Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 18/03/25

They don't even try. They didn't even wait for the votes to all be counted before conceding, as soon as the networks called the election, Harris called to concede democracy to a fascist. and wouldn't even dream of advocating for voters to make sure all valid votes are counted

Yes I would have an issue with it, a dictator ruling over it's people is not a good thing and anyone that thinks otherwise shouldn't be taken seriously at all.

So the 2024 election was stolen but the 2020 one wasn't? Gotcha

Whilst the orders Trump is barking are, well barking mad in some cases, I do have to hand it to him from an optics perspective.
He’s clear, he’s fast, he’s -from a persona perspective- taking no sh1te .

If he had capable people behind him, he might even get somewhere .

But this is the sort of pageantry America voted for- this feel good, I’m John Wayne, no one messes with me sort of loud mouthed American bullsh1t talk.

If there’s a lesson for the Democrats, it’s frankly sh1t or get off the fence. Biden and Harris could have achieved so much and possibly prevented a whole lot of bad from happening - and instead they just followed the teleprompter and did what the back room boys and girls told them to do.

You might not like trumps politics- in fairness outside of America who does?- but over the top posturing is kindof needed right now - the alternatives such as Putin, are far less palatable in my eyes

And in today's US, we see the same playbook, only a few different labels:-

They knew that they were not strong enough to conquer a unified country, so they split Germany into small groups. They used prejudice as a practical weapon to cripple the nation. Of course that was not easy to do. They had to work hard to do it. You see, we human beings are not born with prejudices, always they are made for us. Made by someone who wants something. Remember that, when you hear this kind of talk. Somebody's going to get something out if it, and it isn't going to be you. This is not classroom theory. I saw it happen.

Let us remember these words when we hear Trump and his ilk speak of leftists, an invasion of criminal migrants and LGBT people. It's all a deliberate effort to divide, polarise and distract.

They will always seek a target, and when the current targets have been vanquished, the laser pointer will move on.

if his reason is to show how the system worked back then re methods used , ‘cover up’ if it did happen , etc to beat the Demos yet again then. ‘Fair. Enough’ . But if he wanted to improve on how these things are investigated to ‘ get to the truth and how to improve on the current system he should have released the Epstein files

It looks like military aircraft are allowed. Guardian: The government of Colombia has agreed to all of President Trump’s terms, including the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on US military aircraft, without limitation or delay.

Where did you read no military?

It does, but as Freeman said, the best way to stop thinking about everything as a race-based issue is to stop talking about race.

That wasn’t how the question was put to him though. The question was ‘how do we stop racism?’, the interviewer asking in a more general context, to which Morgan’s reply was to stop talking about it, meaning that race shouldn’t be an issue in American society, much like the way he makes the point that ‘black history’ is American history. It’s much easier to understand what he means in that context when he says ‘black history month’ is insulting - that what he regards as his history, is reduced to a month. Regardless of it being taken out of context by people in an attempt to suggest one black man’s opinion is more legitimate because he appears to agree with their opinions, what was intended to be a simple but profound statement, aged like fine milk:

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2023/0818/1400440-freeman-calls-for-people-to-embrace-black-history/

https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/10/18/donald-trump-morgan-freeman-says-america-doesnt-need-old-white-men-running-the-country/


For an actor who claims that those who don’t remember their history are bound to repeat it (paraphrasing Sartre, I know), you’d imagine he would at least be mindful of the circumstances surrounding Hattie McDaniel’s Oscar win:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oscars-first-black-winner-accepted-774335/

California mandated that a certain number of corporate directors of any company headquartered in California be women (exact number depended on how many directors were on the board). There were two ways of complying with the law.

1. Leave California.  https://natlawreview.com/article/academicians-find-firms-all-male-boards-have-left-california
2. Find women to put on the board. The primary qualification being that they be women, not that they be particularly good at the job. 
   

Leaving California isn’t a means of complying with the law, it’s avoiding complying with the law, and in order to be considered for a role, the question of whether or not a person would be particularly good or not at the job had nothing to do with the law. It simply came down to either promoting women from within the organisation, or attempting to attract external candidates who are women. As it turns out, it wasn’t that difficult when publicly traded companies put their collective minds to it:

The law was effective in bringing more gender diversity to California boardrooms. By September 2022, women represented more than 33.33% of board members in the state, more than doubling the 15.5% of board seats held by women in 2018.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2023/12/18/fewer-women-on-corporate-boards-after-california-law-deemed-unconstitutional/

Any woman appointed to a board in California after 2018 then was tainted by the possibility that the only reason they were in that position was because of their gender. Even if they actually were the best possible candidate, that taint still stood, as being the diversity hire, not the best hire. Ever since anyone stood up and said "I'm going to appoint X type person" before looking at their actual qualifications, such as Reagan trying to find a female SCOTUS judge, people so appointed to their positions are undermined before they get out the gate. How does such undermining help address the root problems? "The only reason you are where you are is because of your characteristic, not your capability. That this law had to be passed validates my perception that you can't do the job."

Tainted by whom? Someone who for whom it doesn’t occur to them to ask the same question of men. That’s why the law was introduced, because even since Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, the perception that a woman was unsuitable for a role solely on the basis that they are a woman, amounted to unlawful discrimination based on sex:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

A similar law was passed reserving seats on boards for members of "under-represented communities". The same results happened.

Both laws were later determined to be unconstitutional.

The reasons why the laws were determined to be unconstitutional are important:

In Crest v. Padilla I, Judicial Watch — the same plaintiff as in Crest v. Padilla II — mounted a facial challenge to SB 826, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. The court first observed that SB 826 creates a gender-based quota system that “affects two or more ‘similarly situated’ groups in an unequal manner.” After establishing that men and women are similarly situated, the court applied the strict scrutiny test to assess the constitutionality of SB 826. Under strict scrutiny, the state needed to show that SB 826: (1) satisfied a compelling government interest; (2) was necessary to satisfy that interest; and (3) was narrowly tailored to meet that government interest. The court held that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to meet any of the three prongs of the strict scrutiny test.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/06/12/california-gender-board-diversity-law-is-held-unconstitutional/

Bill 979 failed the strict scrutiny test for the same reasons.

Women and minorities deserve opportunity to succeed even if they're mediocre. Disabled, too (who are under attack via the anti-DEI stuff but that doesn't make the press as much.)

They do. However, it’s not that those opportunities are reserved for men, it’s that women and minorities and people with disabilities just aren’t considered worthy of the opportunities by virtue of assumptions made about their competency and ability based upon their characteristics. The reason people with disabilities don’t get as much press is because they’ve been suckered too into thinking that the US is a meritocratic society - buying into the lie that the reason for their particular circumstances is because they didn’t or don’t or haven’t worked hard enough. And it is a lie, though one that is so ingrained that it promotes outliers as inspiration for the majority, as though those outliers are representative the majority:

https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/management-leadership/dyslexic-ceos/


Bill Gates for example is endlessly quotable, but were it not for the many more significant social advantages he had over other people with dyslexia, virtually nobody would be aware of his existence:

“I failed in some subjects in exam, but my friend passed in all. Now he is an engineer in Microsoft and I am the owner of Microsoft.”

https://www.accesssuccess-sw.co.uk/famous-dyslexics/amp/

Why just reserve that to majority demographic men? And, as Michelle Obama said, most of the people she knew on corporate BOT's were pretty mediocre.

That deserves context I think:

This is a dangerous world for girls, said the former FLOTUS (First Lady of the US) and mother of two young women. And if we turn a blind eye to leaders who treat women with disrespect, then we're all complicit. (See what I mean?)

Why put up with mediocre men as leaders when excellence is demanded of women?

"I sat at a lot of tables with men who had more money and more degrees and more confidence, who I thought were saying things that were wrong that I assumed I just didn't understand. Ten years on they're still talking rubbish. It's time for them to listen." 

Leadership, asked the Dame? So Ms Obama defined it the way US presidents once aspired to be. 

"Knowledge, intelligence, reading a lot. You've got to know history... You can't lead off the cuff." (Make you think of anyone?) 

"You have to have perspective and have opinions based on facts, and have experience of the world."

Before she goes on to claim:

The obvious question for Michelle Obama was whether she's interested in running for the Oval Office. So she asked it herself, as she riffed on her choice as to whether to support her husband's run for the presidency.

"I decided to support my husband because not supporting him would just be have a selfish act.

"I know Barack. He's always smart, one of the the smartest person in the room. He had decency, compassion and empathy. He had everything I would have asked for in a leader." (Big, knowing applause.)

"To not support him would simply be because it would be hard for me and my kids. And we'll be fine. I had to sacrifice for the good of other people. I can't just hold on to this [family life] because I'm afraid."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44869502.amp

Obviously she doesn’t perceive her own husband as being mediocre, but when the opportunity presents itself, she chooses not to take it. That’s quite distinct from someone who is deprived of the opportunity to make that choice in the first place.

The republicans try to steal every election

They stole the 2000 election when GW Bush's brother blocked the recount of votes (we know now that Gore would have won if the recount had happened)

The difference between the claims by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen, and the evidence provided by Greg Palast that the GOP has been suppressing votes and millions of likely democrat voters were disenfranchised last year, is that one of these claims is actually supported by evidence, and we can see the laws and measures that have been used in broad daylight to rig these contests in favour of the republicans.

Trump challenged the 2020 election in the courts and lost every case. The democrats are too fuckin weak to even mention that millions of their own voters are having their rights trampled on systematically by the GOP.

we need a bit of ‘joined up thinking ‘here . Why ? Because Musk was not born in the US he can NEVER become president of the US but ALL CHILDREN born in the US can . Ho wait ………. that bloody EO Might change things a bit here !!!!!!!!

TBF it does solve the problem of the price of eggs.

No eggs.

Maybe they released the owner of Silk Road to create an eggs black market.