Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Yeah of course you didn't. You only agree with him in all his posts.

Thanks, wasn't turning up on search for some reason, and the victim-esque behavior is indeed noted. I disagree with Endus plenty, not that I'd expect you to pay much attention.

Endus is completely correct in that's functionally how you discuss "forced volunteering". If you find it objectionable that he does so in the context of sex work that's a personal hangup.

[Tech614]

I’d perhaps redress your phrasing to acknowledge that they don’t want people having more sex. They want people having more kids. That isn’t a one-to-one correlation.

They don’t want some sex-positive society where consenting adults are free to pursue their own interests, they want a married man and woman having sex X number of times in their entire lives and producing that exact same X number of children.

If more sex happens, more kids happen. The sex education in this country is laughable. They already have that part covered. They got the abortion part covered in red states. What happens when a young couple who can't get an abortion gets pregnant because they had poor sex ed? They create another body to feed the machine.

Make no mistake most republicans do not give a single fuck about the sanctity of marriage that is just a play for them to appeal to evangelicals. They just want more *preferably white* babies being born, period.

[Al Gorefiend]

Thanks, wasn't turning up on search for some reason, and the victim-esque behavior is indeed noted. I disagree with Endus plenty, not that I'd expect you to pay much attention.

Endus is completely correct in that's functionally how you discuss "forced volunteering". If you find it objectionable that he does so in the context of sex work that's a personal hangup.

Whereas, completely, objectionably wrong and unbased, possibly psychotic, to suggest its more akin to parents forcing kids to do what's best for them.

[Edge-]

Whereas, completely, objectionably wrong and unbased, possibly psychotic, to suggest its more akin to parents forcing kids to do what's best for them.

His responses wasn't to your post on parents having authority over their children, though.

It was purely focused on your continued incorrect use and apparent inability to understand that "forced volunteering" is not a thing, cannot be a thing by definition, and the way you describe it continues to frequently be functional indentured servitude in return for those sweet government bennies.

[Kaleredar]

If more sex happens, more kids happen. The sex education in this country is laughable. They already have that part covered. They got the abortion part covered in red states. What happens when a young couple who can't get an abortion gets pregnant because they had poor sex ed? They create another body to feed the machine.

Make no mistake most republicans do not give a single fuck about the sanctity of marriage that is just a play for them to appeal to evangelicals. They just want more *preferably white* babies being born, period.

The politicians are nothing but hypocrites for sure but that’s doesn’t change the fact that morality they hold others to (and let themselves slide on, see Trump and his X number of wives and who knows how many mistresses and paid pornstars) is that of the 1950s ideal of the nuclear family. The abstinent wife whose first sexual encounter is on her wedding night. She and her husband only have sex to have children. Otherwise they sleep in separate beds. That’s the America they want to see.

But instead of incentivizing that lifestyle (so to speak) by propping up the middle class, they seek to punish those that deviate from those ideals.

It’s the conservative method of leadership. No carrot, all stick. “Act in line, or we’ll punish you for not conforming.” They aren’t understanding of abortion because they don’t feel women should be having sex outside of marriage. Same with sex education. They will consistently push the “abstinence only” method because in their ideal world people only have sex after marriage and only ever to have children.

[Al Gorefiend]

Sex work is real work, but no surprise you're also gonna shit all over that as if it isn't.

You are making things up about me to get mad about. You for fuck all reason decide to bring sex workers into the argument nobody was discussing them in, I point back to you having done so, and your response is "of course you hate sex workers". Get real.

[Endus]

Whereas, completely, objectionably wrong and unbased, possibly psychotic, to suggest its more akin to parents forcing kids to do what's best for them.

What you're proposing is nothing like parental control/discipline. That's a specific dynamic that only exists with regards to children and their guardians.

It does not apply to adults.

There is no equivalence for you to draw here. Unless you're seriously arguing that the government should be empowered to force adults to go to bed at a certain time, or the like. Which is insane, to be clear.

It just feels like you've never really put much critical thought into any of this and rather than admit it was half-baked nonsense, you e doubled down and tried to pretend there's some kind of personal attack in all this, but cause playing the victim is easier than rationalizing your position.

- - - Updated - - -

You are making things up about me to get mad about. You for fuck all reason decide to bring sex workers into the argument nobody was discussing them in, I point back to you having done so, and your response is "of course you hate sex workers". Get real.

You're the one who called them "hookers", which is derogatory. Hence my criticism. It wasn't about referencing sex workers, it was your choice of language regarding them

[Edge-]

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1...issile-defense

President Trump today unveiled an ambitious plan to shield America from missile attack by building what he describes as a "Golden Dome."

"Once fully constructed the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space," President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Trump's budget and timeline for the project are ambitious. He told reporters he hoped to have it done "before the end of my term." The system would cost around $175 billion dollars, the president said, with $25 billion to start construction in next year's budget.

$175B is laughably low to build this. $25B just to start is a joke.

A key part of the Trump plan is to place both missile-sensing and missile-destroying satellites into orbit above the Earth. The constellation would likely involve thousands of small satellites capable of attacking a missile in the moments after it launches from its submarine or silo.

Hey...despite rough waters I smell where this is going...

Such a vast network of satellites would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, but it now seems at least theoretically within reach. Elon Musk's company SpaceX has been using low-cost rockets to launch a constellation of Internet-transmitting satellites known as Starlink. SpaceX says the Starlink system currently has around 7,000 satellites in orbit, a scale that is comparable to most estimates of what a limited space-based missile defense capability would require.

Ah, yep, there it is.

The overall price of Golden Dome is far from certain. While the president says it could be done for $175 billion over three years, a recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost at between $161-$542 billion over two decades. Separately, Sen. Tim Sheehy, R.-Mont., who is heading a "Golden Dome caucus," recently told a crowd that, "It will likely cost in the trillions if and when Golden Dome is completed," according to Space News.

Trillions?

Where will Republicans find all that money!?

I think the most important question is:

Was Pete Hegseth sober for this? I'm skeptical.

[Fugus]

@Al Gorefiend
Any response to my post?

Want to see how you can justify what you support given the reality of the situation and what it would do in the very real situation that I personally had gone through.

As it stands, what you support does far more harm than good given the situation you impose it in.

[Edge-]

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-democratic-governors/

President Donald Trump argued that a GOP budget bill should help only Republican states instead of benefiting Democratic governors.

"We're going to make a couple of tweaks," Trump said of his "one big beautiful bill" during a Tuesday trip to Capitol Hill. "I mean, we don't want to benefit Democrat governors, although I would do that if it made it better, but they don't know what they're doing."

"We want to help all the states, but we have governors that are from the Democrat [sic] party, let's say New York, Illinois, big ones, and let's say Gavin 'Newscum,' who's done a horrible job in California."

"We want to benefit Republicans. They are the ones that are going to make America great again," he added. "The Democrats are destroying our country."

Donald, explicitly stating he is president only for Republicans and not for all Americans.

I mean, we've all known this and that he and Republicans are glad to weaponize government against their political opponents, but it's not quite so common that they say so with such clarity and explicitness.

Anyways, another Donald/Republican precedent is set: If Democrats take the White House and Congress they should absolutely push funding bills and legislation that primarily benefit Democratic-controlled states while leaving Republican-controlled states to fend for themselves.

Don't worry, suddenly "unity" will be important to Republicans when they're on the short end of the stick, again.

[Al Gorefiend]

What you're proposing is nothing like parental control/discipline. That's a specific dynamic that only exists with regards to children and their guardians.

It does not apply to adults.

There is no equivalence for you to draw here. Unless you're seriously arguing that the government should be empowered to force adults to go to bed at a certain time, or the like. Which is insane, to be clear.

It just feels like you've never really put much critical thought into any of this and rather than admit it was half-baked nonsense, you e doubled down and tried to pretend there's some kind of personal attack in all this, but cause playing the victim is easier than rationalizing your position.

This is what the American government is proposing, by the way. First we wanted to call it slavery, then indentured servitude, to discussing the word choice of "Forced Volunteer" over the notion that people might have to do something to receive something. Call it whatever you want, but I'm too tired to completely ignore your extreme example and focus on my retaliatory extreme example. You referring to it as slavery is so much more ridiculous than referring them to parents - both serve as authoritative figures at different stages of our lives. Unless you actually believe the American government will soon allow whipping and enslaving people who are sick or elderly. Why do you get away with making such ridiculous claims like this, why do we handwave that away. Nonsense performance by the debate team.

You're the one who called them "hookers", which is derogatory. Hence my criticism. It wasn't about referencing sex workers, it was your choice of language regarding them

Well that's just my bad because I had no intentions of being derogatory. I did not know that was now labeled a derogatory term.

- - - Updated - - -

@Al Gorefiend
Any response to my post?

Want to see how you can justify what you support given the reality of the situation and what it would do in the very real situation that I personally had gone through.

As it stands, what you support does far more harm than good given the situation you impose it in.

Look man, like I stated before this whole spiral I've maintained from the beginning I consider myself very left leaning, posters will of course claim I am republican and conservative, just like when I clash with MAGA they accuse me of being woke left. It is the pleasure of being moderate to debate both sides with good faith.
I genuinely feel for you and being a disabled veteran you don't deserve what you go through. I don't write these laws but if I did, I would absolutely disclude wounded veterans from having to continue to serve their community to receive any benefit and I think even the filthiest MAGAs at least respect veterans. You deserve better, that's all I can say for you.

[btlcryct]

Wouldn't this Golden Dome violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty? I remember that being an issue in the 80s with the SDI.

Not that they seem to care much about signed agreements.

Also, not to mention the insane cost to defend against a non-issue. When was the last time a missile was launched against the US? Closest threat that comes to mind is the Cuban missile crisis, in 1962.

[Tech614]

over the notion that people might have to do something to receive something..

People should not have to "do something" to not die due to lack of healthcare.

You're out here acting like they get anything of substantial value by not working when in fact they're just receiving the bare minimum every other developed country already gives their citizens- healthcare.

Not sure what right wing brain rot has infested you to believe people should have to do something to receive healthcare, but you're pretty close to going on the list with NED of MAGAs who don't want to admit they love MAGA policies.

[Fugus]

Look man, like I stated before this whole spiral I've maintained from the beginning I consider myself very left leaning, posters will of course claim I am republican and conservative, just like when I clash with MAGA they accuse me of being woke left. It is the pleasure of being moderate to debate both sides with good faith.
I genuinely feel for you and being a disabled veteran you don't deserve what you go through. I don't write these laws but if I did, I would absolutely disclude wounded veterans from having to continue to serve their community to receive any benefit and I think even the filthiest MAGAs at least respect veterans. You deserve better, that's all I can say for you.

Sorry if you took it wrong, I am just talking about the whole thing of work requirements not being that bad. I was talking about just that aspect of the entire thing. Given the system we have now, they will not do any good but will cause massive harm.

The system right now is already setup to intentionally abandon as many as they can on even the flimsiest of excuses unless they have rank or influence. I knew a Sargent who got 90% for a damaged ankle from the Army while a Specialist who jumped out of planes was trying to be abandon of a damaged hip with the paper pushers attempting to claim the damage to his hips didn't happen till he got out because his CO wouldn't let him get it checked till his contract was up.

Also, fun fact, the military branches themselves are more willing to give you a decent rating than the Department of Veteran Affairs will since the VA pays for the disability and the actual military branches are on a different budget. So, if you know anyone who has to deal with them, try to have their branches give them a rating before they leave and try like hell to make sure the VA never gets an excuse to reevaluate the rating or they will bust you down from 100% to 10% in an instant if they can.

One of their denials they sent me they waited till 3 days before my first surgery to send it to me knowing the doctors wouldn't be able to adequately look at me and give any evidence for or against for the next 12 months of the recovery and if you don't appeal a denial in 12 months then it sticks and you have to restart the whole process over again and you lose any back pay they would have owed you to that point. Got lawyers and got that appeal going with about a month left before I would have lost it all only for the paper pushers to try and screw with the lawyers and denied my appeal so quickly due to lack of evidence that they denied me before the evidence packet even got there. The lawyers had to send of another appeal with the evidence directly attached to it and mailed it to 2 different offices and made them sign to verify they received it all.

I am not talking about every issue you guys discussed, just the whole concept of working for welfare in the system I have experienced first hand. That is a recipe for disaster that will get hundreds of thousands to millions tortured, maimed and killed due to lack of access to care and basic necessities of living due to circumstances that aren't their fault and/or out of their control.

If we had a single payer healthcare system, we wouldn't need Medicaid, Medicare, or the Veteran healthcare system or the entire ACA system as they would all become redundant while making it much harder for the system to gouge us. But, we have to make the laws based on the system we have not the system we want until we actually manage to change the system into that.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Voters feeling better about the economy as well as direction of the country.

Also, no taxes on tips passes unanimously in the Senate! Pretty likely it will eventually become law. Huge wins for Americans.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...tick/?tbref=hp

[Endus]

This is what the American government is proposing, by the way.

The American government, which is still a slavery-using nation and has maintained the system ever since its foundation? Shocker.

That's not a positive. That Americans still legitimize slavery is atrocious. Regardless of the form it takes.

I swear, more Americans need to read the 13th Amendment. The whole thing, in full. You folks act like slavery's all in the past, when your country actively and currently engages in it as a matter of practice.

First we wanted to call it slavery, then indentured servitude, to discussing the word choice of "Forced Volunteer" over the notion that people might have to do something to receive something. Call it whatever you want, but I'm too tired to completely ignore your extreme example and focus on my retaliatory extreme example. You referring to it as slavery is so much more ridiculous than referring them to parents - both serve as authoritative figures at different stages of our lives. Unless you actually believe the American government will soon allow whipping and enslaving people who are sick or elderly. Why do you get away with making such ridiculous claims like this, why do we handwave that away. Nonsense performance by the debate team.

You're arguing that people should be forced to work, against their will, and not be paid.

That's slavery.

Slavery doesn't mean you automatically get to whip people; that's only particular forms of chattel slavery. Plenty of other forms of slavery protect the slaves from such abuses. All you're demonstrating is a failure to understand what slavery even is. It's forcing people to work, against their will. In some slavery systems, you can even pay those slaves. It's the "forcing them to labor against their will" bit that makes it slavery, and that's the bit you kept doubling down on and claiming was justifiable.

None of that is "ridiculous". It's what the word means.

I hate doing this shit, but;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery

See b) and c). It's literally the definition of slavery.

[Bwgmon]

Voters feeling better about the economy as well as direction of the country.

The president’s overall approval remained relatively steady at 47 percent in the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris survey, compared to 48 percent in April, though it’s down roughly 5 points since February.

Less than a third of voters, or 31 percent, said Trump is doing better than expected in his second White House term — while 43 percent say he’s doing worse and 29 percent say it’s as expected. Back in February, roughly equal shares said Trump was doing either better or worse than expected, at 36 and 35 percent, respectively.

Ah, so his approval is still historically low, and most people still think he's running things into the ground. Sounds... uh, good?

[Kaleredar]

Ah, so his approval is still historically low, and most people still think he's running things into the ground. Sounds... uh, good?

I take slight umbrage with that second poll with the “better” “worse” “expected” categories; Trump is doing exactly as I expected him to be doing, which is…. “fucking awful.”

[Bwgmon]

I take slight umbrage with that second poll with the “better” “worse” “expected” categories; Trump is doing exactly as I expected him to be doing, which is…. “fucking awful.”

Yeah, so it's basically 31% positive vs 43% negative, with 29% being potentially either way.

There's also another sight issue with the numbers given, considering 29+31+43 totals 103, but I'm sure that just means the poll is bigger, more beautiful, and more goodly-er than usual.

[gondrin]

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1...issile-defense



$175B is laughably low to build this. $25B just to start is a joke.



Hey...despite rough waters I smell where this is going...



Ah, yep, there it is.



Trillions?

Where will Republicans find all that money!?

I think the most important question is:

Was Pete Hegseth sober for this? I'm skeptical.

Remember, Trump is the same guy who said that his "big, beautiful wall" was going to cost $8 billion, $12 billion tops back before he got elected the first time. It would have cost north of $70 billion to be fully completed. Now, going by this math, according to Trump that it would cost $175 billion, it would actually cost about $1.02 trillion.