Miscellaneous Trump (4 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[TampaJoe]

More like a personal death wish…my opinion.
Here’s the problem, if there a group of people who chose not to vote because they did not like Harris, they still ended up with Trump just like the rest of us, and our country is in jeopardy because of it. I’ll go farther and say there is no way a sane , responsible person, could view Trump and not say “ holy shirt, this guy is bad news, there is NO WAY he should be elected, he’s going to fork us up more than we already are.”

I’ll guess with the caveat of iyou are being honest, you said “oh well, que sera”. And then there is the issue of you, for not liking Trump, but spend virtually all your time in the forum tearing down Democrats, liberals. I realize you don’t care, but my impression is, you’d rather see Trump ripping the nation a new one, versus ever seeing a liberal trying to make things better for everyone.

If you want to make things better for everyone, nominate your best candidate.

Neither party is doing this and yet folks like you wonder why folks in the center and independents dont want to vote for a candidate that appeals to the exteme elements of the party.

So its not “oh well, que sera”. Thats what you are asking from me and others. To ignore our concerns and legitimate policy differences and “just go along”. I refuse t do that. I dont exect it from you or anyone else. Dont expect it from me.

I didnt vote for Trump. I would think you would agree with that decision.

 

[TampaJoe]

You just gave yourself away. Maybe you are too lazy to vote, but Trump is your man, and what a man. You think that “I did not vote for him, that lets off some kind of hook. Besides being mentally ill, the man is a corrupt, ignorant moron, who’s seen multiple bankruptcies. He has spent his life ripping people off. Being a narrcacist, sociopath, his one and only concern is himself and manipulating people to his advantage, but you like his management style? How many bankruptcies have you declared? He’s an immoral Peice of work who should never be in a position of leadership.

Being a sociopath he just gravitates too, and tells susceptible, angry people what they want to hear. And he’s approached a state where he’s actually believing his own bullshirt, living in a fantasy world where everyone respects him, and likes him, where the reality is the opposite. It)s safe to say, the bulk of humanity hates his guts. He’s a pathetic loser, and his election makes us all losers.

You realize that many members in this forum have figured you out? You want to argue for him, support him, but not be held responsible for your position and be shielded. You need to be honest and own him as the catastrophe he is. Now there’s some irony, you think he’s doing a great job, don’t you?

Again, you give tons of reasons for me NOT to vote for a man i have NEVER voted for. FYI, I did vote in every election since I was 18 yrs old. I just refuse to vote for someone I cannot support or endorse on the right OR left.

Again, if you truly believe he was and is such a threat, you should have put forward better candidates. The two main political parties are failing this country.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump entered to a standing ovation and cheers from a crowd of thousands attending a UFC event on Saturday night, shaking hands with supporters against a backdrop of fans waving his trademark Maga hats.

Just as Trump entered, he greeted podcast host Joe Rogan, who sat to the right of the president. On the other side of Trump sat Elon Musk. Trump, who accented his dark suit with a bright yellow tie, pumped his fist in the air, prompting cheers to strains of Taking Care of Business.

Trump brought along several members of his administration and White House team, including health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, FBI director Kash Patel, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House communications aides Steven Cheung and Taylor Budowich. Secretary of state Marco Rubio and US senator Ted Cruz also joined Trump at the event.…….

Donald Trump feted with standing ovation as he enters UFC 314 in Miami

US president Donald Trump entered to a standing ovation and cheers from a crowd of thousands attending a UFC event on Saturday night

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lapaz]

Maher praises ‘gracious and measured’ Trump after White House visit

Comedian and talk show host Bill Maher praised President Trump after their late March meeting at the White House, describing him as “gracious and measured.” Maher, who was critical of Trump e…

thehill.com

The meeting between Maher and Trump is getting a lot of attention. Maher’s takeaway is that a crazy man doesn’t live in the Whitehouse, just a man that plays a crazy man in public. I think that is good, but my takeaway is that he is a liar and two-faced. I’ve heard many other people give similar descriptions about Trump being charming in person, but if he is aware of how his destructive behavior hurts people, then that makes him an even worse person. I’ve always hated two-faced people. He seems to say whatever he thinks will serve his purpose. He’s unprincipled to the core, but I know committing suicide serves his purpose, so at least not being crazy means he won’t launch nukes. On balance, the interview means he probably believes almost nothing he says in public, but he knows how to appeal to his audience and that audience is angry and unsympathetic. It probably reveals an ugliness about Americans that will hurt us abroad.

 

[bird]

Maher praises ‘gracious and measured’ Trump after White House visit

Comedian and talk show host Bill Maher praised President Trump after their late March meeting at the White House, describing him as “gracious and measured.” Maher, who was critical of Trump e…

thehill.com

The meeting between Maher and Trump is getting a lot of attention. Maher’s takeaway is that a crazy man doesn’t live in the Whitehouse, just a man that plays a crazy man in public. I think that is good, but my takeaway is that he is a liar and two-faced. I’ve heard many other people give similar descriptions about Trump being charming in person, but if he is aware of how his destructive behavior hurts people, then that makes him an even worse person. I’ve always hated two-faced people. He seems to say whatever he thinks will serve his purpose. He’s unprincipled to the core, but I know committing suicide serves his purpose, so at least not being crazy means he won’t launch nukes. On balance, the interview means he probably believes almost nothing he says in public, but he knows how to appeal to his audience and that audience is angry and unsympathetic. It probably reveals an ugliness about Americans that will hurt us abroad.

Maher is wrong.

Trump is emotionally damaged. I think he has enough self-awareness to realize he is absolutely unfit to be president particularly when dealing with geopolitics. This grates on him because his emotional instability demands that he be viewed as smart to matter the situation. Those authoritarians like Putin and Orban play him like a fiddle. The leaders of the West treat him with scorn.

I certainly agree that it reveals something about Americans. That something, imo, is ignorance and arrogance. The exceptionalism myth combined with the absolute need to whitewash our history shows a populace with emotional damage. That meshes too much with the idiot in the WH.

 

[Lapaz]

Maher is wrong.

Trump is emotionally damaged. I think he has enough self-awareness to realize he is absolutely unfit to be president particularly when dealing with geopolitics. This grates on him because his emotional instability demands that he be viewed as smart to matter the situation. Those authoritarians like Putin and Orban play him like a fiddle. The leaders of the West treat him with scorn.

I certainly agree that it reveals something about Americans. That something, imo, is ignorance and arrogance. The exceptionalism myth combined with the absolute need to whitewash our history shows a populace with emotional damage. That meshes too much with the idiot in the WH.

I think Trump is not smart, but also is not as dumb as he pretends to be. Trump is definitely putting on an act to cater to the worst instincts of people. It is the authoritarian playbook.

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Trump deemed in ‘excellent’ health after annual physical

Trump claimed he got a perfect score on every cognitive test he completed during the first annual physical exam of his second term

www.independent.co.uk

 

[bird]

I think Trump is not smart, but also is not as dumb as he pretends to be. Trump is definitely putting on an act to cater to the worst instincts of people. It is the authoritarian playbook.

I think he is shrewd and cunning. Which is not the same as intelligent. Charlatans have this characteristic. To borrow from Parke Godwin, iirc, they take their targeted audience’s fears and wrap them up in new language and sell them back with the charlatan offering the solution as “only I can save you from the enemies”.

When Techbros and podcast-maniacs are added into the mix we are much farther along the road. Not to fascism although that may well be a stop along the way but rather to collapse.

The U.S. is particularly susceptible to this but we are by no means alone in that. Democracy is always fragile. Complacency and civic ADHD are dangerous to democracy. We are buried with information in an informational desert. Postman, Huxley and Orwell were all right. Humans are deeply flawed. The rise of charlatans has shown this to be the case.

What happens next in this dangerous soup we are mired in will have far ranging consequences.

 

[faceman]

President Trump deemed in ‘excellent’ health after annual physical

Trump claimed he got a perfect score on every cognitive test he completed during the first annual physical exam of his second term

www.independent.co.uk

Did you expect anything else ?

 

[Huntn]

If you want to make things better for everyone, nominate your best candidate.

Neither party is doing this and yet folks like you wonder why folks in the center and independents dont want to vote for a candidate that appeals to the exteme elements of the party.

So its not “oh well, que sera”. Thats what you are asking from me and others. To ignore our concerns and legitimate policy differences and “just go along”. I refuse t do that. I dont exect it from you or anyone else. Dont expect it from me.

I didnt vote for Trump. I would think you would agree with that decision.

I agree that picking the best candidate is always best, but there’s a little problem with allowing the country to be dismembered when by your inaction, because you did not get your way, you let Mr Armageddon win. Then we had 70m+ people who were either too stupid to realize or were happy to allow a corrupt authoritarian, fascist to rule over them. That is a nutshell is why despite a majority despising this Train Wreck of a human being, our country maybe destined to burn. The idea of the tragedy occurring in DC does not effect me is complete follly,

 

[Huntn]

Again, you give tons of reasons for me NOT to vote for a man i have NEVER voted for. FYI, I did vote in every election since I was 18 yrs old. I just refuse to vote for someone I cannot support or endorse on the right OR left.

Again, if you truly believe he was and is such a threat, you should have put forward better candidates. The two main political parties are failing this country.

Yet virtually all of your energy in this forum is attacking liberals, or should I say relative liberals. You never rail against the GOP/MAGA. They are volumes worse, but mums the word. Why do you let them off the hook? I’d have to conclude that by never criticizing them, you must support them, you have to prefer them, if not a death wish, this is your agenda, and it’s identical to the Russian strategy of destabilizing social media to achieve their objectives.

 

[TampaJoe]

Yet virtually all of your energy in this forum is attacking liberals, or should I say relative liberals. You never rail against the GOP/MAGA. They are volumes worse, but mums the word. Why do you let them off the hook? I’d have to conclude that by never criticizing them, you must support them, you have to prefer them, if not a death wish, this is your agenda, and it’s identical to the Russian strategy of destabilizing social media to achieve their objectives.

To begin, there is no lack of criticism of the GOP on this board. There is plenty of railing against the GOP. Some of it I agree with and some I do not. I am not sure what you expect. I generally dont comment unless I have a different opinion.

I have said many times that I dont belong to either party because I believe they are both failing this country. And they are. I have said many times I am a conservative. That is how I vote.

I am more likely to disagree with liberal/progressive policy than the other way around. That does not mean I agree with the GOP or the current administration. I would not assume otherwise. Lack of a response is not agreement. That is faulty logic. If you are unsure, then ask a question.

 

[TampaJoe]

I agree that picking the best candidate is always best, but there’s a little problem with allowing the country to be dismembered when by your inaction, because you did not get your way, you let Mr Armageddon win. Then we had 70m+ people who were either too stupid to realize or were happy to allow a corrupt authoritarian, fascist to rule over them. That is a nutshell is why despite a majority despising this Train Wreck of a human being, our country maybe destined to burn. The idea of the tragedy occurring in DC does not effect me is complete follly,

I did not choose either candidate. The parties did that. So direct your frustration at them. Next time bring your “A” game. Biden wasn‘t your “A” game. Harris wasnt your “A” game. They both lost ground with voters who are normally reliable democrat voters. So instead of calling the voters stupid for not agreeing with you, your time might be better spent choosing a better candidate and focusing your policy decisions on those things that are important and appealing to voters outside your base. Moderates and independents.

 

[RobF]

There seems to be a general, and bad, argument that someone seems to keep trying to assert. I'm ignoring them, but the argument comes up enough that I'm going to address it generally.

A normal, rational, person, might think that if you have, hypothetically, a terrible candidate, and an alternative candidate who is not terrible, and the terrible candidate wins, the primary responsibility for this and the consequences of it would overwhelmingly belong to the terrible candidate and those who supported them and enabled their victory.

But this argument - as with so many arguments coming from the right-wing - tries to argue that up is down and that, actually no, those people carry little to no responsibility, it's really the fault of the alternative candidate for not being sufficiently great.

That is, obviously, a bad argument. As I've said before, it's very obvious that the responsibility and blame for a thing happening lies overwhelmingly with the people who said, "We're going to do the thing," who are now doing the thing, and the ones who voted for them to do the thing. Whereas the people who opposed doing the thing, and aren't doing the thing, and the people who voted for them are, clearly, at the very end of the list of those to blame.

The argument is constructed to avoid the fundamental facts of course. It typically goes like this:

1) Bad things are happening, because terrible candidate was elected.
2) But if alternative candidate had won, terrible candidate would not have been elected and those bad things would not be happening.
3) And if alternative candidate had been good enough, they would have won.
4) Therefore it's the fault of alternative candidate for not being good enough, and those who supported them, that those bad things are happening.

We've already seen this argument is inherently false of course, as anyone could, just by looking at the fundamental principle that the overwhelming responsibility for something terrible happening lies with those doing it and those who supported them, not with those who tried and failed to stop them.

But the argument itself is flawed even in its own terms, in the assertion that it's entirely within the control of a candidate whether they win or not. Because this ignores the fact that it is hard to compete with a liar and a fantasist in a popularity contest if their lies and fantasies are believed, because they can promise literally anything. Similarly, if a culture of bigotry and hatred is stoked, a candidate who is not bigoted and hateful can be at a disadvantage to a candidate who is more than willing to stoke it up and appeal to it.

We have both an individual and a collective responsibility to not fall for lies, bigotry, and fascist populism, and to oppose them. To avoid the environment being created where such a candidate can win, and to oppose them when they arise. It's not really surprising that someone who's failed that responsibility would attempt to blame others, by trying to wave their own individual responsibility away by asserting that others should have made them be better, or by transferring that responsibility solely to others by asserting that their not succeeding in stopping it makes them carry all the responsibility.

But it doesn't work like that.

The bottom line is, while in such a scenario we all carry responsibility for the consequences of not succeeding in opposing (e.g.) hateful, bigoted, authoritarianism, and that does include criticism of every aspect of creating an environment in which it can take root, the overwhelming responsibility is carried by, and will always be carried by, the authoritarians, those who supported them, and those who actively enabled them.

People who didn't oppose it should own it, and do better next time.

 

[DaveXA]

There seems to be a general, and bad, argument that someone seems to keep trying to assert. I'm ignoring them, but the argument comes up enough that I'm going to address it generally.

A normal, rational, person, might think that if you have, hypothetically, a terrible candidate, and an alternative candidate who is not terrible, and the terrible candidate wins, the primary responsibility for this and the consequences of it would overwhelmingly belong to the terrible candidate and those who supported them and enabled their victory.

But this argument - as with so many arguments coming from the right-wing - tries to argue that up is down and that, actually no, those people carry little to no responsibility, it's really the fault of the alternative candidate for not being sufficiently great.

That is, obviously, a bad argument. As I've said before, it's very obvious that the responsibility and blame for a thing happening lies overwhelmingly with the people who said, "We're going to do the thing," who are now doing the thing, and the ones who voted for them to do the thing. Whereas the people who opposed doing the thing, and aren't doing the thing, and the people who voted for them are, clearly, at the very end of the list of those to blame.

The argument is constructed to avoid the fundamental facts of course. It typically goes like this:

1) Bad things are happening, because terrible candidate was elected.
2) But if alternative candidate had won, terrible candidate would not have been elected and those bad things would not be happening.
3) And if alternative candidate had been good enough, they would have won.
4) Therefore it's the fault of alternative candidate for not being good enough, and those who supported them, that those bad things are happening.

We've already seen this argument is inherently false of course, as anyone could, just by looking at the fundamental principle that the overwhelming responsibility for something terrible happening lies with those doing it and those who supported them, not with those who tried and failed to stop them.

But the argument itself is flawed even in its own terms, in the assertion that it's entirely within the control of a candidate whether they win or not. Because this ignores the fact that it is hard to compete with a liar and a fantasist in a popularity contest if their lies and fantasies are believed, because they can promise literally anything. Similarly, if a culture of bigotry and hatred is stoked, a candidate who is not bigoted and hateful can be at a disadvantage to a candidate who is more than willing to stoke it up and appeal to it.

We have both an individual and a collective responsibility to not fall for lies, bigotry, and fascist populism, and to oppose them. To avoid the environment being created where such a candidate can win, and to oppose them when they arise. It's not really surprising that someone who's failed that responsibility would attempt to blame others, by trying to wave their own individual responsibility away by asserting that others should have made them be better, or by transferring that responsibility solely to others by asserting that their not succeeding in stopping it makes them carry all the responsibility.

But it doesn't work like that.

The bottom line is, while in such a scenario we all carry responsibility for the consequences of not succeeding in opposing (e.g.) hateful, bigoted, authoritarianism, and that does include criticism of every aspect of creating an environment in which it can take root, the overwhelming responsibility is carried by, and will always be carried by, the authoritarians, those who supported them, and those who actively enabled them.

People who didn't oppose it should own it, and do better next time.

Absolutely. They're exactly like Trump was today blaming someone else for his problems, trying to pass the buck on to someone else. Par for the course. Own that sheet or gtho.

 

[coldseat]

I did not choose either candidate. The parties did that. So direct your frustration at them. Next time bring your “A” game. Biden wasn‘t your “A” game. Harris wasnt your “A” game. They both lost ground with voters who are normally reliable democrat voters. So instead of calling the voters stupid for not agreeing with you, your time might be better spent choosing a better candidate and focusing your policy decisions on those things that are important and appealing to voters outside your base. Moderates and independents.

Why can't we call voters stupid for not being tethered to reality enough to realize and acknowledge the unique danger that Trump posed to our country and why he should have never been elected president? That's not a hard ask and you didn't have to be particularly smart to know that. We didn't need all of that is happening now to know that before the election.

Also, Huntn didn't choose the Democratic candidate either. And if you know anything about their posting history, you know they are not Biden or Harris's biggest fan. They just made a better choice for president than you did given the available options.

 

[Dragon]

I posted this in 2017 on the old Politics board. Unfortunately both is still frightningly relevant today

Democracy isn't lost because of someone as dangerous as Trump is elected. He is only a symptom not the disease

Democracy is lost when people don't care. Complacency, indifference and just plain Lazyness is the root cause. If people don't care enough to get involved in deciding their own future then other people will be more than happy to do it for them

If people don't care enough to take time to go vote whenever they get the chance, they squander the privileges their forefathers fought and paid for with blood

If they are too lazy to actually look into the issues - preferable from multiple sources, instead of just sitting in front of the television and eating up whatever "truths" the host on the screen is dishing out, then they are selling out their own as well as their childrens futures.

Democracy isn't easy. It requires a lot of hard work, dedication and thoughts. And if people are unwilling to make that investment, then one day they will wake up and find that democracy is indeed lost "while they were sleeping" !

 

[TampaJoe]

Absolutely. They're exactly like Trump was today blaming someone else for his problems, trying to pass the buck on to someone else. Par for the course. Own that sheet or gtho.

Blaming somebody else heh? Dems have blamed everybody but themselves. Blamed the voter. Blamed the media. They have been passing the buck since the election. Some are blaming other Dems. I havent heard anyone on that side of the aisle own anything.