[jdiaz97]

Yes. Trump is a russian asset.

1. ‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia...

2. British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spie...

3. Now everyone knows that Putin was present when Trump shared intimate moments with "Bubba". They're beyond best friends.

4. Compare how Putin is treated by Trump, and how Zelensky is treated by Trump.

5. The first round of tariffs, every country on earth was included except Russia. Even countries that traded less than Russia-USA were included.

[stickfigure]

> Trump is a russian asset.

I used to think this was tinfoil hat territory. I'm starting to come round to "this is the only narrative that fits the facts".

[mrguyorama]

There are ways in which the Trump admin is aiding Ukraine right now that cannot fit the narrative though.

If Putin controlled Trump outright, Ukraine would not be using US intel to more effectively strike Russian oil infrastructure. Trump blocked this intelligence sharing for a little bit during the initial "Peace talks" but now we are back to helping the find routes for weapons that won't be intercepted.

That is in line with Trump being sympathetic to Putin's narrative, but not in line with Trump following Putin's orders.

That infrastructure is critical for Russian state budget, something that is very strained, and for maintaining cheap energy internally to keep the populace apathetic.

Putin would also not have wanted the US to waltz into Venezuela unopposed. Makes Russia look very weak to have an ally who they supply with military aide be so comprehensively owned.

Unfortunately, Trump just idolizes Putin for being a powerful and oppressive dictator, because he likes power and wants that for himself. He has no moral qualms with the immoral things done by Putin. He loves the fake "Manly" persona. He's jealous of how effective Putin propaganda is.

[_DeadFred_]

2/3rds of Ukraine's intel now comes from France not the USA making this argument incorrect.

https://bsky.app/profile/maks23.bsky.social/post/3mchppzitts...

[stickfigure]

It can still fit the narrative. There's a game theory to blackmail; if Putin publishes (hypothetical) kompromat then he loses his leverage. So as long as Trump remains less hostile to Russia than the alternative, he can do what he wants.

Also, support for Ukraine is very popular in the US, and Trump is clearly concerned about his image. Also about a potential revolt in the GOP. Cracks are showing already.

[illiac786]

Yeah but that theory explains anything short of bombing Russia directly, hence I wouldn’t say it fits, it’s just a one size fits all.

[AlecSchueler]

But for how many other leaders would you say "bombing Russia directly" is the only convincing way they could show they're not a Russian asset?

[illiac786]

But now you’ve reversed the logic: because he looks like a Russian asset, then the argument fits.

I mean, I don’t discuss that it’s an extremely tempting theory, full of Schafenfreude toward all the idiots that voted for him.

[jdiaz97]

Yep, even if you ignore this massive wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...

and look at everything from first principles, it's a logical conclusion. The simplest answer. Occam's Razor

[bulbar]

The simplest conclusion is that Trump has a narcissistic disorder and everything he does is related to that. All of his actions are well explained by this.

Of course, he can be a Russian asset to some extend at the same time.

[e2le]

It's truly vile how he treats the office and the democratic values he's meant to uphold and defend.

Why is he not impeached? Where is the American people?

He treats you with such contempt that he isn't above using the office for fraud and scams. He has done more to harm the US than Putin could have ever dreamed possible. Where is the American people? Hello?

[filoleg]

> Why is he not impeached?

He was impeached twice already.

Impeachment doesn't mean what (I believe) you think it does. There were previous presidents of the US who got impeached and remained in the position as well. This part is not novel (the only novel part is that he managed to get impeached twice).

[mmooss]

Removing Trump from office would require votes from some Republican Party members in Congress, and so far not enough are willing to vote for it.

He's been impeached twice, in his first term when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment happens. But removing a president requires trial and conviction in the Senate, and enough Republicans there voted against conviction. Several presidents have been impeached; none have been convicted.

> Where is the American people?

My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance over a segment of the population. They can say anything and that segment will believe them and support it.

[IAmGraydon]

If the US makes it out of this in one piece, the Republican Party will likely be ended, at least for a very long time. This is now existential for them and they know it. That’s why they’re all going along with it.

[actionfromafar]

Also, a huge chunk of those want to believe, because America Great. Leader Strong.

[yndoendo]

Nationalism is a hell of a drug. It is what start WWII.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I fail to see how a leader throwing tantrums all the time is interpreted as strong. To me, it seems like a weakness and a character flaw.

[actionfromafar]

You are a lost cause, but a lot of people love ranting old men.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Bunch of boot-licking cowards if you ask me

[e2le]

> My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance

I understand what your saying but I believe it's too much of an excuse. Every single person has a degree of personal responsibility to be at least somewhat informed on the state and happenings of your nation. A democracy simply cannot function otherwise.

[mmooss]

I completely agree about responsibility. At the same time, we can't close our eyes, on principle, to the fact that people can be influenced or we will paralyze ourselves about a critical problem.

[idle_zealot]

I don't think Trump is explicitly an asset. He just likes oligarchs and dictatorial strongmen, and is usually the dumbest man in the room. There's no doubt that there are ties there, but Trump is not a loyal man. These things combined means he can swing back and forth between doing Putin favors and being genuinely upset by perceived slights, then back to friends when Putin gets his ear to smooth things over.

Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.

[phs318u]

> he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to

That's the most succinct reasonably believable take that explains his behaviour.

[kivle]

I am convinced Vlad Vexlers analysis of Trump's NPD gets to the core of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmTeg0B9tH8

[mongol]

He is the ultimate useful idiot. And as such he is a most valuable asset for Russia

[gizajob]

Imagine the dirt they must have on him…

[fasbiner]

Ironically, this kind of mindset is exactly the one that Putin encouraged within Russia because it makes political pluralism impossible. If no matter who wins, 40% of the population is convinced the opposition is inherently wicked and intentionally trying to destroy the country as an agent of foreign (either literally or culturally) interest...

...you eventually end up in situation where most people agree that rule of law, political pluralism, free press and free speech, free inquiry and academic independence are luxuries we can no longer afford because of the foreign threat.

Because after all, we're under attack from evil people who want to destroy us! No compromise is possible and anybody who says they care about general principles is a fool or a traitor.

Trump has facilitated the continued transfer of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Zelensky and accelerated the arming and training ukrainian forces in 2017.

Unless The Atlantic and Obama are in on the conspiracy as well, it's unclear why he would say this and express policy: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-oba...

Trying to explain the political and cultural problems of a country internally by reference to foreign plots has not once in history ended well or been evaluated as accurate by subsequent historians with no dog in that fight. The crisis of the present deserves real analysis, not conspiracy theories that crumble in the face of basic numeracy and mutually agreed upon facts. If you have counter-examples from before 2016, I'd love to discuss them and expand my worldview, otherwise I think it's prudent to go with the historical heuristic.

You are harming both yourself and the world by failing to distinguish between what is emotionally satisfying and what best fits the mutually agreed upon facts available without improvisationally multiplying entities that enlarge the scope of conspiracy without evidence.