President Trump

[FogBlueInSanFran]

He's a billionaire who is the possibly the most powerful man in the world. The idea he's a moron is ridiculous. You can define intelligence however you want, I would hazard a guess that he's probably not passing a quantum physics exam, but he isn't Homer Simpson either.

No, he’s not Homer Simpson. He’s Eric Cartman.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

He won the Presidency as the longest betting odds outsider in the history of Western elections and now is President again.

People aren't stupid and lazy because you disagree with their politics. There's this thought process that says something like "well they think something different to me and because I'm obviously correct, it means they either don't know as much as me, they haven't thought about it like I have, or they are morally compromised because if they weren't any of those things then they'd think like me" and it's pervasive in today's society and incredibly arrogant and blinkered.

Why couldn’t your second paragraph be applied to you too?

 

[Blue Maverick]

He won the Presidency as the longest betting odds outsider in the history of Western elections and now is President again.

People aren't stupid and lazy because you disagree with their politics. There's this thought process that says something like "well they think something different to me and because I'm obviously correct, it means they either don't know as much as me, they haven't thought about it like I have, or they are morally compromised because if they weren't any of those things then they'd think like me" and it's pervasive in today's society and incredibly arrogant and blinkered.

Trouble is I don’t think they think, they believe the lies pedddled to them mainly by social media these days, you only have to look at some of the videos, I saw one yesterday where an American who sells tshirts was schooled on what tariffs meant to his business, the penny dropped he didn’t have a clue, he’d just bought into the Trump rhetoric.

 

[youngbob]

He didn't pack the Supreme Court, he appointed judges who were then ratified by Congress which is exactly what should and does happen. Roe vs Wade took the issue out of federal hands and said instead the states should follow their own legislation which seems about right to me. The country is split on the issue, the Supreme Court found the idea unconstitutional (and I'm certainly no scholar here but I do understand that the US was designed to be a confederation of aligned states who formed a federalised Government) and as you pointed out, it was already passed once so can be again.

If you think Trump might become a Reaganesque like figure then I think that's a perfectly valid and sensible point; he has a large cultural impact and he will make changes that the right wing conservatives think are correct to do. I don't agree necessarily but it's a much more sensible idea than Trump is going to be a fascist dictator for life who will start a war against Denmark and put trans people in camps.

Again, what are we talking about here? Reagan as an incumbent won 49 out of 50 states in the biggest electoral victory in American history. He is exactly what the people wanted and did what the people wanted him to do. Who are we to tell them that they can't have the country that they want, that they vote for, and that they think is morally correct?

What's the point of being a democrat if you think the people who get voted in shouldn't be allowed to implement the things that they were mandated upon?

For what it's worth I'm not a Democrat in literal terms or much in terms of my political persuasion really.

I don't think matters pertaining to human rights and bodily autonomy should be in the hands of individual US states or countries or towns or businesses etc. I don't think it should be the case that women have to travel to different states (or different countries) to get access to necessary healthcare. Abortion should be a universal right internationally for anyone who might personally need one. Matters as serious as abortion, women's rights, education on LGBT people, racism - basically anything that can become (and has become) a matter of life and death simply through prejudice - should not be something to be 'debated' or voted on. This isn't deciding on the particulars of complex economic policies or what have you, it's just basic principle.

Reagan might have won 49 out of 50 states but he's a perfect example of why certain matters should not be in the hands of individual governments who can take rights away at the drop of a hat. For instance he didn't publicly acknowledge AIDS until well into his second term, didn't give an address on it until 1987, and funding only increased once he was on the way out. Journalists who tried to raise questions to Reagan about the AIDS crisis were shunned. Because of prejudice and fear and repression, overseen by Reagan's government, thousands died. This might set alarm bells ringing but governments and The Average Person cannot be trusted to know what's best for themselves or for humanity when it comes to sensitive, difficult topics that have largely been ignored or dismissed due to the misplaced and incorrect beliefs of said governments and Average People.

What's "morally correct" is forever changing and ephemeral, I agree, but there is a difference between (something like) keeping up to date with constantly shifting terminology and just fully denying vital medical care to people who need it. That's what overturning Roe v. Wade is and what ignoring AIDS was - it's denying a human right to millions of people. I apologise if this sounds like I'm strawmanning here, but slavery was fine and dandy in the US until very recently and there are thousands of people who still believe in the values of the Confederacy - should those former Confederate states be allowed to rebuild plantations in the Deep South? Because who are we to tell them what's morally correct? If that's the country they want then they should be allowed to have it, no? Slavery was overturned by force because the Union recognised slavery was wrong and knew they had to make the decision for the South, because the South would never have come to that decision alone.

While things like banning abortion, suppressing LGBT education, curtailing women's rights, and banning critical race theory, etc. might not seem as dangerous or as inhumane as slavery to you, I think it's just a fact that it is - or that it has the very real potential to be just as serious. The way the left has approached these issues and tried to sell them to the centre and right in the last 20 years especially leaves a lot to be desired, but as far as I'm concerned they're human rights issues that should be protected by something greater than governments. If issues as serious as abortion are things that can just be flip-flopped every four years then what was the fucking point in the entire 20th century? If someone like Trump or Musk is willing to undo years of progress and hard-earned effort because of sloppy presentation and some mean people on the internet, I think that's pathetic - and is another reason why certain issues should be taken out of the hands of individual Presidents who can decide things basically on a whim.

 

[Dax777]

She is very polite and respectful and wants protections for minority groups who will be targeted under the rhetoric of Trump and Musk, She has morals and empathy- something you will never understand.

There is nothing morel or empathetic about castrating children at the behest of a sick ideology. Something she supports.



She is a bit of an idiot. But that's neither here nor there. There are idiots in every walk of life. Its no excuse for anyone to start harassing them.

It makes me laugh that so many leftist which this woman is, only see immigrants as our dishwashers, and room cleaners and cotton pickers.... They always ask, whos going to wash our dishes now? Despicable self important idiots.

Anyway, the truth is Trump and Vance should have never been put in that situation by their advance team. Someone ought to gryt fired for that stupidity. This woman is a well known critic of Trump and a left wing Ideologue.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The word you're looking for is "median" - not "average."

I think it was a play on the saying “Half the people are dumber than average!” even though the word should be median.

The problem, of course, is that, in a delicious twist of irony, at least half the people wouldn’t know what the median is!

 

[BlueHammer85]

There is nothing morel or empathetic about castrating children at the behest of a sick ideology. Something she supports.

She is a bit of an idiot. But that's neither here nor there. There are idiots in every walk of life. Its no excuse for anyone to start harassing them.

It makes me laugh that so many leftist which this woman is, only see immigrants as our dishwashers, and room cleaners and cotton pickers.... They always ask, whos going to wash our dishes now? Despicable self important idiots.

Anyway, the truth is Trump and Vance should have never been put in that situation by their advance team. Someone ought to gryt fired for that stupidity. This woman is a well known critic of Trump and a left wing Ideologue.

They always ask, whos going to wash our dishes now? Well she never asked that did she? She said many people now in the target of hate and extremism are your everyday people who live amongst us, who have various jobs, who have the same feelings, thoughts and struggles as everyone else so tone down the rhetoric because it will have real consequences.
Once again, you lack empathy and morals which you probably think is cool, so you won't understand.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

They always ask, whos going to wash our dishes now? Well she never asked that did she? She said many people now in the target of hate and extremism are your everyday people who live amongst us, who have various jobs, who have the same feelings, thoughts and struggles as everyone else so tone down the rhetoric because it will have real consequences.
Once again, you lack empathy and morals which you probably think is cool, so you won't understand.

He's a complicated character. It struck me that he -- or his online persona at any rate -- is basically Gollum.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

He's not Hitler or Stalin or Lex Luthor. He's a 78 year old former gameshow host with a hilarious surname who appealed to a populist demographic and in 197 weeks will be gone and will never come back.
Any changes he makes in those 197 weeks can and probably will be immediately reversed and things will move back to the US centre.
Any law that can be voted in, can be voted out. Any law that can be amended can be re-amended.
And if you think the US military, a population who holds the Constitution and Bill of Rights with a mythical reverence that most religious fanatics don't hold their Bibles in, would ever support a coup then frankly you're been dramatic.
When he was first elected, people were saying he was going to become a dictator for life. I said that's ridiculous, he's going to do nothing, which is essentially what he did. He spent 4 years as President and made almost no historical imprint on legislation.
The same will happen again.

Trump is a master of deflection though and I'm shocked how people STILL fall for this. It's like none of you ever heard of trolling before. If he's talking about invading Canada then it's almost certainly because he's attempting to draw attention away from something else that will help secure his base. Talk about that instead rather than Red Dawn like fantasies

So that’s your opinion?
Fair enough. Quite a few hold the same opinion.
From what I’m reading, quite a few are worried about the alternatives, which would have seemed like Red Dawn Fantasies 8 years ago.
His actions and musings in his first week wouldn’t do anything to allay anyone’s fears that may be of the opinion that his ambitions go beyond your opinion of his 4 year retirement plan.

 

[Dax777]

For what it's worth I'm not a Democrat in literal terms or much in terms of my political persuasion really.

How do you define yourself politically?

I don't think matters pertaining to human rights and bodily autonomy should be in the hands of individual US states or countries or towns or businesses etc. I don't think it should be the case that women have to travel to different states (or different countries) to get access to necessary healthcare. Abortion should be a universal right internationally for anyone who might personally need one.

Who's hands should matters of human rights and bodily autonomy be in?

Before answering that, who would you say should determine what particular rights are universal human rights? As it seems you are of the misguided opinion that those are self evident rights...

But lets continue...

Matters as serious as abortion, women's rights, education on LGBT people, racism - basically anything that can become (and has become) a matter of life and death simply through prejudice - should not be something to be 'debated' or voted on. This isn't deciding on the particulars of complex economic policies or what have you, it's just basic principle.

Well, i should have read a little further :) It seems you answered one of my prior questions...

Let me rephrase: Universal Human Rights are any rights that is being sought that can become or has become in the past a matter of life and death because of prejudice...

Is that about right?

Reagan might have won 49 out of 50 states but he's a perfect example of why certain matters should not be in the hands of individual governments who can take rights away at the drop of a hat. For instance he didn't publicly acknowledge AIDS until well into his second term, didn't give an address on it until 1987, and funding only increased once he was on the way out. Journalists who tried to raise questions to Reagan about the AIDS crisis were shunned. Because of prejudice and fear and repression, overseen by Reagan's government, thousands died. This might set alarm bells ringing but governments and The Average Person cannot be trusted to know what's best for themselves or for humanity when it comes to sensitive, difficult topics that have largely been ignored or dismissed due to the misplaced and incorrect beliefs of said governments and Average People.

Interesting....so the government and the average person cannot be trusted to know what's best for themselves or for humanity when it comes to sensitive topics. Who would you say can be trusted to know what's best?

What's "morally correct" is forever changing and ephemeral, I agree, but there is a difference between (something like) keeping up to date with constantly shifting terminology and just fully denying vital medical care to people who need it. That's what overturning Roe v. Wade is and what ignoring AIDS was -

I don't see the connection between AIDS and Pregnancy... I mean outside of the obvious that similar acts can cause both.

it's denying a human right to millions of people. I

apologise if this sounds like I'm strawmanning here, but slavery was fine and dandy in the US until very recently

You are straw manning, but that's ok. Slavery as you well know was fine and dandy around the whole world until England started what many today would have termed an imperialist war around the world to end it. You know, England thinking itself to have Superior culture over those who enjoyed slavery.

Fortunately for the slaves, there weren't enough leftist to argue that ALL cultures were equal but just different. As many of them often argue today. Funny enough, that's the same argument the Confederacy liked to use back in the day.

and there are thousands of people who still believe in the values of the Confederacy - should those former Confederate states be allowed to rebuild plantations in the Deep South? Because who are we to tell them what's morally correct? If that's the country they want then they should be allowed to have it, no? Slavery was overturned by force because the Union recognised slavery was wrong and knew they had to make the decision for the South, because the South would never have come to that decision alone.

So some government should have the power to determine what's right? I thought you said no government should earlier? It sounds like what you really mean is that governments should have the power enforce the ideas you like on others even if they don't like those ideas?

While things like banning abortion, suppressing LGBT education, curtailing women's rights, and banning critical race theory, etc. might not seem as dangerous or as inhumane as slavery to you,

I think it's just a fact that it is - or that it has the very real potential to be just as serious. The way the left has approached these issues and tried to sell them to the centre and right in the last 20 years especially leaves a lot to be desired, but as far as I'm concerned they're human rights issues that should be protected by something greater than governments.

There you go. You are back to the "greater than the governments or the people" argument again. Cheers!

Forgive me for being forward but might I suggest you run for Emperor of World?


You know, so you can just decide for the governments and the average person what's best for them. Seeing as your clarity on these issues seem beyond reproach :)

If issues as serious as abortion are things that can just be flip-flopped every four years then what was the fucking point in the entire 20th century? If someone like Trump or Musk is willing to undo years of progress and hard-earned effort because of sloppy presentation and some mean people on the internet, I think that's pathetic - and is another reason why certain issues should be taken out of the hands of individual Presidents who can decide things basically on a whim.

Forgive me your highness in Waiting, but how old are you?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’ve never subscribed to the theory that Trump is thick.

He’s not academically bright but that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent, or at least that he has qualities which could quite properly be characterised as a worthwhile type of intelligence.

 

[BlueHammer85]

He's not Hitler or Stalin or Lex Luthor. He's a 78 year old former gameshow host with a hilarious surname who appealed to a populist demographic and in 197 weeks will be gone and will never come back.
Any changes he makes in those 197 weeks can and probably will be immediately reversed and things will move back to the US centre.
Any law that can be voted in, can be voted out. Any law that can be amended can be re-amended.
And if you think the US military, a population who holds the Constitution and Bill of Rights with a mythical reverence that most religious fanatics don't hold their Bibles in, would ever support a coup then frankly you're been dramatic.
When he was first elected, people were saying he was going to become a dictator for life. I said that's ridiculous, he's going to do nothing, which is essentially what he did. He spent 4 years as President and made almost no historical imprint on legislation.
The same will happen again.

Trump is a master of deflection though and I'm shocked how people STILL fall for this. It's like none of you ever heard of trolling before. If he's talking about invading Canada then it's almost certainly because he's attempting to draw attention away from something else that will help secure his base. Talk about that instead rather than Red Dawn like fantasies

I really hope you're right - the fear for me is the new dawn age of social media and the disinformation war that hasn't been seen on this scale before - Whilst i can appreciate Trump being a fuddy duddy who will be gone i do fear what Musk wants out of all this in the long run.

 

[roman totale]

I’ve never subscribed to the theory that Trump is thick.

He’s not academically bright but that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent, or at least that he has qualities which could quite properly be characterised as a worthwhile type of intelligence.

He’s very smart when it comes to what he needs to do to benefit himself in that very moment. The second he has to think beyond the next five seconds, or think about things from some other perspective that isn’t his own, he’s as thick as shit. This is why it’s so easy for all his handlers to get him to do their bidding. All you need to do is take away from him the need to think about anything that isn’t immediate, or not about himself and he’ll just go along with it.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

He's a billionaire who is the possibly the most powerful man in the world. The idea he's a moron is ridiculous. You can define intelligence however you want, I would hazard a guess that he's probably not passing a quantum physics exam, but he isn't Homer Simpson either.

You can be a billionaire and a gobshite too.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
What I would say is that if he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth, I doubt he would have progressed to billionaire status.
However if he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth, I truly do believe he still would have achieved gobshite status.

 

[BlueHammer85]

I’ve never subscribed to the theory that Trump is thick.

He’s not academically bright but that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent, or at least that he has qualities which could quite properly be characterised as a worthwhile type of intelligence.

Very intelligent man.

 

[Dax777]

They always ask, whos going to wash our dishes now? Well she never asked that did she? She said many people now in the target of hate and extremism are your everyday people who live amongst us, who have various jobs, who have the same feelings, thoughts and struggles as everyone else so tone down the rhetoric because it will have real consequences.
Once again, you lack empathy and morals which you probably think is cool, so you won't understand.

In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country. We’re scared now.

The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants

In short, our servants...

That's how they see immigrants. She is an idiot. And this despicable view is not even the biggest reason why.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Very intelligent man.

He’s manifestly inarticulate but that doesn’t makes someone thick.

Ultimately, what is intelligence? I’d say it’s (broadly speaking) an ability to apply your mind to the world around you in order to provide solutions to problems, and to make the most of whatever environment you are in to meet your goals.

I’d say he operates broadly in accordance with those criteria.

 

[youngbob]

How do you define yourself politically?


Who's hands should matters of human rights and bodily autonomy be in?

Before answering that, who would you say should determine what particular rights are universal human rights? As it seems you are of the misguided opinion that those are self evident rights...

But lets continue...

Well, i should have read a little further :) It seems you answered one of my prior questions...

Let me rephrase: Universal Human Rights are any rights that is being sought that can become or has become in the past a matter of life and death because of prejudice...

Is that about right?

Interesting....so the government and the average person cannot be trusted to know what's best for themselves or for humanity when it comes to sensitive topics. Who would you say can be trusted to know what's best?

I don't see the connection between AIDS and Pregnancy... I mean outside of the obvious that similar acts can cause both :)

You are straw manning, but thats ok. Slavery as you well know was fine and dandy around the whole world until England started what many today would have termed an imperialist war around the world to end it. You know, England thinking itself to have Superior culture over those who enjoyed slavery.

Fortunately for the slaves, there weren't enough leftist to argue that ALL cultures were equal but just different. As many of them often argue today. Funny enough, that's the same argument to the Confederacy liked to use....

So some government should have the power to determine what's right? I thought yous said no government should earlier? Or is what you really mean is that governments should have the power enforce the ideas you like on others even if they wouldn't like it ?

There you go. You are back to the "greater than the governments or the people" argument again. Cheers :/

Forgive me for being forward but might I suggest you run for Emperor of World? You know, so you can just decide for the governments and the average person what's best for them. Seeing as your clarity on these issues ate beyond reproach :)

Forgive me your highness in Waiting, but how old are you?

I think quoting everything you've said in chunks and then responding to each bit would probably get things a bit mixed up. We clearly just disagree on a lot of stuff. So I'll just say that there are organisations in the world that already exist that are simultaneously separate from and stationed above each nation's government - human rights should be protected by those organisations and they are not matters which should be debated over or voted on.

 

[better dead than red]

This would be fun, wouldn't it?

https://www.otssolicitors.co.uk/news/donald-trump-from-usa-president-to-british-citizen/

 

[BlueHammer85]

In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country. We’re scared now.

The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants

In short, our servants...

That's how they see immigrants. She is an idiot. And this despicable view is not even the biggest reason why.

You're an idiot if you think that's what she meant. You have issues.