Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Kaleredar]

They stopped talking about them during the campaign. Wouldn’t be drawn on them.

Which of course goes back to my previous points of “progressives” apparently having… the voting attention span of toddlers?

Say the campaign “focuses,” (whatever you think adequately constitutes focusing) on lgbtq rights, meaning some other progressive tentpole by sheer merit of there only being so much platform bandwidth begins to have its messaging fall by the wayside. Then some other batch of progressives therefore loses interest because they aren’t being “paid attention to.”

Like I said. They never changed their stance on any of their platform. That you or any other voter “forgot what it was” is utterly on the voter at that point, especially considering how absolutely diametrically opposed Trump was and remained on all of those issues.

I would hope people calling themselves “progressives” who like to set themselves above the more mundane political rabble would be a little more attentive.


Because it’d be pretty fucking stupid to think that Harris and other dems trying to pivot their messaging to more central concerns (like, say, the economy, the issue that actually lost them the election) suddenly means they’re abandoning their other more progressive issues they never actually said that they were remotely changing their tune on.

- - - Updated - - -

We aren't talking about the past but the future of the democratic party, they had no problem turning their backs on immigrants this election cycle. The establishment camp thinks the lesson to be learned is to be more like Trump and shed the image of being "woke" and absorb that part of the right to distance themselves from LGBTQ+ rights.

And how have they actually said they’re going to do that?

[Draco-Onis]

And how have they actually said they’re going to do that?

It looks like it is still being discussed but if you want any indication see what just happened in the house with the first trans woman rep. Neither Hakeem Jeffries or Nancy Pelosi commented on one of their members being attacked only the progressive caucus stood up for her.

[tehdang]

He got a few of the terms mixed up, but the sentiment seemed clear enough to me. You're never one to miss an opportunity to be pedantic over terminology rather than actually engage with the substance of the subject matter, though.

Its a small thing, but then again I also think semantics on inflation vs price levels is small as well, and people didn’t like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting real "can't argue on principle, so argue on semantics" vibes from this post. Going for the "most disingenuous poster" award for the umpteenth year in a row, eh?

Lets get the right facts on a potential scandal. Unless you disagree with them.

[Edge-]

Its a small thing, but then again I also think semantics on inflation vs price levels is small as well, and people didn’t like that.

Again, rather than discuss the subject at hand you'd rather change topics to once again complain that, "People aren't using the right words." I do wish you'd spend some of that effort actually discussing the subject manner, and not just clutching pearls because someone used the wrong word despite their intent being quite clear.

[Mafic]

That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. It isn't a legitimate counterpoint.

If you need growth to keep things going, you will inevitably reach a point where resources fail to allow for said growth, and your system collapses completely, leading to widespread devastation. This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a second. The only things that grow constantly in nature are cancers, until the bearer gets killed by that cancer.



If you're citing philosophers from a century ago, then you haven't kept pace with the development of those concepts.



No, that's not my example at all. You're changing the terms to willfully avoid the point. It wasn't about "oxygen", it was the total amount of available resources to sustain the population. The Earth is not a closed system, but the inputs are not infinite either and it wouldn't be particularly difficult for us to outconsume them.

And expanding continuously to new planets and new solar systems is just spreading. Like a cancer. You're just diving straight into the "humanity is a cancer and from the perspective of cancer, that's a good thing" argument, which is insane.

It is a legit counterpoint because that is how the modern world works and part of the social contract where the old are supported by the young via the government.

Furthermore, growth is how things grow and to have growth from contraction requires a massive depopulation which isn't realistic at all. This isn't the dark ages afterall.

The development of the Malthusians arguments in the 20th century and even now are just the same argument dressed up nicely to fit the the modern narrative. But the base of their arguments are all the same. "We will run out of food, we will run out of land, we will run out of energy resources. etc".

You made a very poor analogy and I figured to help you out but I guess you want to double down on it. But no, human beings are not like bacteria because unlike bacteria we can do far more than "stay in place".

To consume all the earth's resources would be impossible because we do not have the technology right now to even try that or come close to it.

Humanity is not a cancer and you are once again going with another poor analogy. Cancerous cells keep reproducing bypassing the natural life cycle. Humanity does not bypass the life cycle of birth and death it is just that we grow in numbers because we take care of each other.

Humanity is about doing good and helping each other and not about cutting each other down for survival of the fittest. That is why humanity is the dominant species and apex predator on the planet. Humanity reached that point through cooperation.

- - - Updated - - -

Which of course goes back to my previous points of “progressives” apparently having… the voting attention span of toddlers?

Say the campaign “focuses,” (whatever you think adequately constitutes focusing) on lgbtq rights, meaning some other progressive tentpole by sheer merit of there only being so much platform bandwidth begins to have its messaging fall by the wayside. Then some other batch of progressives therefore loses interest because they aren’t being “paid attention to.”

Like I said. They never changed their stance on any of their platform. That you or any other voter “forgot what it was” is utterly on the voter at that point, especially considering how absolutely diametrically opposed Trump was and remained on all of those issues.

I would hope people calling themselves “progressives” who like to set themselves above the more mundane political rabble would be a little more attentive.


Because it’d be pretty fucking stupid to think that Harris and other dems trying to pivot their messaging to more central concerns (like, say, the economy, the issue that actually lost them the election) suddenly means they’re abandoning their other more progressive issues they never actually said that they were remotely changing their tune on.

- - - Updated - - -



And how have they actually said they’re going to do that?

Progressives are not children and conservatives/Republicans are not children. But arguing that most of the voters are children or not smart enough you are making the argument to absolve them of any responsibility if the choices they make go sideways or making things worse.

Bottom line is that it is not that progressive voters or the general American voter base has a short attention span. The point is you have to make is not just talk about your value or value system. More importantly you have to explain why it matters and that is the failure of the democratic party/progressives/liberals for a long time.

Back in the day liberals and progressives were able to eloquently explain why keeping up and raising wages for workers was integral for an economy. It allowed people mobility to move up from working class aka working poor to middle class or even rich and/or wealthy.

Back in the day the Democratic party was against endless wars and tax dollars were going over seas. They argued why by saying we need to fund social programs at home to help the poor, disabled and needy.

Back in the day progressivs/liberals were open minded and open to discussions even if they disagreed. Why? Because as they explained the why by saying you need to have open discussion for a free society. A free society leads to progress and not rigid mindsets or trying to turn back the clock aka tradcons deluxe.

Bottom line the current Democratic party to me has a platform about social issues, wage growth for workers, and social programs but fails to explain why it matters.

If you have a vision of what you can build or what it should be but can't explain why it matters or how it will matter then you just have a dream that can not be visualized by others.

You have to be able to paint the picture and explain why it matters in the minds of voters.

If this sounds like I am old and rambling well it is because I remember what being a liberal used to mean. You could explain the why very easy to someone in the streets in layman terms without any fancy terminology. Probably why Bernie Sanders connects with a lot of people with the way he speaks.

[tehdang]

Again, rather than discuss the subject at hand you'd rather change topics to once again complain that, "People aren't using the right words." I do wish you'd spend some of that effort actually discussing the subject manner, and not just clutching pearls because someone used the wrong word despite their intent being quite clear.

You understand that the meaning to compare this matter to Judge Aileen Cannon kind of collapses when we aren't talking about two judges? Neither has the original poster admitted fault. But you already know that I think this is a small thing, and my only interest is the comparative high attention paid to other small things.

The initial reporting is very thin on quid pro quo. The prosecutor didn't file a lawsuit on Trump University. Citizens of her state successfully sued Trump University. No reporting on the money raised for prior Bondi AG campaigns, before and after Trump's DJTF PAC donation. I await further investigative efforts and reporting.

[Edge-]

You understand that the meaning to compare this matter to Judge Aileen Cannon kind of collapses when we aren't talking about two judges? Neither has the original poster admitted fault. But you already know that I think this is a small thing, and my only interest is the comparative high attention paid to other small things.

The initial reporting is very thin on quid pro quo. The prosecutor didn't file a lawsuit on Trump University. Citizens of her state successfully sued Trump University. No reporting on the money raised for prior Bondi AG campaigns, before and after Trump's DJTF PAC donation. I await further investigative efforts and reporting.

I didn't think they were talking about two judges, but two people in the realm of law who were largely viewed as ethically compromised when it came to Donald. It seemed clear enough to me even with the incorrect choice of words, but I see you're still focused on the table settings and not the rancid meat on the plate that people are talking about.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/re...bondi-scandal/

There's actually quite a bit more than "the presecutor didn't file a lawsuit" as CREW documented between the time they began investigating and when the Trump Foundation shut down.

I'm unsure what separate civil lawsuits that the AG would have no say in have to do with her decision not to prosecute and also apparently missing dozens of complaints from members of her state. The donation came from the Trump Foundation, not a PAC aligned with Donald.

[Endus]

It is a legit counterpoint because that is how the modern world works and part of the social contract where the old are supported by the young via the government.

Again, an appeal to popularity fallacy is not a valid argument. And that's all this is. "A lot of people believe an objectively stupid idea" does not make that idea less stupid.

Furthermore, growth is how things grow and to have growth from contraction requires a massive depopulation which isn't realistic at all. This isn't the dark ages afterall.

"You need growth to grow" is insipidly useless. Growth itself is not a requirement, at all, on any level. That's what you're presuming without basis.

To consume all the earth's resources would be impossible because we do not have the technology right now to even try that or come close to it.

And the majority of those resources aren't attainable in the first place with that technology.

We can out-consume what we can reasonably attain. We're already out-consuming our capacity; that's one of the reasons for anthropogenic climate change. Our industry grew too much, too fast, too unsustainably, and we may have irreparably damaged the ecological status quo we and our entire agricultural system fundamentally relies upon. That doom may not have hit yet, but we're still essentially doing jack shit to turn it around, and there's no real reason to presume any imminent change on that front. But even if we dropped our emissions to zero today, the Earth will continue to warm. Life will continue, but it's entirely plausible that humanity will not. That we've already passed that tipping point, and now it's just a matter of a short wink of geological time. That may be hundreds or a few thousand years down the line, but it's there. And handwaving it because you won't live to see it just proves my point for me.

Humanity is about doing good and helping each other and not about cutting each other down for survival of the fittest. That is why humanity is the dominant species and apex predator on the planet. Humanity reached that point through cooperation.

Ants are arguably even more successful than humans, in terms of sheer biomass. Same cooperation. It's not remotely unique to humanity.

And no; any glance at human history demonstrates we are very much not about "doing good and helping each other". And "survival of the fittest" is a natural law. We're not outside of it, not even a little. And "fittest" does not mean "smartest", it only means "best able to survive and prosper in the conditions of the moment". And extinction for any given species is always on the table if they fail to be the fittest as conditions change. Intelligence isn't even a particularly good adaptation; it's incredibly "expensive" in terms of resources. In a situation of resource scarcity where sloths manage to squeak by through being stupid and willing to eat anything, humanity could die out from lack of resources and thus demonstrate that we're less "fit" than said sloths. That's how it works. We've had a good few hundred thousand years, but hominids in general have not done terribly well in general; Homo Sapiens is very much the exception in that.

[Breccia]

In the ongoing effort to prove that Trump was a huge fan of Project 2025 this whole time, Trump looks at Russ Vought to head the OMB.

Anyone who says "Trump did not support Project 2025" is either a fool, or a liar.

[Edge-]

In the ongoing effort to prove that Trump was a huge fan of Project 2025 this whole time, Trump looks at Russ Vought to head the OMB.

Anyone who says "Trump did not support Project 2025" is either a fool, or a liar.

Wait, did anyone here actually believe him, or pretend to believe him?

[Lenonis]

Lets get the right facts on a potential scandal.

You are a conservative. Since when do you care about facts?

[DarkTZeratul]

Wait, did anyone here actually believe him, or pretend to believe him?

Only the usual suspects.

[tehdang]

You are a conservative. Since when do you care about facts?

You're on the left. I'm used to y'all getting two facts wrong and making insane assertions, and then retreating to "but you're worse" when called out. Modern politics developed around that.

[Captain N]

You're on the left. I'm used to y'all getting two facts wrong and making insane assertions, and then retreating to "but you're worse" when called out. Modern politics developed around that.

So tell us what we're wrong about when we ask you why you support multiple rapists?

[gondrin]

Has some real "I gotta get out of here before consequences happen" energy.

I hope that when he actually leaves Congress, someone throws rotten fruit at him. Because between him and MTG, they caused FAR more issues than nearly any other person in Congress.

[PhaelixWW]

I hope that when he actually leaves Congress, someone throws rotten fruit at him. Because between him and MTG, they caused FAR more issues than nearly any other person in Congress.

He resigned on November 13th.

[gondrin]

He resigned on November 13th.

I mean when he leaves the building for the last time. He still has to file paperwork to pretty much wind down his office so he will still be on Capital Hill for a small bit.

[postman1782]

You're on the left. I'm used to y'all getting two facts wrong and making insane assertions, and then retreating to "but you're worse" when called out. Modern politics developed around that.

Nothing you have said has been true.

[prwraith]

Wait, did anyone here actually believe him, or pretend to believe him?

Oh all kinds of people in denial about it :/

[Fugus]

Oh all kinds of people in denial about it :/

Related story. Went to the local VSO to ask what all I needed to get DV Plates since I’m about to get a newer car and ended up in a conversation with 2 of the people working up there about the tariffs. An older woman and a middle aged guy.

I explained to the woman that the tariffs last time he did it actually ran Harley Davidson manufacturing off and had to explain how tariffs actually worked to her and the look of dread on her face when I pointed out that experts are estimating the costs of everything across the board to go up 24-28% if he does what he claims and even under ideal circumstances it would take at least 15 years just go get back to where we are now. She had the “OMG what did I do?!” expression on her face.

And her coworker also pointed out to her that when foreign stuff gets more expensive, the companies making the domestic stuff aren’t a charity and are there to make money so they will mostly just increase their prices to almost match the foreign goods new prices.

She got annoyed when I pointed out how calling Trump a nazi was deserved and how he kept quoting hitler and either he was following hitlers lead or just happened to come to the same conclusions and wordings himself which was even worse.

But you could tell that she just learned how stuff worked and the consequences that she invited.

Both me and her coworker also pointed out together how Trump inherited a booming economy from Obama and just tried to steal credit for it while he ran it into the ground. And this time he won’t be inheriting a booming economy but instead one that just barely dodged a recession so it can’t handle as much.