Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

If I didn't know who Trump was, and you told me that the person in the last photo was the same person in the first four, I would have called you a liar.

Yeah, that's valid -- I just promised I would take the first five to keep things scientific. I think 3/5 are from the same rally. I would be shocked, shocked I tell you, if the exact type of makeup wasn't part of it. Trump must know by now the difference between "there are forty lights in my face" vs "it might rain" when it's time to slather him up in something orange.

Unrelated:

I'd do it all over again

-- Giuliani

I doubt that, you'll have no position of power to do so and might be in jail

-- Breccia

[s_bushido]

If I didn't know who Trump was, and you told me that the person in the last photo was the same person in the first four, I would have called you a liar. He looks like a completely different person. Probably due to the natural light or something (that's the only one taken outdoors).

Yeah, it's definitely the diffused light from the overcast day. And the fact that it's probably pretty cool, so he's not sweating through his poorly-fitting suit. But even then, you can still see the ridiculous makeup he's wearing. Especially since you can compare it to the guy on the left side of the picture has a natural darker complexion. People aren't supposed to be orange.

[Breccia]

Trump attacks McEnemy out of the blue for no reason.

I don’t need any advice from RINO Kayleigh McEnany on Fox. Just had a GIANT VICTORY over a badly failing candidate, ‘Birdbrain,’ and she’s telling me what I can do better. Save your advice for Nikki!

Remember, Trump hired McEnany for PR purposes.

Man, working for Trump seems to be the single best way of destroying your life and career.

[Edge-]

Trump attacks McEnemy out of the blue for no reason.



Remember, Trump hired McEnany for PR purposes.

Man, working for Trump seems to be the single best way of destroying your life and career.

Again: I have a running theory there's a streak of public humiliation kinks in the Republican party. How else can anyone explain Ted Cruz?

[Breccia]

How else can anyone explain Ted Cruz?

I mean, he said "vote your conscience" and got booed for it. Maybe that's when he realized he had a fetish?

[Kaleredar]

I’m gonna go ahead and say this is both demeaning and factually incorrect.

EVERYONE should be independent. It’s only partisans who forgive everything from either side.

I’m not American, but I lean democratic (for what I believe are obvious reasons). In politics I believe in ideas though, not in teams.

Lets not forget there ARE legitimate reasons to want to vote republican. Illegal immigration IS a problem where both sides profer different solutions, the promotion of the traditional family is a point of contention, etc.

The fact there’s only room for 2 parties is hugely detrimental to the USA…

Detrimental. But accurate.

In a world where your parties are effectively a choice between the "Panthers eating people's face's party" and the "not that one party," being "independent" is a rather meaningless statement. A matter of "well I don't want the panthers who eat people's faces party to win, but I'm not going to do anything to actually stop them..." unless you vote for the "not that one party."

Blind adherence to a party isn't good. But neither is rejection of reality for how things "should be," when when how things are is much different. Especially when such unhinged, dangerous people are poised to take exploitive power.


I appreciate the sentiment behind being "independent," in the sort of broad philosophical sense that yes, one should want to keep their options open between potential candidates. But that having any implementable effect in the US operates on the wild hope that one day the republicans might offer up someone who isn't utter dogshit as a political candidate. But until that day happens, it's a qualifier with little actual importance.


But this is all largely inconsequential, as @Elegiac nicely elucidated on, that the only way in which a significant portion of a vote can be swung by independents- who must therefore by definition vacillate between voting Republican and Democrat and not something "democrat and more left than democrat," which does not currently exist as an option in the US, is if they're generally uninformed people with small, niche political interests who only pay fairweather attention to politics and vote more based off vibes than political information.

[Breccia]

Giuliani's legal GoFundMe just filed with the FEC because by law it had to.

He got $740,000 in six months.

None of it came from Trump. And he's spent $500,000 of it already.

"Wasn't there some dinner fundraiser a while back?"

Actually yes, there was.

Giuliani's fundraising efforts seem to be a bust. Instead of the $5M he hoped to raise, the page is now gone and it appears he only managed to raise a whopping $10K.

Fuck, that was something else. Hold on.

So we've been following the issue with Giuliani recently, the story that he's out of money and can no longer support his lifestyle of hiring defense lawyers and staying out of jail.

Well, of course Trump came to the aid of a long-time friend and co-conspirator, since anything else would just be legal suicide and get him thrown in prison, and handed Giuliani some of his own money, out of the goodness of his heart and/or not wanting to die behind bars.

Just kidding, it was PAC money.

Just kidding, it wasn't even that.

He's hosting a fundraiser, asking Republicans to spend $100,000 of their own money to pay his own disgraced lawyer and co-conspirator, because he cba.

There we go. That is from August 23rd, easily within the six-month span listed. The FEC filings shows the number of people who contributed $100k+ was three. Of those three, I only recognize one name: Elizabeth Ailes. Yes, that Ailes.

“Yes, I gave Rudy $100,000 for his legal defense PAC and I was happy to do so,” Elizabeth Ailes told CNBC.

“I am upset by the way Rudy has been persecuted and I believe it’s important to push back against a politicized judicial system,” Ailes said.

She called Giuliani a “friend” and noted that as mayor he had officiated at her wedding to Roger Ailes.

So either that money magically vanished, is filed somewhere that the media hasn't found yet, or nobody came. We are talking about Trump, so, you know what my guess is.

I do not believe much more is coming. I don't believe any is coming from Trump. Maybe $500,000 was enough to cover the last half of 2023, I don't think that's enough but let's assume it was. At that rate of expenditure, the remaining $180k in the account would see him through Valentines' Day.

This was not the only bad news Giuliani has gotten recently. A company that owes him money just filed for bankruptcy and won't have to pay him, and yes, the irony should be palpable.

[DarkTZeratul]

I agree 100% - but I think it makes sense in the US context with their stupid system since (as I understand it) in most states you can only vote for who is to be the candidate if you are registered with that party (I might be wrong).

That is correct, but it's because it's entirely an intra-party process. As far as our electoral system is concerned, parties don't exist. It just asks a simple question: who do you want to be president? Meanwhile, the parties will pick one person to nominate and throw all their efforts behind trying to get that person elected. The process they use to choose that person is to ask members of their party who their nominee should be, which is why in most states you have to be registered with that party to vote in the party's primaries.

(This is a generalization; each state's local party runs things slightly differently, and in some states one or both parties allow anyone to vote in their primaries).

[diller]

— Democrats in slave states circa 1860

Such a disingenuous thing to bring up, the parties were pretty much the opposite of what they are now, YOU would have been a democrat back then.

- - - Updated - - -

That is correct, but it's because it's entirely an intra-party process.

I don't even think that is unusual, in Denmark the candidate of a most parties are picked by internal voting by the members of that party as well. I guess the main difference is the vetting, old people and unfit candidates don't really have much of a chance and usually don't run.

[ringpriest]

If I didn't know who Trump was, and you told me that the person in the last photo was the same person in the first four, I would have called you a liar. He looks like a completely different person. Probably due to the natural light or something (that's the only one taken outdoors).

That said, holy hell does that fake tan look awful. Looks like fell face first into a tub of leather boot polish..... and the fact that his natural skin colour shows through on his eyebrows and once his hair begins is just offputting. Like, I honestly don't understand how someone with an ego as big as trump can stand going out in public looking like a clown who's had his makeup session interrupted.

WTF is up with his hands in that last picture?!? I'm not talking about the now-ancient tiny-hands joke, but they look like he's wearing some sort of glove made out of dead skin - they've got dead fish pallor, and they seem... wrong.

[Shadowferal]

Such a disingenuous thing to bring up, the parties were pretty much the opposite of what they are now, YOU would have been a democrat back then.

Most democrats back then were slave-owners.
The ideological shift happened just after Wilson...who was very much the racist bastard.

[Kaleredar]

Most democrats back then were slave-owners.
The ideological shift happened just after Wilson...who was very much the racist bastard.

The change came as an active decision. Made by both parties.

Democrats chose to start courting civil rights movements. Republicans chose to pick up the racist, now-alienated former southern democrats that were left adrift.

To place it in an easier context for people like @D3thray to understand, simply remember that the Conservative Party was in support of racism, segregation, and slavery as those were core to the conservative ideology, and the liberal party opposed those things because it was against them. Now take stock of who the liberal party is these days, and which party is the Conservative Party. I know it can be confusing and the names and meaning of things can change in 150 years. For example did you know your French fries weren’t actually imported from France? That hamburgers aren’t made of ham? Wonders truly never cease, do they.

[s_bushido]

WTF is up with his hands in that last picture?!? I'm not talking about the now-ancient tiny-hands joke, but they look like he's wearing some sort of glove made out of dead skin - they've got dead fish pallor, and they seem... wrong.

eh? It's just his natural skin color. I assume the picture was taken in winter...when he would have spent less time golfing (the only outdoor activity he probably gets).

[Breccia]

I assume the picture was taken in winter

They were all taken in the last week.

[Ivanstone]

The change came as an active decision. Made by both parties.

Democrats chose to start courting civil rights movements. Republicans chose to pick up the racist, now-alienated former southern democrats that were left adrift.

To place it in an easier context for people like @D3thray to understand, simply remember that the Conservative Party was in support of racism, segregation, and slavery as those were core to the conservative ideology, and the liberal party opposed those things because it was against them. Now take stock of who the liberal party is these days, and which party is the Conservative Party. I know it can be confusing and the names and meaning of things can change in 150 years. For example did you know your French fries weren’t actually imported from France? That hamburgers aren’t made of ham? Wonders truly never cease, do they.

Social conservatives. Back then you could be a socially conservative racist but fiscally liberal as a Democrat. It kind of still applies a little since you sometimes see deplorables angry at big business even though its sometimes for dumb reasons.

[Endus]

Social conservatives. Back then you could be a socially conservative racist but fiscally liberal as a Democrat. It kind of still applies a little since you sometimes see deplorables angry at big business even though its sometimes for dumb reasons.

Real talk; the term "social conservative" has an unnecessary adjective. All "conservatives" are "social conservatives". That's what "conservatism" is.

It's often used as a comparison to "fiscal conservatives", and you can safely presume anyone calling themselves a "fiscal conservative" is either a moron or a social conservative lying to your face.

All "fiscal conservative" means is "we should spend our money effectively rather than wastefully". Nobody thinks we should spend wastefully. Everyone's a "fiscal conservative".

Their trick is that, inevitably, what funding they choose to cut will always just happen to be the social support systems and such that they ideologically disagree with, due to their social conservative views. They just try and cut funding for things rather than other paths to the same outcome. "Why should we be paying for these extra abortion clinics?" rather than "pro-life!". Same pro-life views either way, the social conservatives are just more honest about it.

[Gigantique]

Real talk; the term "social conservative" has an unnecessary adjective. All "conservatives" are "social conservatives". That's what "conservatism" is.

It's often used as a comparison to "fiscal conservatives", and you can safely presume anyone calling themselves a "fiscal conservative" is either a moron or a social conservative lying to your face.

All "fiscal conservative" means is "we should spend our money effectively rather than wastefully". Nobody thinks we should spend wastefully. Everyone's a "fiscal conservative".

Their trick is that, inevitably, what funding they choose to cut will always just happen to be the social support systems and such that they ideologically disagree with, due to their social conservative views. They just try and cut funding for things rather than other paths to the same outcome. "Why should we be paying for these extra abortion clinics?" rather than "pro-life!". Same pro-life views either way, the social conservatives are just more honest about it.

Joke's on you I intend to campaign on the promise of dumping cash into a lake.

Knee-slapper aside it is very telling how self-exposing people are in this sphere when they throw an adjective onto words or use a synonym to distance themselves from the actual term for what they believe in.

[Breccia]

The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom

Yeah, Trump just got up and left while Carroll's lawyers were giving closing arguments. I guess he got his Perry Mason moment, just, you know, in the role of the villain.

Roberta Kaplan, who's not related to the judge, had told the jury that Trump spent the "entire trial continuing to engage in defamation" against Carroll by calling her sexual abuse allegations against him a “con job.”

"Ms. Carroll did not make it up, the sexual assault happened and his denials were all complete lies," the lawyer said.

After Trump walked out Friday the lawyer told the jury "he thinks with his wealth and power he can treat Ms. Carroll how he wants and will suffer no consequences." Trump, who's called Carroll "sick" and a "wack job" among other insults "can't attack her just because he feels like it," Kaplan said.

In her argument, Roberta Kaplan urged the jury to hit him with a massive punitive damages award to stop him from continuing to defame Carroll and pointed to testimony at his 2022 deposition where he bragged that his Mar-a-Lago estate was worth $1.5 billion and his Doral property was worth over $2 billion.

The attorney noted that Trump has testified that he's "worth billions of dollars." "He could pay a million dollars a day for ten years and still have money in the bank," she said.

"Wait a minute! They can't say that. Trump overvalued his properties and everyone knows it!"

I mean, he said it in his 2022 deposition, it sounds like evidence to me. If Trump can't afford the upcoming judgement, he's free to admit that, like Giuliani did. Quite frankly, what everyone "knows" isn't on trial here. Trump said he was worth billions. That math, a million a day for ten years, is correct, based on Trump's under-oath statements.

Now @cubby I don't know how much experience you have with working a jury, but how does "storming out of the courtroom while the jury decides how much damages you owe" rate on the good client/bad client scale? Scale of 0 to 10, 10 being "has alibi confirmed by the Pope and sitting UN President" and 0 being "got the chair for a parking ticket"

[Ivanstone]

Real talk; the term "social conservative" has an unnecessary adjective. All "conservatives" are "social conservatives". That's what "conservatism" is.

It's often used as a comparison to "fiscal conservatives", and you can safely presume anyone calling themselves a "fiscal conservative" is either a moron or a social conservative lying to your face.

All "fiscal conservative" means is "we should spend our money effectively rather than wastefully". Nobody thinks we should spend wastefully. Everyone's a "fiscal conservative".

Their trick is that, inevitably, what funding they choose to cut will always just happen to be the social support systems and such that they ideologically disagree with, due to their social conservative views. They just try and cut funding for things rather than other paths to the same outcome. "Why should we be paying for these extra abortion clinics?" rather than "pro-life!". Same pro-life views either way, the social conservatives are just more honest about it.

It’s a necessary adjective. People are complex and it’s possible to have people to hold wildly different views even if it doesn’t make sense on the surface.

Fiscal liberalism isn’t inherently wasteful and I wouldn’t presume fiscal conservatism is inherently proof against waste. The latter may spend less but sometimes spending extravagantly may be better in the long run. I don’t view fiscal conservatism as being against waste. I view it as someone who wants to spend less.

[Endus]

Fiscal liberalism isn’t inherently wasteful and I wouldn’t presume fiscal conservatism is inherently proof against waste.

I mean, it's definitely not, but it's the only tentpole that 'fiscal conservativism" has as an ideology. What to cut is not motivated by "fiscal conservative" points of view.

The latter may spend less but sometimes spending extravagantly may be better in the long run. I don’t view fiscal conservatism as being against waste. I view it as someone who wants to spend less.

"Spend less" on what is the question you should be asking. Funny how no "fiscal conservatives" in the USA will suggest knocking down the military budget, for example.