky.social/post/3lzyvlfbz4s2w

Nelson’s originalist understanding of the Constitution has led to his opinions previously being cited in more than a dozen Supreme Court decisions. Thomas himself referenced his former clerk’s work six times in a 2023 concurring opinion, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh named Nelson among a small group of “respected scholars” in a concurring opinion last year.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The “unitary executive interpretation” referenced by Baude is based on the “unitary executive theory,” which holds that the president has sole authority over the executive branch, including the power to dismiss executive branch officials at will.

“If most of what the federal government currently does on a daily basis is ‘executive,’ and if the President must have full control over each and every exercise of ‘executive’ power by the federal government (including an unlimitable ability to remove all or almost all executive officers for reasons good or bad), then the President has an enormous amount of power,” Nelson wrote.

“If a highly respected originalist scholar like Professor Nelson, on whom the court relies frequently, denies that originalism supports the unitary executive theory,” NYU law professor Richard H. Pildes told The New York Times, “that inevitably raises serious questions about an originalist justification for the court’s looming approach.”

Nelson concluded his article by issuing a warning about how upcoming decisions could impact the future.

“The current Supreme Court may likewise see itself as interpreting the Constitution for the ages, and perhaps some of the Justices take comfort in the idea that future Presidents will not all have the character of Donald Trump,” Nelson wrote. “But the future is not guaranteed; a President bent on vengeful, destructive, and lawless behavior can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions.”

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 6:54 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

How Crypto Became a Trump Trade

It’s primarily a vehicle for crony capitalism now

By Paul Krugman | Oct 14, 2025

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/how-crypto-became-a-trump-trade

By now it’s obvious that Donald Trump suffers from CBS — Cowardly Bully Syndrome.

On Friday, Trump blasted China’s new export controls on rare earths, declaring them a “moral disgrace” which were “obviously a plan devised by them years ago.” And he threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on China, on top of the already high existing tariffs.

Less than a day later he was groveling:

Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 12:43 PM EST 10/12/25
Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A, wants to help China, not hurt it!!! President DJT
12:45 PM • Oct 12, 2025 788.4K Views

So it only took a few hours to go from “a plan devised by them years ago” to they “just had a bad moment,” from “moral disgrace” to “highly respected President Xi.” The Chinese must be having a good laugh: They took Trump’s measure and he came out looking very, very small.

But what caused this quick, abject retreat? I’d like to believe that economic experts within the administration took a sober look at the situation and concluded that China would have the upper hand in a trade war. But there are no economic experts in this administration, and anyway, who would dare to tell Trump anything he doesn’t want to hear?

No, Trump was almost certainly reacting to the markets. Stocks fell sharply Friday, but the really striking action came in crypto, where Bitcoin fell 20 percent and smaller, less liquid tokens fell even more. Here, to take an arbitrary example, is what happened to the value of the official Trump coin:

Also, it just so happens that Trump himself holds an estimated $870 million worth of Bitcoin, so he suffered large personal financial losses from the crypto crash.

This was the largest one-day crash crypto has experienced so far. My question, however, is why the prospect of an intensified trade war caused a crypto crash.

Oddly, I’ve seen almost no reporting about this issue. There has been a lot about the way the crypto crash was magnified by forced sales: Many crypto investors are highly leveraged, and there were many forced liquidations — with widespread speculation that one or more “whales,” that is, major players, may have imploded. But why did a threatened trade war cause crypto to fall in the first place?

The answer, I believe, has little to do with economics and everything to do with politics. These days crypto derives its value largely from the support of politicians and government officials — in particular, officials who can be bribed. As a result, at this point crypto is largely a Trump trade. And crypto fell because the backlash against the potential trade war threatened to weaken Trump politically.

A brief history of crypto: When Bitcoin, the original crypto asset, was introduced, enthusiasts predicted that it would displace conventional fiat money, that is, currency issued by governments. The blockchain, they claimed, would make transactions using cryptocurrency easier and cheaper than transactions using dollars. And cryptocurrencies would be safe from the ravages of the printing press: governments couldn’t debase your money through inflation.

That was more than 15 years ago, and crypto has completely failed to deliver on those promises. Almost nobody uses cryptocurrency as a means of payment. A recent research paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City notes that

The share of U.S. consumers who report using cryptocurrency for payments—purchases, money transfers, or both—has been very small and has declined slightly in recent years.

Here’s the chart. The blue line at the top shows the percentage of consumers using crypto for any kind of payment:

Yet the public holds roughly $4 trillion in crypto assets. Why? Largely as a pure speculative investment. In addition, however, crypto has found real-world use as a convenient tool for criminal activity and money-laundering. In fact, that Kansas City Fed paper noted that the most important reason people gave for paying in crypto was “person or business receiving the money preferred cryptocurrency.” It’s not a stretch to imagine that the reason for that preference was often the desire to hide the payment from the authorities.

As for the vision of a private currency insulated from government, at this point the biggest factor supporting the prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become the belief that Donald Trump — whose family has made billions from crypto sales, and whose party received hundreds of millions in crypto campaign contributions — will promote the industry. No pesky regulations that might limit the financial risks from stablecoins. No serious efforts to limit the use of crypto to facilitate criminal activity.

And Trump has declared his intention to create a “strategic crypto reserve.” True, this reserve will supposedly come out of crypto seized from criminals. But it would still support crypto by keeping those tokens off the market.

The prospect of high-level political support is why the prices of Bitcoin and other tokens surged when Trump won in November. As I said, at this point Bitcoin is basically a Trump trade, since it’s hard to imagine Democrats being remotely as favorable to the industry.

In the past I’ve described the case for Bitcoin as being a combination of technobabble and libertarian derp. My view about the technobabble hasn’t changed. But I will amend the case against crypto by adding that the crypto industry is one of the prime beneficiaries from a new regime of crony capitalism, in which an industry’s success depends on its ability and willingness to bribe the right people.

So why did Trump’s threat of all-out trade war with China cause crypto prices to plunge? Not because the economic damage from such a war would reduce the use of crypto, because crypto basically doesn’t have any legitimate uses. But an intensified trade war, especially a trade war America would almost surely lose, would drive Trump’s public support into an even deeper hole. And this would reduce the ability of history’s most corrupt administration to keep showering favors on the industry that made Trump rich.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:38 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

MAGA Rage at “No Kings” Boils Over

President Trump’s allies are suddenly raging over the October 18th “No Kings” protests. MAGA Mike Johnson and MAGA-fied Representative Steve Scalise are angrily sliming expected attendees as America-haters, antifa, Marxists, and terrorists. MAGA influencers and other GOP figures have done the same, with one hinting that the National Guard should crack down on them. This unanimity of messaging about “terrorists” means it’s all almost certainly being coordinated by Stephen Miller. Yet it’s backfiring: Democrats and rally organizers are using it to galvanize attendance, which will likely succeed. Robert De Niro amplified the call to turn out, inspiring more anger on Fox News. Indeed, the GOP demonization of legitimate protests itself ratifies the “No Kings” message. We talked to Jill Lawrence, who writes well for The Bulwark on Trump’s hatred of blue America. We discuss why large legitimate protests infuriate Trump-MAGA, why the correct response to their smears is to turn out in force, and why that’s likely to happen. Listen to this episode here. A transcript is here.
https://newrepublic.com/article/201672/maga-rage-no-kings-boils-over-a
nd-quickly-backfires-trump

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:14 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Can America recover from Trump? Here’s what new data says.

New political science research suggests democracy can survive leaders like Trump. But there’s a catch.

By Zack Beauchamp | Oct 14, 2025

https://www.vox.com/politics/464459/trump-american-democracy-u-turns

The president of the United States is deploying masked troops to the streets of blue cities, working to put friendly billionaires in charge of the media environment, and attempting to jail his personal enemies.

Can any democracy come back from this?

Earlier this year, two teams of researchers published papers trying to answer this exact question — and came to seemingly opposite conclusions.

Both papers focused on what they call “democratic U-turns:” where a country starts out as a democracy, moves toward authoritarianism, and then quickly recovers. The first team’s conclusions were optimistic: they identified 102 U-turn cases since 1900 and found that, in 90 percent of them, the result was “restored or even improved levels of democracy.” The second team focused on 21 recent cases and inverted the findings — concluding that “nearly 90 percent” of alleged U-turns were short-lived mirages.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2024.2448742
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-myth-of-democratic-res
ilience/

So who’s right? To find out, I reexamined the basic data and spoke to researchers from each of the two teams. It turns out that the seemingly opposed findings are actually more consistent than they seem — with implications for the United States that are at once hopeful and disturbing.

What researchers learned about “democratic U-turns”

The scholarly research on U-turns draws from a database called V-Dem, widely considered the gold standard for quantitative research on global democracy. V-Dem works by getting a broad group of experts on individual countries to give numerical assessments of different aspects of that country’s democracy (e.g., how free the press is, or whether elections are administered impartially). These judgements are turned into composite scores that assess how democratic a country is as a whole.

The first team of researchers, the more optimistic ones, are based at the institute that compiles and publishes the V-Dem database. Looking over their own data, authors Marina Nord, Fabio Angiolillo, Martin Lundstedt, Felix Wiebrecht, and Staffan I. Lindberg found that U-turns — defined as a country’s democracy score starting to increase after a recent decline — are very common. Over half of all countries that experience a slide toward autocracy also end up experiencing a U-turn. And those U-turns are typically very successful, hence the topline finding that 90 percent of U-turns saw a country returning to its previous level of democracy or even improving on it.

To understand what a U-turn looks like more concretely, it’s helpful to look at the recent history of Poland. Once considered one of the strongest post-communist democracies, the right-wing PiS government elected in 2015 turned the country’s public broadcaster into propaganda and packed the judicial system with its own cronies. But in 2023, a coalition of opposition parties defeated PiS in national parliamentary elections and began trying to undo the damage. You can see, in Poland’s V-Dem score, the characteristic U-shaped curve — a decline under PiS and an increase after its defeat.

Yet this is all very new, and Poland has not returned to its pre-PiS democracy. Moreover, there’s a real question of whether its progress in the right direction can be sustained. The new coalition has had a lot of trouble fixing what PiS broke, and just this year narrowly lost the presidential election to the PiS candidate.

The second paper argues that such a failure to make sustained gains would be more common than not.

Its authors — Nic Cheeseman, Jennifer Cyr, and Mattías Bianchi — also use V-Dem data and focus their analysis on post-1994 cases of democratic U-turn. Twenty-one cases (out of the initial 102) fit these parameters. The authors then analyzed how many of those countries managed to maintain their higher, post U-turn democracy scores — looking at what happened in the years after the analysis of the first paper ended to see if the gains of a U-turn could be sustained.

The results weren’t promising. Of the 21 cases, 19 countries experienced another decline in their democracy score within five years of the seemingly successful U-turn. And the record of the two exceptions, Malawi and Mali, wasn’t exactly stellar.

“Malawi maintained a consistent, if low, level of democracy for the first five years after the U-turn, but in the sixth year became non-democratic once more,” the authors wrote. “Mali’s progress has been even less auspicious. The country remained stably democratic, if weakly so, for five years. But by year six, it too had become nondemocratic, suffering two coups in 2020 and 2021.”

What the not-so-contradictory papers tell us about modern democracy

Marina Nord and Nic Cheeseman, researchers from the first and second teams, respectively, both emphasized in phone calls that they didn’t see their findings as being in tension. In fact, Cheeseman said, the two groups were in communication and discussing joint projects going forward.

This is unusual in academic disputes, which (in my experience) often get petty and bitter. And it reflects the fact that the two papers may be two sides of the same coin.

Both scholars agree that modern autocratization is different from the historical pattern. Before the 1990s, democracies tended to be toppled by coups or revolutions — unmistakable uses of force that ended the current regime and replaced it with naked authoritarian rule.

Nowadays, thanks in large part to democracy’s increasingly dominant ideological position around the world, the threat tends to come in a more subtle and hidden form — what scholars call “democratic backsliding.” In these cases, a legitimately elected government changes the laws and rules of the political system to give itself increasingly unfair advantages in future elections. The ultimate aim is often to create a “competitive authoritarian” regime, where elections are not formally rigged but take place under such unfair conditions that they can’t truly be considered democratic. That’s what Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party did in Hungary, and what PiS tried to do in Poland.

Because democratic backsliding happens through law and political maneuvering, rather than at the point of a gun, its opponents have more avenues (such as litigation, legislative resistance, and elections) for disrupting it. This might be why the first team found that attempts at authoritarianism were actually more likely to end in a U-turn in the post-1994 period (73 percent of cases) than in the full historical sample (52 percent).

Yet at the same time, any individual defeat for authoritarian forces might be less permanent.

Because elected authoritarians were, well, elected, they often represent a real constituency in the country’s politics. This support base is often large enough to make it 1) impossible for their opponents to defeat them permanently and 2) democratically illegitimate for said opponents to outlaw them entirely. That means that, even if they’re voted out, there’s always a chance that someone representing that constituency could win a future election and make another bid to consolidate power.

This gives a tentative synthesis between the two papers: that contemporary attempts to destroy democracy usually fail in the near term, but often lead to future attempts down the line.

“Once you have a democracy, that doesn’t mean you automatically become a stable democracy,” Nord says, summarizing the points of agreement.

What all of this means for America’s future

In 2013, the political scientist Dan Slater coined a term for this kind of whiplash: “democratic careening.” Careening democracies, per Slater, are “struggling but not collapsing”: they are places of “endemic unsettledness and rapid ricocheting” between what feel like wildly different governing models. Such a democracy “may be liable to ‘capsize,’ or tip over temporarily so that democracy ceases to function for a limited time — but not to vanish from the democratic ranks entirely through a restoration and consolidation of authoritarian rule.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/abs/dem
ocratic-careening/E94A34CCE67731A1209E100D97DE08F3

The recent papers suggest that Slater was ahead of his time: that in the decade-plus since his work came out, the state of affairs he is describing may be becoming increasingly common.

And right now, it looks like it might fit the United States rather well.

I have argued that, while President Donald Trump has developed an increasingly cogent plan for destroying American democracy, there are formidable obstacles in his path — including federalism, widespread public skepticism, a free press, and an independent judiciary. The research suggests that many countries with fewer effective barriers against autocratization have resisted bids like Trump’s, which should give us some optimism that what’s happening right now isn’t the end of American democracy.

“I don’t think the US is beyond the point of no return,” Cheeseman tells me.

But even if America experiences a U-turn upon Trump’s departure, the country may not be out of the woods. The forces that made Trump possible in the first place will still remain, open to exploitation by any political leader with the requisite savvy and shamelessness.

“There is a reason why Trump came to power, and there is a reason why he won those elections,” Nord says. “If you don’t solve the underlying reasons, then of course democracy will still be at risk.”

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 5:54 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Russian state TV mocks Trump as ‘simple infant’ outwitted by Putin

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-state-tv-mocks-trump-as-s
imple-infant-outwitted-by-putin/ss-AA1OqAMl

For Moscow, Trump’s unpredictable statements and shifting positions have become regular fodder for state television.

The latest broadcast painted him as a vain and unreliable figure, while elevating Putin as a master manipulator of world leaders.

Mocking Donald Trump

Russian state television has ridiculed Donald Trump, calling him “as simple as pocket change” and claiming Vladimir Putin has outsmarted him over Ukraine peace negotiations.

The mockery came during a broadcast where political commentators celebrated what they described as Moscow’s upper hand in global diplomacy.

‘Putin gets better of Trump’

Political scientist Andrei Sidorchik told viewers that Putin’s strategy was working, contrasting it with Trump’s supposed naivety.

“He is saying the eternal peace will now start in the Middle East,” Sidorchik said, mocking Trump’s optimism.

He suggested the former US president lacked a sense of “responsibility and perception,” implying Putin was using Trump’s ego to his advantage.

Mocking Trump’s ego after Nobel snub

The discussion followed Trump’s disappointment over not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Sidorchik remarked that Trump’s pride had been “wounded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee” and that the Kremlin understood how to exploit his need for praise.

“Once again, to save the world from an apocalypse, we have to stroke the ego of a man who is behaving like a cowboy from a saloon or an infant,” he said.

Russian commentators celebrate Putin’s influence

The exchange on NTV highlighted how Russia’s state-controlled media portrays Putin as the dominant player on the global stage.

Host Roman Babayan noted Trump had publicly thanked Putin for his “warm words” about peace.

The segment framed Putin as a calm strategist, while Trump was painted as a volatile and emotional figure who could be manipulated.

Trump’s intellect mocked on live TV

During the broadcast, Sidorchik delivered one of the harshest lines of the night:

“His intellect is not up to par. He is as simple as pocket change. He thinks that, in the end, Russia can be cowed. His entourage thinks so too, which is sad.”

The insult drew laughter from the studio audience, reflecting the Kremlin’s growing confidence in its narrative against the West.

Predictions of European capitulation

Adding to the smug tone, Professor Andrey Koshkin predicted that Europe would soon “repay Russia its seized assets, with interest.”

He claimed such a development was inevitable, suggesting that Western sanctions were beginning to backfire.

“All of it will happen,” Koshkin said confidently, reinforcing Moscow’s message that patience would bring victory.

Manipulating Trump through ‘psychological tricks’

Journalist Evgenia Volgina told viewers that Trump’s engagement with Putin reflected a classic psychological play.

“There is an often-used psychological trick of telling your counterpart what he wants to hear,” she explained, implying Putin was using flattery to manage Trump.

“Most likely, he is doing that,” she added, noting that only Russia was “talking about peacemaking” while the US and Europe “don’t need peacemaking.”

Trump threatens to send Tomahawks to Ukraine

The broadcast coincided with Trump’s comments aboard Air Force One, where he told reporters he “might have to speak to Russia” about sending long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

The weapons would allow Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory, including Moscow.

Trump warned, “Do they want to have Tomahawks going in their direction? I don’t think so.”

Warning of ‘a new step of aggression’

The US president said he had raised the issue with Volodymyr Zelensky, calling the missiles “a new step of aggression.”

He added, “If the war is not settled, we may very well, we may not, but we may do it. I think it’s appropriate to bring up. I want to see the war settled.”

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 7:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

--------------------------------------------------

For all that I've blessed, and all that I've wronged. In dreams until my death, I will wander on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:21 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

'We Suffered For 25 Years': Trump Invents His Own History, Claims Banning Tariffs In 1913 Was What Caused The Great Depression

During a recent bilateral meeting in the Oval Office with Polish President Karol Nawrocki, Donald Trump invented his own version of U.S. history as he claimed the Great Depression happened because the country banned tariffs in 1913. Tariffs were never banned in 1913, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is often blamed for making the Great Depression worse.

Starts at 2 minutes into the video.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-did-that-work-out-trump-tr
ies-to-rewrite-history-claims-the-great-depression-happened-because-tariffs-were-banned-in-1913/vi-AA1MEmzY

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE