Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

banie01

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332773351018942465

Fully turned on Fox now. Burning bridges as quick as possible.

Trumpist's and other right wingers are abandoning Fox and even Twitter for alternative safe spaces

It's mad, Democrats, leftists and most same people were laughed at for their outrage at Trump's lunacy and actions.
Trumpist's boast about tasting libtard tears, but when they lose?
When votes go against them?
When the courts flow the votes?
When a return to American values and hegemony is presented?

Rather than debate? It's screaming confrontation!
Rather than engage on policy, politics or practice? It's screaming denial!
When Facts and Truth are required by media outlets, and narratives questioned looking for proof?

They run off to Parler, to OANN and other right wing propaganda channels.
Moving to an echo chamber and completely excluding other views rather than actually refuting them.

Absolute powder keg of misanthropic, racist, fascist hate.
That is given credence by "Presidential" support!
Obama referred to white men being giving victim status by the GOP...
It's far worse, they are being portrayed as exploited, and abandoned...
Yet their Saviour?
Is the party responsible for much of that in the 1st place...?

Absolutely mental!

Cody montana

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332773351018942465

Fully turned on Fox now. Burning bridges as quick as possible.

Hating on Fox?
Trump is a liberal.

pixelburp

Time and time again, evidence points to how American conservatives and right wingers are more easily "triggered" and resistant to ideological pushback than the "liberal" contingent they so relish putting the boot into. Reading a Trump tweet spitting at Fox for having the gall to even question Dear Leader, rather than indulge in armchair authoritarianism, is as perverse as it is amusing.

abff

I think I’ve kind of figured it out. If you want to know what’s the latest scam thought up by Trump and his acolytes, just listen to what they are accusing their opponents of doing. Can it really be that simple?

Capt'n Midnight

abff wrote: »

I think I’ve kind of figured it out. If you want to know what’s the latest scam thought up by Trump and his acolytes, just listen to what they are accusing their opponents of doing. Can it really be that simple?

Yes. It means they can try whataboutery as a 'defence'.

Every accusation is an admission.

What.Now

abff wrote: »

I think I’ve kind of figured it out. If you want to know what’s the latest scam thought up by Trump and his acolytes, just listen to what they are accusing their opponents of doing. Can it really be that simple?

It is that simple. Right from the start of the previous election. Oh look over there Crooked Hillary

aloyisious

Gotta admit this, for attention grabbing, Trump's latest stunt will probably get an encore from his fan base. "Biden must prove he got 80 Million votes before entering the White House".

I'd like the USSC to tell his legal people they must provide witness statements from at least 5,000 of the 28,000 voters they claim sent in fraudulent postal votes before mid-day on Tuesday next to support their claim before the court hears their latest case against the vote result.

StringerBell

Fox are now firmly his competition in his future career. They are the largest MSM organisation out there, useful to him while in office but when he is going up against them for ratings in the near future it's only obvious to him to tear them apart now.

Tell me how

StringerBell wrote: »

Fox are now firmly his competition in his future career. They are the largest MSM organisation out there, useful to him while in office but when he is going up against them for ratings in the near future it's only obvious to him to tear them apart now.

The district attorneys of New York, Maryland and Washington would beg to differ.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Time and time again, evidence points to how American conservatives and right wingers are more easily "triggered" and resistant to ideological pushback than the "liberal" contingent they so relish putting the boot into. Reading a Trump tweet spitting at Fox for having the gall to even question Dear Leader, rather than indulge in armchair authoritarianism, is as perverse as it is amusing.

The thing is that Conservatives tend to judge people as people whereas liberals* judge people by and large by their actions. Of course there are exceptions to this general rule but by and large it holds true.

It's why the American right who fulminated against Bill Clinton for his adultery are happy to fawn over Trump in spite of, or even because of his licentious activity. Same for Christians. They worship a deity who was notoriously kind to children and they're delighted that their champion is caging them. Trump is one of them so they don't care what he does. To them, he is "good".

It's the standard "Us" and "Them" dichotomy. Conservatism exists to preserve and concentrate power in the hands of a chosen few and is therefore an anti-democratic ideology.  The one cardinal sin that Conservatives cannot abide or tolerate is the questioning of the ordained order or, even worse, advocating change. Conservatism has had to give ground over the centuries to trade unions for workers' rights and to liberals for the vote. They cannot remove the vote so they pervert the voting process as much as they can. In Europe, one might use the terms "Aristocracy" and the "Proletariat". The former despise the latter.

This begs the question why the latter therefore vote for the former. The answer is the same dichotomy played out with different labels, ie people hating immigrants, those who claim welfare, trade unionists, liberals, etc. The only line that Trump can't cross is to question the natural order as laid out by Conservatism. Since he is of the elite, he simply won't do this. Bill Gates operates numerous philanthropic enterprises so he is an acceptable target for vitriol. The poor are poor because they deserve it while the rich are the best, the brightest and the most hard working. The ultimate refutation of this maxim is someone like AOC who worked her way up without an old boys' network, inherited wealth or handouts. A portion of the white working class cannot bear to see someone like her get ahead while the party they vote for has been stripping them of their wealth, opportunities and dignity for generations.

Goodness knows the Democrats are a long, long way off being perfect but at least they somewhat resemble their namesake. The Republican party hasn't the merest modicum of Republicanism about it. It has more in common with a third world despotic dictator's entourage than a modern political party.

*Used here in the English sense as opposed to the odd American definition which equates to not being on the far right.

Igotadose

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

<snip good thoughts>

This begs the question why the latter therefore vote for the former. The answer is the same dichotomy played out with different labels, ie people hating immigrants, those who claim welfare, trade unionists, liberals, etc. The only line that Trump can't cross is to question the natural order as laid out by Conservatism. Since he is of the elite, he simply won't do this. Bill Gates operates numerous philanthropic enterprises so he is an acceptable target for vitriol.

<snip more good thoughts}

And yet, Bill Gates is the ultimate conservative ideal. Modest upbringing (father a lawyer). College dropout working out of his dorm room. Mega-successful predatory capitalist. Genius-level intellect. And widely hated by Conservatives. Wouldn't they want their children to grow up like him?

Funny, not that long ago the Left hated Gates for his business practices, remember the MS antitrust suits? Now he's more of a hero due to his philanthropy, sourced from the benefits of long-term predatory capitalism and anti-free market behavior.

FD: ex-MS employee of +10 years experience. Fan of BillG since he left the company and is using his wealth for good. A lot of that I attribute to the influence of Melinda Gates, Bill was a tech bro before that was a thing.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's the standard "Us" and "Them" dichotomy. Conservatism exists to preserve and concentrate power in the hands of a chosen few and is therefore an anti-democratic ideology. The one cardinal sin that Conservatives cannot abide or tolerate is the questioning of the ordained order or, even worse, advocating change. Conservatism has had to give ground over the centuries to trade unions for workers' rights and to liberals for the vote. They cannot remove the vote so they pervert the voting process as much as they can. In Europe, one might use the terms "Aristocracy" and the "Proletariat". The former despise the latter.

And just to illustrate your point, along comes Jacob Rees-Mogg with this pearl of wisdom wherein he takes the mantle of monarch upon himself and the rest of the Tory government.

To be fair, he's being ratioed to death in the replies.

ancapailldorcha

Igotadose wrote: »

And yet, Bill Gates is the ultimate conservative ideal. Modest upbringing (father a lawyer). College dropout working out of his dorm room. Mega-successful predatory capitalist. Genius-level intellect. And widely hated by Conservatives. Wouldn't they want their children to grow up like him?

Funny, not that long ago the Left hated Gates for his business practices, remember the MS antitrust suits? Now he's more of a hero due to his philanthropy, sourced from the benefits of long-term predatory capitalism and anti-free market behavior.

FD: ex-MS employee of +10 years experience. Fan of BillG since he left the company and is using his wealth for good. A lot of that I attribute to the influence of Melinda Gates, Bill was a tech bro before that was a thing.

I disagree. He might have been had he kept himself and his wealth to himself and his family but he's been vocal about global issues like climate change and the importance of philanthropy. Climate change by its nature demands change which is what Conservatives abhor most. Any sort of giving money, especially to non-white people abroad is a huge no-no for many Conservatives.

Gates is no angel but the fact that he built himself a global name, company and fortune from nothing and now carries a lot of influence around the world. The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" line is intended to justify the elite's current position as it implies that that's the reason for their wealth. It's fine for a working class person to start a business and make some money as long as they go nowhere near the 1% club.

There's a reason why Trump and the American right despise Gates and this is likely it.

duploelabs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. He might have been had he kept himself and his wealth to himself and his family but he's been vocal about global issues like climate change and the importance of philanthropy. Climate change by its nature demands change which is what Conservatives abhor most. Any sort of giving money, especially to non-white people abroad is a huge no-no for many Conservatives.

Gates is no angel but the fact that he built himself a global name, company and fortune from nothing and now carries a lot of influence around the world. The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" line is intended to justify the elite's current position as it implies that that's the reason for their wealth. It's fine for a working class person to start a business and make some money as long as they go nowhere near the 1% club.

There's a reason why Trump and the American right despise Gates and this is likely it.

To a lesser extent, AOC would fit into this catagory

pixelburp

duploelabs wrote: »

To a lesser extent, AOC would fit into this catagory

As much as we try not to attack the poster, I still to this day recall a certain Trump booster insisting that heiress Ivanka Trump was a more admirable American icon than AOC; in fact I believe they mocked the latter for working in a bar to fund her college degree. The cognitive dissonance that informs the American conservative ideology could power countries if it could be tapped.

So the recount in Wisconsin has been completed and Biden got an extra votes, and trump I believe has another first in having lost two recounts

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-madison-wisconsin-7aef88488e4a801545a13cf4319591b0

Water John

Dorcha, some excellent posts, would quibble on one point. Philantrophy has fiitted in very well with capitalism in the US over the time. With it, the capitalist gets to choose who is the deserving and the undeserving. Who needs social support is not decided by the state.

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

Dorcha, some excellent posts, would quibble on one point. Philantrophy has fiitted in very well with capitalism in the US over the time. With it, the capitalist gets to choose who is the deserving and the undeserving. Who needs social support is not decided by the state.

I don't want to go too far down this road as it might derail the thread but I'll respond here.

Sure. You're correct but you're talking about a very, very insular demographic many of whom have no idea what it means to have to work for someone else, worry about affording the essentials or have their lives limited in some other way by not having money. More so in the US with their healthcare issues.

To be honest, these people are as likely to plough money into conserving some sort of obscure Sumatran marsupial than the struggling families 5 minutes drive away.

The ultimate problem with philanthropy is that it's nowhere near enough. Useful, certainly but the welfare state exists because it has to. Here in the UK, we had a centagenarian, Tom Moore raise millions for the NHS during the pandemic. I did a bit of number crunching and came to the conclusion that the NHS could run for a few minutes on the money he raised. It's a £120-billion a year state monolith for a reason.

Philanthropy hasn't "fitted in", it has supplemented. And that's the best case scenario. What if our billionaire thinks that 5G causes cancer or that vaccines cause autism? What if they think women should be housekeepers and mothers and nothing more? What if they devote a sizeable portion or their fortune and influence to spreading misinformation like the Kochs, Murdoch or indeed the current POTUS?

Water John

Totally agree. Donald however took it one step further and made himself the beneficiary not the giver of philantrophy.

paleoperson

Water John wrote: »

Dorcha, some excellent posts, would quibble on one point. Philantrophy has fiitted in very well with capitalism in the US over the time. With it, the capitalist gets to choose who is the deserving and the undeserving. Who needs social support is not decided by the state.

And they will choose stupidly and ignorantly because they won't have a clue who is deserving or not, that's the tiny percentage of them who choose philanthropy at all.

aloyisious

The outcome of today's USSC hearing on whether the Trump administration has the authority to exclude immigrants living in the U.S illegally from the base population number of the 2020 census that is used for the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives looks likely to be of equal importance as the senate run-off elections in Georgia next Jan. If the USSC decides he has the authority, then he may be able reduce the number of state representatives in congress. I don't see people in congress liking this idea too much, especially the Reps from the states likely to lose out long term. The citizens of those states would also lose out big time where it comes to having an influence on items before the house and getting a share of the pie.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Totally agree. Donald however took it one step further and made himself the beneficiary not the giver of philantrophy.

A clear definition of what philantrophy is NOT about.

Brussels Sprout

aloyisious wrote: »

The outcome of today's USSC hearing on whether the Trump administration has the authority to exclude immigrants living in the U.S illegally from the base population number of the 2020 census that is used for the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives looks likely to be of equal importance as the senate run-off elections in Georgia next Jan. If the USSC decides he has the authority, then he may be able reduce the number of state representatives in congress. I don't see people in congress liking this idea too much, especially the Reps from the states likely to lose out long term. The citizens of those states would also lose out big time where it comes to having an influence on items before the house and getting a share of the pie.

How would anyone be able to tell who is and who is not an illegal immigrant since they were not able to get the citizenship question onto the census in the end as far as I recall?

Quin_Dub

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

How would anyone be able to tell who is and who is not an illegal immigrant since they were not able to get the citizenship question onto the census in the end as far as I recall?

Not sure if the question was actually physically included or not , they lost the case to be allowed *use" the question , but it might actually have been there on the form itself.

If it wasn't there then you are absolutely right... but I have a sneaking suspicion that the actual question was there.

Having said that - Who the hell would answer it knowing what it's going to be used for?

aloyisious

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

How would anyone be able to tell who is and who is not an illegal immigrant since they were not able to get the citizenship question onto the census in the end as far as I recall?

A case was taken against the Trump Admin in the USSC months ago because of its attempt to change the wording of the census to prevent illegal aliens being included in it - due to their physical presence in houses/homes in the U.S while the household form was being completed on census-day. Trump & Co see aliens not having applied/completed citizenship paperwork as illegal aliens. The USSC threw out the Admin attempt back then.

Trump then signed an executive order to get past the USSC ruling and AFAIK/understand that is what the USSC has before it for decision on legality. The part of deprivation of congress representation in some states is part of that matter. It's being mooted that Texas is amongst the states liable to lose seats in congress. Trump has taken it unto himself to decide who is an illegal alien.

Ref the filling-in of the form, the legal obligation to fill in the form might apply, same as here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-bid-to-exclude-undocumented-immigrants-from-reapportionment-arrives-at-supreme-court/ar-BB1brKlr

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

A case was taken against the Trump Admin in the USSC months ago because of its attempt to change the wording of the census to prevent illegal aliens being included in it - due to their physical presence in houses/homes in the U.S while the household form was being completed on census-day. Trump & Co see aliens not having applied/completed citizenship paperwork as illegal aliens. The USSC threw out the Admin attempt back then.

Trump then signed an executive order to get past the USSC ruling and AFAIK/understand that is what the USSC has before it for decision on legality. The part of deprivation of congress representation in some states is part of that matter. It's being mooted that Texas is amongst the states liable to lose seats in congress.

I would love to see every illegal alien in the US go on strike for a week.

See how quickly things fall apart when they have no one to work in shops, fast food, restaurants, factories etc.

aloyisious

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I would love to see every illegal alien in the US go on strike for a week.

See how quickly things fall apart when they have no one to work in shops, fast food, restaurants, factories etc.

The Hotels....

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

The Hotels....

Certain hotels and golf courses ran by a certain (soon to be ex) president would definitely have issues with providing a service if this were to happen.

Brussels Sprout

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I would love to see every illegal alien in the US go on strike for a week.

See how quickly things fall apart when they have no one to work in shops, fast food, restaurants, factories etc.

The supermarkets would be empty of fruit & vegetables within the week.

Detritus70

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The supermarkets would be empty of fruit & vegetables within the week.

Much worse would be meat running out.