Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Dontrike]

The adults are finally back in charge.

Is this that Slowpoke meme and you think it's 2020?

[Gabriel]

The lowering food prices was particularly egregious. Cuz literally on his first day he said he couldnt do it. And he is totally right!!! But he ran on it regardless. Another lie and another debt incurrednto the truth

The debt to the truth only matters if someone finally comes to collect.

[NED funded]

The debt to the truth only matters if someone finally comes to collect.

It always gets collected. The Iraq war did what not even Vietnam was able to and began the end of an actively interventionist US.

Even during Trumps first term, his cheap attempts at getting investments like the foxconn factory bankrupt the town that believed his lies.

Same with the way California was insanely overregulated and youd hear people talk about how it was proof of its success, but now the same voices acknowledge the many issues that overregulation have resulted in.

Right now Republicans have sold the party to Trump and while they had success on it, its not goin to last. Trump gets 4 years and the question on who will lead the party will remain. And the reoublican party has invited some nasty members into its ranks.

[tehdang]

The plurality of voters voted for neither party.

It's no use trying to correct him if you're just going to make a wrong statement. Heck, several people in this forum argued that refusing to vote for Kamala is effectively a vote for Trump!

[Odinfrost]

It's no use trying to correct him if you're just going to make a wrong statement. Heck, several people in this forum argued that refusing to vote for Kamala is effectively a vote for Trump!

Considering the voter turnout, it is a likely correlation. You not voting for your side is like giving the other side 1 extra point.
Not saying it's the only factor. Of course it's not.

[gondrin]

It's no use trying to correct him if you're just going to make a wrong statement. Heck, several people in this forum argued that refusing to vote for Kamala is effectively a vote for Trump!

Well, refusing to vote for Kamala is effectively a vote for Trump. Because it is literally one less vote FOR Kamala. That means that if everyone that normally votes for Trump still votes for Trump but, lets say, 1/10 people who voted for Biden decided to not for Kamala for whatever reason, that would have been the difference between Trump winning and losing the popular vote in 2020 if Kamala would have been the person running against him in 2020.

An actual vote for someone is actively supporting them in some way. Not voting for someone is to not support them in some way. However, if you normally vote a certain way but abstain from voting for that group because you don't want to support someone, you are indirectly voting for the side you normally don't.

You see that all the time with votes in the House as there will be people who don't want to vote on something because they agree/disagree on it on principle but, because their party votes a certain way, they only say they are present and cast no vote. They want to cast their vote but don't want to anger their party in the process so they abstain from voting.

[NED funded]

Considering the voter turnout, it is a likely correlation. You not voting for your side is like giving the other side 1 extra point.
Not saying it's the only factor. Of course it's not.

RFK Jr understood that the best which is why they tried take off this name from multiple ballots so people would not cast votes for him

[Draco-Onis]

It always gets collected. The Iraq war did what not even Vietnam was able to and began the end of an actively interventionist US.

Even during Trumps first term, his cheap attempts at getting investments like the foxconn factory bankrupt the town that believed his lies.

Same with the way California was insanely overregulated and youd hear people talk about how it was proof of its success, but now the same voices acknowledge the many issues that overregulation have resulted in.

Right now Republicans have sold the party to Trump and while they had success on it, its not goin to last. Trump gets 4 years and the question on who will lead the party will remain. And the reoublican party has invited some nasty members into its ranks.

This time it is different due to the perception of the democrats being utterly defeated so there is really no one to blame for his failures. It's also a major problem that a lot of the left are either disengaging (fleeing conservative spaces like twitter), capitulating or downright cynical. There are no liberal tears to feed them and for a lot of them that's their only reason for existing. They have to take the full Trump raw and the finding out phase is going to be worse since there are no adults in the room and the opposition is in disarray with no strong leader to point to as a boogeyman / woman though I am sure they will try.

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully the US is strong enough to be able to recover after that. I think we will. The fact that the US consists of states and territories with high degree of independence will help.

The US will never be all right as long as corruption keeps being legal, all our politicians are bought it's the main reason for such an angry and frustrated populace. Everyone is fully aware that we are in the new guilded age with the plutocracy in charge regardless of parties and frankly we are seeing several versions of this all over the world.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, refusing to vote for Kamala is effectively a vote for Trump. Because it is literally one less vote FOR Kamala. That means that if everyone that normally votes for Trump still votes for Trump but, lets say, 1/10 people who voted for Biden decided to not for Kamala for whatever reason, that would have been the difference between Trump winning and losing the popular vote in 2020 if Kamala would have been the person running against him in 2020.

An actual vote for someone is actively supporting them in some way. Not voting for someone is to not support them in some way. However, if you normally vote a certain way but abstain from voting for that group because you don't want to support someone, you are indirectly voting for the side you normally don't.

You see that all the time with votes in the House as there will be people who don't want to vote on something because they agree/disagree on it on principle but, because their party votes a certain way, they only say they are present and cast no vote. They want to cast their vote but don't want to anger their party in the process so they abstain from voting.

It's not quite the same as voting for the other side...but you are allowing the other side a "+1". Voting for your side cancels out a vote on theirs making it a "0". But voting for the other side would give them a "+2".

In other words, people that would normally vote Democrat that did not vote for Harris certainly hurt her chances of winning... but not as much as voting for Trump would have. Not that it really matters how much the winning side wins by.

To quote the famous philospher Dominic Toretto... "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile...winning is winning."

[tehdang]

Well, refusing to vote for Kamala is effectively a vote for Trump. Because it is literally one less vote FOR Kamala. That means that if everyone that normally votes for Trump still votes for Trump but, lets say, 1/10 people who voted for Biden decided to not for Kamala for whatever reason, that would have been the difference between Trump winning and losing the popular vote in 2020 if Kamala would have been the person running against him in 2020.

An actual vote for someone is actively supporting them in some way. Not voting for someone is to not support them in some way. However, if you normally vote a certain way but abstain from voting for that group because you don't want to support someone, you are indirectly voting for the side you normally don't.

You see that all the time with votes in the House as there will be people who don't want to vote on something because they agree/disagree on it on principle but, because their party votes a certain way, they only say they are present and cast no vote. They want to cast their vote but don't want to anger their party in the process so they abstain from voting.

I'm a big fan of not voting for President or voting for a write-in if you don't like either electoral candidate. If neither have earned your vote, don't give it to either one of them!

Considering the voter turnout, it is a likely correlation. You not voting for your side is like giving the other side 1 extra point.
Not saying it's the only factor. Of course it's not.

I don't really recognize what a "side" means if you don't want to vote for the candidate. You are expressing a view against a side, namely the candidate they nominated and the campaign they run, but not of such profound disagreement to cross over to the other side.

I appreciate changes in turnout that correspond to the rejection of the premise that your vote is owed instead of earned. Cheer people that were first-time voters for Obama; don't deduce that their vote was previously owed to Kerry or Gore and they effectively voted for Bush in those two elections. Turnout is part of the equation.

[Breccia]

Well, how about we take a look at Trump's message to the people of his country.

Merry Christmas to all

Oh, that's not so bad.

Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Ah. Of course.

Oh dearie me, do you know what I did? I accidentally cited his 2023 message, you know, the last one before the election. Well, surely now that the election is over, he's taken the role of a diplomatic world leader?

Trump aims dig at Obama in bizarre hour-long Christmas Day Truth Social posting spree

Of course he didn't.

The president-elect initially seemed to adopt a toned-down festive message, simply posting, “MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!” on Truth Social on Wednesday morning.

In the afternoon, however, he shared a lengthy post where he wished “Merry Christmas to the Radical Left Lunatics,” but refused the same sentiment to the “37 most violent criminals” pardoned by Joe Biden, instead telling them to “GO TO HELL.”

On Christmas morning Trump reeled off 34 posts on his social media platform within a one-hour period, including a meme mocking Obama.

The meme featured a photo of the president-elect smirking at Obama during his 2017 inauguration, along with the caption: “When you see the guy who said ‘you’ll never be president’ at your inauguration.”

So, I suppose that means known public admitted Trump supporters like @tehdang who of course saw the 2023 message and still supported Trump (unless of course they specifically and directly cited the message with dissent, which to the best of my knowledge, none did) must believe this is the kind of behavior expected by a major world leader they support on today of all days.

This brings up a discussion topic: I think a lot of people would consider "rot in hell" to be non-constructive, insulting, maybe even flaming behavior. But people who publicly support a leader who uses this message on their religion's top holy day of celebration, they must not consider it to be, right? Surely they think it's accepted behavior, nay, behavior they have proven they support for at least a year?

So what do you think? Is it reasonable and fair to say that Trump supporters believe "rot in hell" is appropriate, civil, even applauded discourse? Specifically, would it be fair to tell them "rot in hell" to their faces, knowing that it would be the kind of language used to address them, even in, as a random example, a moderated forum chosen at random? What do you think?

[Malkiah]

What do you think?

that entirely too many people in this subforum still don't understand the concept of "protect but not bind/bind but not protect" and what that actually means for the world view of conservatives, authoritarians, regressives, and the religious.

[Endus]

that entirely too many people in this subforum still don't understand the concept of "protect but not bind/bind but not protect" and what that actually means for the world view of conservatives, authoritarians, regressives, and the religious.

Like, seriously. Stop pointing out that they won't abide by stated principles. They know they won't. They think it's funny that you fell for it.

It's not actually hypocrisy, because they never held the supposed principles they laid out, that was bait to distract you from their real motives and objectives. And the time you're spending pointing out the hypocrisy, they're laughing all the way through the next three lies. Right-wing thinking is fundamentally based on hierarchical precepts, not universal principles. They find the idea of universality funny; of course the best/right people have more rights and freedoms; the others don't deserve them. That's how you know who's better than whom.

Like, by all means, point out they're liars. But don't act like the lie is an accident of ignorance or confusion. They're lying to your face as a distraction, in the hopes you'll take it as a serious argument.

You see this a lot with fringe religious groups, too, who are often encouraged to lie outrageously to non-members, because they do not respect those outsiders as human beings and fucking with them is both fun and potentially personally beneficial, if you can con them in some way. It's the same dynamic. They're lying because they don't respect you as a person, and treating it as a good-faith argument means they win. They landed that hit and made you look the fool, because you couldn't tell they were lying and wasting your time.

[Malkiah]

Like, seriously. Stop pointing out that they won't abide by stated principles. They know they won't. They think it's funny that you fell for it.

it's not just that, quite frankly - it's that it perpetuates the narrative that regressives are mistaken and can be corrected, instead of accepting that they are mentally diseased and must be discarded.

regressive ideology, which i define as any political or social belief or movement that seeks to enact as a first goal any detrimental or negative change on the material conditions of any human being for any reason, is a cancer on the very concept of human civilization.
like cancer, it cannot exist on its own it must grow as a malignant tumor within a host body of an otherwise flourishing society, and like cancer it does nothing but actively destroy healthy and functional systems.

also like cancer, targeting it with chemo to shrink it enough you can cut it out of the host body and chuck it in an incinerator is the only viable means of effectively getting rid of it.
(voting democrat btw is buying healing crystals and getting your chakra aligned while you refuse to enter a hospital, and then screaming at people that if you aren't buying rejuvenating sapphires you are promoting cancer - but that's just a personal little aside)

[fwc577]

Bro doesn't even know what a master's thesis involves. Hilarious.

You're just a stinky fucking liar who got called out on their stinky fucking bullshit and you're completely fucking irrelevant.

If you had responded to my initial comment and said, well, I actually did have a family member go through dementia and I dated someone who wrote their thesis on dementia as well, I'd believe you weren't just some scummy keyboard warrior but alas you're just another one of the other Russian bots on this forum, constantly needing to shift the goalposts.

but, but, I fucked an uggo who wrote a paper.

but, but I also had a family member..

Nobody gives a fuck.

Your initial response proves that what drivel spells from your fingertips is simply bullshit and lies.

[Woodtable]

I mean, Biden has been in charge.

May you have the day you deserve!

[En Sabah Nur]

What do you think?

I think I wanna include this bit, because I find the bullshit people spew funny sometimes.



Zero message about peace, forgiveness, love, or literally anything you'd expect from a "Christmas message" from someone that supposedly takes his Christian faith seriously (lmao). Closest he gets is calling Chinese soldiers "wonderful."

[PhaelixWW]

Zero message about peace, forgiveness, love, or literally anything you'd expect from a "Christmas message" from someone that supposedly takes his Christian faith seriously (lmao). Closest he gets is calling Chinese soldiers "wonderful."

I feel like we're all now waiting for Trump to suggest that the US needs to "denazify" Canada.

Also:

[En Sabah Nur]

I feel like we're all now waiting for Trump to suggest that the US needs to "denazify" Canada.

Is this going to be how we see history repeat itself and have the White house burn down again (even though that was actually British troops, IIRC)?

[Doomcookie]

I'm a big fan of not voting for President or voting for a write-in if you don't like either electoral candidate. If neither have earned your vote, don't give it to either one of them!

I don't really recognize what a "side" means if you don't want to vote for the candidate. You are expressing a view against a side, namely the candidate they nominated and the campaign they run, but not of such profound disagreement to cross over to the other side.

I appreciate changes in turnout that correspond to the rejection of the premise that your vote is owed instead of earned. Cheer people that were first-time voters for Obama; don't deduce that their vote was previously owed to Kerry or Gore and they effectively voted for Bush in those two elections. Turnout is part of the equation.

But, you're a proven Trump voter...

It means you support what he said and did