• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies"

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

Thoughts?
Trump is not only a treasonous insurrectionist,
he's even advocated USA's economic decline,
& border insecurity as a political campaign tool.
Now he advocates allowing Russia to conquer
NATO members, voiding the mutual pledge
for self defense.

I've not read the thread yet, but I'll wager that
Magas will defend him, & perhaps even these
policy goals.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
No, it doesn't. He is trolling his haters and those that don't want those countries in NATO to pay what they agreed to.

"Trolling his haters" with the platform he has with sensitive international relationships seems irresponsible to me.

Aside from that, is he trolling? He seems to be relating something he actually said during a NATO meeting. Is he lying about this? How does one tell?

Doesn't seem very responsible to me.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
LOL Read the article. The article says he was speaking about NATO members that do not pay their bills. It's even in the title of the article! You know, the article you yourself linked. :p
I did read it, but how does that change anything? Do you really think it's okay to encourage a nuclear armed despotic regime to invade sovereign democracies without provocation just because they "didn't pay their bills"? Drop to your knees and pray to your god that he may help you find a moral compass.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"Trolling his haters" with the platform he has with sensitive international relationships seems irresponsible to me.

Aside from that, is he trolling? He seems to be relating something he actually said during a NATO meeting. Is he lying about this? How does one tell?

Doesn't seem very responsible to me.
He is stirring up a discussion of how some NATO members are not paying what they agreed to. That isn't irresponsible.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Hillary sure had it right, didn't she? "Basket of deplorables."
Given how deplorable she is, that's some irony.
But her description was of pre 2017 voters.
Pre 2025 voters are a different breed.
They look at his record in office, his campaign
promises, & think...."I want this thug as Prez".
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The phrase "drinking the kool aid" insults the memories of innocent victims who were murdered. The babies at Jonestown didn't agree to "drink the kool aid". They were force to do so. As were some of the adults there. Maimonides would indeed not join in the ridiculing of innocent murder victims. Read here to lessen your ignorance,
Drinking the Kool-Aid: A Collection of Articles – Alternative Considerations of Jonestown & Peoples Temple
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is now part of
the language. The connection with
Jonestown is merely historical.

I wouldn't work so hard to take offense.
It's rather snowflakie.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
LOL Read the article. The article says he was speaking about NATO members that do not pay their bills. It's even in the title of the article! You know, the article you yourself linked. :p
His desire to have Russia invade, destroy, & conquer
them for the reason of non-payment is no less evil.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Gaddafi wanted to free African nations from the yoke of the Banking Seigniorage.
He was a despot in the eyes of the banking élites. The ones that Hillary Clinton frequents.
:)
Hah!
I just knew you'd arrive to defend Trump in this thread.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The phrase "drinking the kool aid" insults the memories of innocent victims who were murdered.
People can choose to be offended if they like. No offense is intended.
Maimonides would indeed not join in the ridiculing of innocent murder victims.
The phrase doesn't actually refer to murder any more assuming it ever did. It disparagingly refers to the indoctrination people like those at Jonestown, which occurred before they chose to go there and is why they went there. It doesn't refer to the children, who literally drank the poison as well as their indoctrinated parents. From Wiki:

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is most strongly believing and accepting in a deadly, deranged, or foolish ideology or concept based only upon the overpowering coaxing of another"

Although this is a religious example, I hear the phrase most often in connection with American conservative political indoctrination. The perpetrators who believed Trump's Big Lie drank the Kool-Aid. Those who say that it wasn't an insurrection drank the Kool-Aid. Those who believe that prosecuting Trumps crimes is politically motivated drank the Kool-Aid.
That link was a list of links. This is from the first one:

(This is an edited version of the remarks Kathy Tropp Barbour made at the Jonestown Memorial at the service for survivors and families on November 18, 2011. The remarks were addressed in the presence of the 30 people gathered on the hillside and the 409 people buried at her feet, but also to the 914 members of Peoples Temple who died 33 years earlier.)

To the family we gather to honor, you will live in our hearts forever. Some survivors and former members of Peoples Temple would like to stop people from using the phrase, “drinking the Kool-Aid” out of respect for you. I think this is misguided and, even if it were possible, might not have the intended result. I say this for three reasons:

  • • It is a useful phrase. “Drinking the Kool-Aid” is a verb; the noun is “Kool-Aid drinker.” These terms express a complex concept, that of loyalty to a leader or a cause to the extreme of one’s own demise. They are universally recognized, universally understood, to convey that, and usually it is appropriate.
  • Although the offense of hearing our loved ones reduced to an aspersion is real, most of the time these words are used, it is to describe someone else. They are not talking about us. I would try not to take it personally.
  • Third and most importantly, there is no untruth in it. It happened, we have all had to deal with the reality of it and the pain of the result, and come to terms with it.

The second link contained this:

"After talking to a couple of people about it, though, I realized that I had assumed everyone knows where the expression “Drink the Kool-Aid” came from. Many of the people attending the forum were younger than I am and may have never even heard of Jonestown, much less have made the association with the expression."

So no to the contention that the phrase is ridiculing the deaths at Jonestown. But as I said, those who choose to take offense at the phrase are free to do so. I don't intend to give up using the phrase, and it would be exceedingly unlikely that I have in the past or would in the future offend anybody. It's too useful a phrase to give up because somebody somewhere might be offended almost a half century after the fact.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
To sum up:
if the decisions are taken by US, UK, and France, why should Germany pay these bills?
The bills will be paid by these three aforementioned nations.

Do you want Germany or other countries to pay those bills?
Treat them as equal members.
 
Top