ex-President Trump

It's only darwinism if it happens before they successfully reproduce

Trump can sell his DJT stocks from September 19

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/busin...

I'm morbidly curious to hear what economic policies of DJT you're in a favor of. I've read you're mainly voting for him because of this (but then I thought I also read you don't live in America? Maybe I'm confusing you w/ someone else). I have a difficult time finding any intelligent economic policy of his. I'm even open-minded about tariffs, but the scatter shot approach to how he handled tariffs and the trade war in China, doesn't bring w/ it much confidence he can do better next time. Even the Cato institute (about as conservative as you can get), called it a mess.

So if it's not about the culture wars and racism to you, but mostly about the economy, would you mind providing some summaries of what you find positive? ty!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump - 2016
"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

Sadly I do.

How do you give good faith and benefit of the doubt to your fellow man, that this isn't mostly about racism and an attempt to turn America into a theocracy (or at the very least, nationalize a lot of Christian ideology), and listen, or read most of what Trump says and think, "Man, what a smart dude... this guy is obviously intelligent, can clearly articulate his ideas (very important to be able to do this as a leader), and is looking to improve the lives of most Americans, not just himself."

I'm sincerely asking, because if I hear ANY democratic leader speaking like that, there's no way I'd support them. Never in a million years.

I don't want to just dismiss it as cult "think".

Now that you mention it, I heard one too!

I am not voting in American elections as I am not american (my father is) and I repeatedly stated that my preferred outcome is no trifecta, so given the Senate has like 80% chance of being republican, gop senate and harris potus is ok with me.

Trump POTUS GOP senate Dem house would be ok (probably even better because of judges ) as well but vanishingly small chances of that happening.

If I have to choose a trifecta, I would prefer a republican one though.

That said general deregulation of all sectors of the economy is a good economic policy. Interrupting and potentially reversing environmental bullshit in particular would be very good.

Tariffs are always bad but unfortunately democrats are on board with them as well.

Some culture war stuff I am 100% on the right: wokism is cancer for example. DEI should be completed abolished from the public sector and complete racial blindness be the only rule for the public and private sector.

For immigration I want no quota but a filter on quality, something neither party asks for.

I am on the right on judges as well, like 9 Gorsuch SCOTUS would be optimal.

I am pro Ukraine though so Harris would help there I suppose, and deficits are too high and a trifecta (even the preferable one, the republican one) would never fix debt , rather spend on their preferences (tax cuts, which are better than democratic preferences, still unacceptable at this stage of deficit and debt without concurring cuts to expenses).

Keep in mind that in general not doing anything at all is in the top1% of outcomes. So when you ask "why do you think republicans are better for the economy" I don't need to list positive changes, not making thing worse is already a dream scenario. Like a party proposing to never introduce any new law for the whole congress, and spend the entire time only removing existing laws (and doing other procedural stuff) would be better by a large margin than any congress in American history.

I think the state is usually the source of all societal problems and state "solutions" much more often than not make problems worse.

Which is why I want a gridlocked government hopefully with senate republicans simply opposing literally every single nominee by Harris to any single seat and never going "across the aisle" on any piece of legislation

Thanks for the explanation.

So have you ever been to America?

My eyebrows always rocket up when people throw around the word deregulation, w/o mentioning specifics. It sounds a little too tribal, rather than well-thought-out. What specifically do you want to deregulate?

What does reversing environmental BS mean?

So basically you want billionaire groomed, Federalist society judges? Why? They aren't ruling on anything in your favor.

"Wokism" isn't really a thing honestly. I'm in CA, which is pretty liberal. "Wokism", whatever it means by Republican standards, is mostly made up. It's not as if society suddenly "woke" up and everything has changed. All that's really happening is people are examining the roles of gender in a more thoughtful way. It's not really going to effect you in any meaningful way.

So essentially you've drank the Kool-Aid that government is bad, and only billionaires know the way.

Think I understand. ty!

Yes I have been in the USA many times.

Hard to answer to "wokism is mostly made up", seems like bait, there is an almost endless list of real life example from the 2020 BLM summer of love to trans issues.

White heterosexual men being discriminated against in insane ways is going to affect me (and more importantly my son) actually.

"What do I want to deregulate", well pretty much everything.

Real life examples abound from wanting to reduce the power of the FDA as much as possible (potentially abolishing it), same with EPA, same with the DoE.

Basically think of how many pages of rules existed in 1880 (for everything combined, the totality of the federal state and local rules that existed in society) and increase a bit because some new stuff exists and that's about the total amount of rules that can make sense.

Green bullshit are all the attempts to force by law the "green transition". Any mention of emission reduction as a societal goal and everything that goes with that.

Federalist society judges , "They aren't going to rule in my favour" you say.

Chevron doctrine in the dustbin, OSHA unconstitutional vaccine mandate blocked, Biden unconstitutional attempt to cancel student debt blocked, affirmative action declared completely unconstitutional. All decisions that agree with my values (and the law) and work in my favour (and that of the people I care about)

It's clear what happened. They presented Trump with mundane test results on covid virus lifetimes on surfaces and how long it takes UV light or disinfectants to denature it. Trump is an idiot and thought this was unexpected or something unique about Covid that deserved further study. But it's just a basic property of viruses or even just proteins and has nothing to do with treating patients. Defending him here is the height of conservative soft bigotry of low expectations.

My theory:

White heterosexual men are being discriminated against? How so?

It sounds pretty much like you've bought the think-tank crafted Republican party line, with all the favorite talking points intact.

So let me ask you a logic question. IF billionaires are funding right-wing think tanks, the assumption is they are doing so to craft legislation in their favor, correct? How does the logic connect for you that billionaires goals, would be the same as yours, and benefit you in the same ways? There's no equal to the right-wing infrastructure on the left. Even if there are some billionaire donors, etc... the actual infrastructure is a fraction of what's occurring on the right.

Just curious how you reconcile these things in your mind.

It’s like the January 6th speech .
“He didn’t say fight like hell .”
Proof Post came in .
“But he didn’t mean it ….”

Pretty hard to follow and know when a guy means it and not , especially when he lies at least half the time .

When your exposure to America is through the lens of right-wing internet dramatics, you turn into Luciom.

Half? That's generous.

I can't reconcile why someone would want to elect a leader with NPD. NPD imho is maybe the worst personality disorder in humans.

If you could only pick between a sociopath and someone w/ NPD as your leader, I'd pick the sociopath every day and twice on sunday. Sociopaths at least have some redeeming leadership qualities, and that's why so many CEO's tend to be on the sociopathic scale. But NPD... no fkn way. These people are clueless, but believe they are geniuses... the worst possible combo.

We have so many white males that are really pissed off. If only they understood that most of the things they're pissed off about economically, are because of the very policies they've voted for. If only.

Anyone ever see the documentary, "The brainwashing of my grandfather?". It's a bit cheesy, but think it provides some visual proof to the angry visceral impact it has on people cognitively. She had a kind grandfather her whole life/ Then after he started watching Fox all day, he became extremely angry, distant, and mean to everyone around him. So she made a pact w/ him to turn the Fox news off, and amazingly after < a month, he returned to his old self. If you're just watching hate all day, of course it's going to impact you negatively at a cognitive level.

What can I say , I’m nice like that even tho some might argue …

If only .

There are more billionaires funding democrats than billionaires funding republicans.

That's uncontroversial and everywhere in the data so I am not sure why you keep talking as if the opposite was true.

Billionaires aren't a monolith, like us they are very different people with very different values and agendas.

Once they secure what they might all have in common (like avoiding a wealth tax) for the rest it's open fighting against them.

What's the logic that makes you think than when Bloomberg donates 400m to democrats he does that with your interest at heart?

When Soros donates to ultra progressive DAs (or to immigration causes) you are happy because you like ultra progressive DAs (or immigration causes), simple as that.

And when hedge fund billionaires donate to republicans to deregulate things, I am happy because I want things to be deregulated.

It's truly insane to claim there isn't the same structure on the democrats side lol.

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-ov...

Top donors from biggest 25
16 Republican (including the top 5)
6 Dem

And no Soros

There are a TON less "American hard leftists" than you imagine, Luc

This is such a weird claim that I've heard w/ an increasing amount over the past 10+ years. You can easily look this info up. Why would the party of big business (republicans), not have more billionaire donors? Just use some basic logic, but if all else fails, google it up.

Actually, they're a monolith on one goal... they want more money. Some can also be ideologues, but even the ideologues want more money.

Are you interested more in truth, or confirmation bias though?

The boogie man Soros, and Bloomberg (who is more a centrist, albeit registered dem), you can look at the other funds they give to and what they are involved in, since both are more on the ideological scale of things. And most dem billionaires are more fundamentally different in that they recognize extreme wealth is not healthy for the American economy. That's why they've even advocated for taxing themselves more - https://www.businessinsider.com/billiona...

"We've updated our tax system before to keep up with changing times, and we need to do it again, starting with raising taxes on people like me," Gates wrote on his blog at the time.

That's exactly what Democrats are planning to propose this week. A plan authored by Sen. Ron Wyden would target the unrealized gains — value that assets like stock accrue — of billionaires every year. It's not quite an outright wealth tax, but it comes close. And it would pay for the social safety net bill Democrats hope to vote on this week that includes expansions to healthcare and childcare for Americans.

While Elon Musk ripped the plan on Twitter, other billionaires from Warren Buffett to George Soros have proposed a wealth tax as a way to combat America's growing wealth gap and fund healthcare and education initiatives. In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, a group of 18 ultrawealthy Americans, including Abigail Disney and members of the Pritzker and Gund families, published an open letter asking presidential candidates to support a moderate wealth tax.

Yeah, there isn't remotely the same infrastructure on the left w/ think tanks vs on the right. The left has spent more money and worked on this more over the last 20 years, but typically this has been at a 3:1 disadvantage. Just google some stuff about the Koch bros think-tank infrastructure (I've been following these guys for over 30 years now - only 1 of them left now), Devos family, Bradleys, Adelson (dead now), Mellon, Singer, Ricketts, etc... it's a long list.

I'd recommend Dark Money, by Meyer as a read, but you can also find a lot of this info online, if you try. It's OVERWHELMINGLY conservative billionaire money. Like, not even remotely close. They do everything they can to conceal their money trails, but if you can find most of it is you try.

https://issueone.org/donors-key-findings...

What do conservative billionaires primarily want? More tax breaks for them, to tip the economic ladder further in their favor, so they have more power, and no rules for their industry (deregulation), this way they can do whatever they want w/o oversight. That's why they hate government, and coincidently, so do you... hmmm.

The "American hard left" is pretty fringe. You live on the internet too much.

I've actually been behind the scenes in union disputes in America. These are with union members that I think most conservatives would consider hard left, because they want living wages, health care, and safe working conditions for their people. What aholes... but any ways... I've known several union presidents that have negotiated during major strikes. And do you know what these aholes consider when they are negotiating? Corporate profit. They consider all sides of the issue, to ensure that the company has the resources, and long term fiscal security to invest and continue to grow in a healthy way. They are not trying to be greedy and go out of their way to consider management and ownerships concerns. I've seen it time and time again. However, I haven't seen or heard the same good will negotiated on the other side. It's just been about profit and increasing shareholder earnings, as if those people working weren't humans, but just cogs in their profit machines. I'm not sure why people are so ready to defend others who treat people like this, but...

we're talking about the same guy who's signature line over the last months of rallies has been about hannibal lector because he didnt know the difference between political asylum and mental asylums.

if you understand that billionaires want different things when donating to different parties, why can’t you understand that they want different things when voting for the same party? you really don’t understand the game if you don’t understand big tent two party politics.

I guess billionaires like buffet, sorrow and dalio , extremely successful (some of the best investor in history) at understanding how corporations and markets works and make money out of it , if they say tax should increase and investing to create affordable education and healthcare is a most , I guess they should be listen too .

I guess they understand where earnings coming from .
Corporations can’t make money if the bottom 70% can’t make enough money from the economy to spend shrug.

And has wealth inequality increaeses , debts going up and gdp going down .