ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Another interesting point I picked up along the way from a guy who taught at The Naval War College for 20 years was, most of these people have lived in such freedom and opulence for so long(even the poors), with no war coming to them or even their shores, and nothing to really fight for, they have simply become bored with their lives, with a dash of regret for their lack of success in life, and this simply becomes their lives.
I'll post a fe
This was already the core theme of "fight club".
Now imagine 20+ years of boredom, less ability to create a family (something that can sometimes make you more pragmatic and preoccupied with day to day stuff) and you get the picture.
The same on the left btw, they just choose other stuff to go crazy about
For avoidance of confusion, this is not about Trump either though.
For whatever reason(s), many millions American radicalized a lot on the right, you can talk Trump as much as you want but it's the opposite side of the causal arrow.
And those people are the core constituencies of republican primaries.
Which means safe red seats are being filled with very very very radical people, especially in the house.
Which explains the current tragicomical
Fair point, but at this time, Trump is by far the most visible symptom, even if he is not the root cause. Sometimes you have to eradicate the worst symptoms before you are able to treat the cause.
I don't think you guys realize how much kore radical "maga people" are than trump himself.
I don't have any idea what Trump believes, and I'm not sure that he could articulate many core beliefs that are truly his own. That's what makes him an effective populist. He'll tell you that he believes whatever he thinks will get him more votes, more praise, or more money. Preferably all of them at the same time. And he'll run over anyone that gets in the way of those objectives. Anyone.
I don't think you realize how obvious that is to most people who aren't indoctrinated into the cult.
Now that Twitter is basically uncensored, you see stuff that should make you worried, and again it's not trump.
I am talking accounts with 100k+ followers that are hyper antisemite, and/or anti blacks. Accounts that mock people with interracial kids. Accounts that blame women from being beaten if they have a black partner. Accounts that ask for the deportation of all coloured people from the USA and Europe.
I am talking main, biggish accounts
No. Do you think anyone has done more than Trump to encourage and empower these people over the last decade, and will continue to as long as he believes it's in his best interest to do so?
I'm referring more to the 40 and up crowd. They are simply bored with their lives.
I don't have any idea what Trump believes, and I'm not sure that he could articulate many core beliefs that are truly his own. That's what makes him an effective populist. He'll tell you that he believes whatever he thinks will get him more votes, more praise, or more money. Preferably all of them at the same time. And he'll run over anyone that gets in the way of those objectives. Anyone.
I don't think you realize how obvious that is to mos
Yes, this. Trump is basically just an empty vessel to channel the spirit of the MAGA chodes.
What is your basis for saying that wrestling fans are more left-leaning than, say, NBA fans? That doesn't sound correct to me at all, especially when you consider that wrestling has always been very popular in the Southeast.
NBA is probably further left than wrestling overall, it was specifically the online discourse around wrestling that I was saying is further left than any mainstream sports, which I'm sure in part is because they're more niche.
These are the main articles I'm basing this stuff on (excluding the online discourse stuff, that's largely experience), the first from a decade ago and the second from last year.
https://www.businessinsider.com/politics...
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/golf/20...
Most of it is actually fairly close to what I expected, with the extreme exception of LIV golf being so far left, which I struggle to understand given how far right PGA has always been and it being Saudi backed.
I don't have any idea what Trump believes, and I'm not sure that he could articulate many core beliefs that are truly his own. That's what makes him an effective populist. He'll tell you that he believes whatever he thinks will get him more votes, more praise, or more money. Preferably all of them at the same time. And he'll run over anyone that gets in the way of those objectives. Anyone.
I don't think you realize how obvious that is to mos
Yoh do have an idea, it's the stuff he didn't flip flop about in 20+ years.
For ex he doesn't give a fu xk about abortion, he flip flopped a zillion times in his life.
But he always claimed other countries were abusing the USA and has always been an American supremacist.
He was always kind of a nativist with some exceptions for white foreign women and a small amount of people he thinks america can use.
He has never given a fu ck about deficits and always considered low rates better than high rates (very normal for someone who made money in commercial real estate).
He is mercantilist in his view of international trade, he has the very basic old school model of jobs being a fixed quantity others (immigrants or foreign exporters) can steal. He never flip flopped on this and never cared if this worked for votes or not he just kept saying it.
He is not particularly populist, for example he kept bragging about the vaccine "he developed" even when that clearly hurt him with his base.
He keeps talking about 2020 election being stolen even if that clearly hurts him in the generals
I don't have any idea what Trump believes, and I'm not sure that he could articulate many core beliefs that are truly his own. That's what makes him an effective populist. He'll tell you that he believes whatever he thinks will get him more votes, more praise, or more money. Preferably all of them at the same time. And he'll run over anyone that gets in the way of those objectives. Anyone.
I don't think you realize how obvious that is to mos
This sounds like a man who has been watching this shitshow since NYC in the 80's. These people(myself included) are always a little more shocked that people don't see Trump for what is right in front of their faces.
Simply stated, he is a Confidence Man. A con man. As stated eloquently by Bobo, he will do and say anything he believes will help his own benefit and his own benefit only. It's plain as day.
Now if he would sell his kids down the river if it would save or benefit him, and we all know he would because he already has, then you have to believe he would do it to the entire country as well. When you realize he will absolutely do this without question, it becomes dangerous.
Greta grotesquely exaggerates the risks of climate change especially for northern European countries, she claimed more than once the sea level will raise several meters if we dont get globally to net zero immediately and the like.
That's further from scientifical assessment than climate change denialism.
If the IPCC estimates sea levels to raise by 0.6 meters in 2100 under RCP 4.0, which is already the course we are under, theb claiming they will raise 3 meters under it is a worse denial of science than claiming absolutely nothing will happen.
The Greta people are the qanon shamans of the left.
Except they are a lot more
There is no federal legal obligation to guarantee the safety of illegal aliens on US SOIL from any threat.
The US fed solicitor asked for the ability to cut the wire to save immigrants from themselves basically after they trespassed.
How is that a federal responsibility in any way or form? If the request was about accessing the border to make it impossible for people to trespass I would understand.
They literally asked to be able to succour tr
It's true that there was wording about helping immigrants already on US soil but you're completely ignoring the part that explicitly states that the wire was preventing federal immigration officers from accessing regions of the border.
[QUOTE=SCOTUS blog]bars agents doing their jobs – specifically, cutting or moving the wire to obtain access to the U.S.-Mexico border[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SCOTUS blog]As a result, Prelogar wrote, agents are effectively barred “from accessing or getting near the border along this 2.5-mile stretch of the river” and therefore “effectively prevented … from monitoring the border to determine whether a migrant requires the emergency aid that the court of appeals expressly excepted from the injunction"[/QUOTE]
If the only issue under consideration was aiding those already in US territory then you'd have an argument but when it's also actively preventing them launching their border patrol boats everything else is pretty much irrelevant to the constitutional issue because it is preventing federal agents from properly performing the role they are constitutionally given.
Greta grotesquely exaggerates the risks of climate change especially for northern European countries, she claimed more than once the sea level will raise several meters if we dont get globally to net zero immediately and the like.
That's further from scientifical assessment than climate change denialism.
If the IPCC estimates sea levels to raise by 0.6 meters in 2100 under RCP 4.0, which is already the course we are under, theb claiming they
I don't know the ins and outs of what Greta says and how it comports (or not, as the case may be) with the consensus of the mainstream scientific community, so fine, I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure that exaggerating the effects of anthrpogenic climate change is "worse" science denial than, you know, literally denying that it exists, though.
I don't know the ins and outs of what Greta says, so fine, I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure that exaggerating the effects of anthrpogenic climate change is worse science denial than, you know, literally denying that it exists, though.
Take tobacco.
A person claiming that smoking 3 cigarettes a day will do absolutely nothing to you, is he closer or further from the scientifical truth than someone claiming you will automatically die of cancer within 20 years?
I don't know the ins and outs of what Greta says and how it comports (or not, as the case may be) with the consensus of the mainstream scientific community, so fine, I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure that exaggerating the effects of anthrpogenic climate change is "worse" science denial than, you know, literally denying that it exists, though.
Quantitative denials are still denials.
Greta grotesquely exaggerates the risks of climate change especially for northern European countries, she claimed more than once the sea level will raise several meters if we dont get globally to net zero immediately and the like.
That's further from scientifical assessment than climate change denialism.
If the IPCC estimates sea levels to raise by 0.6 meters in 2100 under RCP 4.0, which is already the course we are under, theb claiming they
I'd love to see a single example of any sort of non-scientifically backed claims that Greta has made. I did a quick search and pretty much the only controversial thing I found was a poorly worded/hyperbolic tweet about potential for human extinction that ended up being widely misrepresented.
Take tobacco.
A person claiming that smoking 3 cigarettes a day will do absolutely nothing to you, is he closer or further from the scientifical truth than someone claiming you will automatically die of cancer within 20 years?
Being closer or further to the truth is not the only germane metric here. A more appropriate measure would be the impact of doing nothing vs. the impact of doing too much. In the smoking example, the first person is probably closer, but if you take the advice of the second person and smoke zero cigarettes, the chances of being harmed by cigarettes is zero. In the climate change example, even if Greta is further from the mainstream scientific community than the absolute denialists, the worst that will happen if you follow her advice is you spend too much money. The worst that will happen if you follow the denialists' advice is a global extinction event.
Additionally, we have to look at context: given the stubbornness of certain groups in power to act on the climate change issue in a timely manner, and their continued denial that it exists over the course of decades, it's hard for me to begrudge those who feel strongly about the issue a certain amount of leeway when it comes to hyperbole.
Now that Twitter is basically uncensored, you see stuff that should make you worried, and again it's not trump.
I am talking accounts with 100k+ followers that are hyper antisemite, and/or anti blacks. Accounts that mock people with interracial kids. Accounts that blame women from being beaten if they have a black partner. Accounts that ask for the deportation of all coloured people from the USA and Europe.
I am talking main, biggish accounts
There is a huge problem with trolling and mental health in regards to young males , particularly white males , on the internet. I would love to have a genuine conversation about that on here but i don’t think the posters here are collectively up to it.
maybe when some of you think about how self centered and narcissistic and bullying Trump is , you can reflect on your own self-centeredness, your own narcissism, your own bullying. More guys need to do this.
No, I have an idea what he might believe in based on what he hasn't flipped on yet. The things you've listed will probably forever speak to his base and benefit him economically, so he's likely to stay on the same side of those issues. But from self interest as much or more than from some principled position, if he has one.
LOL. He's the textbook ****ing definition.
for example he kept bragging about the vaccine "he developed" even when that clearly hurt him with his base.
He keeps talking about 2020 election being stolen even if that clearly hurts him in the generals
He had to support developing a vaccine; anything else would be political suicide. Naturally he's going to brag about how great it was once it's done. As for the stolen election, that's speaking to his base, making sure they come out strong in the election, and will back him to do whatever needs to be done to see the result go in his favour.
That said, being a populist doesn't mean you have to take the most popular position on every single issue.
It's a really interesting topic and probably very important politically.
I already hold the view that too mcuh of the liberal/left has lost it's sense of meaning. There's tons of belief in how wrong/bad/etc th otehr lot is but the philosophical basis on our won side has been lost. We tedn to vote for people we dont want, we rarely offer solutions other than yelling at the other side orimpm,eemnting the otehr sides polciies.
We correctly imo d
I agree and this is also a pet interest. One of the few areas where I'm optimistic.
Moral philosophy (how to live) was once an important subject. Epicureans, stoics, Buddhism, Confucius etc. It was absorbed by monotheism.
Reading and science proliferated and it became harder to believe in monotheistic religions, create moral void.
Secular replacements including Marxism and Libertarianism provided absolutist guides to building heaven on earth but don't work.
Boomers and Gen X tried vulgar hedonism and consumerism. It didn't work
The younger generations face some risk of being sucked into crazy Marxian stuff, like critical theory. But I also notice they seem to be returning to taking personal morality as a serious subject. They are less promiscuous, for example.
A lot of psychiatry is oriented this way, as Albert Ellis says left and right that he is drawing from those old traditions like Buddhism. More people go to therapy and Ellis seems to have vanquished Freud. Therapy is geared more to how to live, accountability, etc
Buddhism/mindfulness as well as interest in other forms of virtue ethics seem to be on the rise.
People are once again taking how to live as a serious subject that requires attention, learning and practice. We have additional tools as well. We can point to studies showing that generosity makes us happy and hoarding wealth does not, for example.
Trump exemplifies how you can have all the crap that's supposed to make you happy and be a miserable POS. Notice how people talk about his NPD and his lack of healthy relationships.
So hopefully, we are coming full circle back to virtue ethics, which are generally compatible with liberal/left, as well as authentic conservatism, but largely incompatible with Republicans/the far right.
It's not about immigration because the law is clear and they couldn't theoretically trespass.
It's about to which length you go, once they enter, to help them.
The appeal court correctly denied the feds a right to cut the wire *on US SOIL* *on Texas land* put by the state of Texas.
Why should the fed have any say on how the state of Texas manages his own land?
It's not about who is allowed entrance legally (which is a federal decision)
Because this is something clearly done to cause harm, basically punishment without due process which is guaranteed by the constitution.
I'm pretty sure I'm most jurisdictions it's illegal for a private property owner to put razor wire around his own property. I know it is illegal to put booby traps on your own property, even if they would only harm someone entering without permission.
There is too much of a shaming culture on the internet. The point of shaming and bullying people is supposed to be this bro idea that bullying works but it doesn’t because 99% of the time the bully doesn’t actually understand the other persons point of view or their needs. Instead of shaming people into being right guys should try harder to understand each others views. There is an over competitive culture in the male gender that is making it hard for males to build relationships. More men die in wars. More men go to prison. men live less long.
Straight guys are very very bad at expressing their feelings towards one another and it’s killing them.
Trump is a culmination of men competing against one another without understanding each others feelings until the biggest jerk face wins. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that Trump supporters dont realize how much he hates his own supporters.
black panthers have more empathy and like the average white american more than Trump does. But gotta protect daddy.
There is too much of a shaming culture on the internet. The point of shaming and bullying people is supposed to be this bro idea that bullying works but it doesn’t because 99% of the time the bully doesn’t actually understand the other persons point of view or their needs. Instead of shaming people into being right guys should try harder to understand each others views. There is an over competitive culture in the male gender tha
QFT
I'd add that when we dont understand why so many people behave a certain way then the failure is in our understanding. All the name calling, bullying, dehumanising etc of them is a manifestation of our failure.
