Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

1123212331235123712382082

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,997 ✭✭✭.Donegal.


    Utterly pathetic accusation but when you’ve made a show of yourself posting absolute nonsense and you’re trying to say face you have nothing else to fall back on.

    Here’s antisemitic Reuters reporting it

    Biden, a former vice president and senator, has long been a top recipient of the pro-Israel lobby, receiving over $5.2 million in support over the last 34 years, the most of any Congressional recipient, according to OpenSecrets.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/pressure-rises-biden-democrats-reject-aipac-funds-2024-03-12/

    Here is what AIPAC is

    AIPAC, whose website lists its core mission as "building bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel Relationship," is the best-known contingent of PACS and lobbying groups dedicated to maintaining a positive relationship between the United States and Israel.

    AIPAC platform includes "supporting security assistance to Israel," "promoting peace," and "countering Iran's aggression and nuclear weapons quest." AIPAC is also known for sponsoring travel of US politicians and aides to Israel.

    I guess Obama is antisemitic as well

    The former president Barack Obama, in his 2020 memoir, detailed the threat Aipac presents to Israel’s critics, who risked “being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election”, he wrote.

    You’re no better than an Israeli government official who claims antisemitism at every criticism. You really have made a show of yourself posting Biden did all he could on Gaza and now you’re doubling down making a show of yourself. Utterly pathetic stuff. Embarrassing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭RickBlaine


    If the SC declare the tarrifs illegal, I wonder could companies then sue the federal government to refund the amount paid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,507 ✭✭✭The Raging Bile Duct


    Great reply. I must say, the accusation of anti-semitism to your original post was completely baffling.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 46,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The felon gets trolled by Newsom...

    1000050380.png 1000050381.png

    ...& Jim McGovern...

    1000050382.png

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Unlikely, for two reasons.

    1. It's New York City. Not exactly representative of the US. It's worth noting that of the other two winners, Sherrill did a lot better than expected against Ciattarelli, a Trumpist, and Spanberger near-demolished Earle-Sears, a more traditional Republican. Both democrats were establishment-backed moderates. I suspect neither of those two would have beaten Mandami in New York or Harris in California, but they won where it counted.
    2. The true turning point is the change in US electoral mechanism. New York City is one of those regions which have recently (since 2021) moved to ranked choice voting, Mandami won after the third round of counts (Though he was leading for all three). We get better electoral systems, we get better representation. We are far from achieving critical mass, but though the change is glacial, like a glacier, the change was always moving forward. At least until Tuesday.

    So was Illinois' move in 2021. But as Peregrinus says, both parties don't exactly try to hide it when it's done, and both parties tend to object when a move to a more representative voting system makes its way onto a ballot.

    I am not defending Republicans. I have the joy of living in one of the most gerrymandered districts in the country, and heaven help me, my congressional representative is Chip Roy, my vote against him as a moderate city dweller is routinely lost in the sea of conservative rural votes I'm connected to (Look up TX 21st District). I want to see the system fixed, not continue on a tit for tat competition to see who can gerrymander the most, and Prop 50 absolutely does not do anything positive for the situation.

    Post edited by Manic Moran on


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    A good, informative post, but I take serious exception to your last line. It eliminates the idea that there are those who believe the process is more important than liking the result. Gerrymandering bad. More gerrymandering more bad. I don’t believe that is a party-specific statement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,703 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    One party proposed a federal ban on gerrymandering, and one party voted en banc against it. Which one was which, do you think?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,703 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    It's natural born citizens. US citizens born overseas can run



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Prop 50 appears to really bother you, but wasn`t Trump rambling about Republicans deserving to win 5 more seats because he won the biggliest ever vote in the 2024 Presidential election the catalyst for Prop 50. Republican reps, par for the course, fell all over themselves to grant him his wish and passed legislation in August doing so.

    Now I may have missed it, but I don`t recall you being any way put out by that Texas legislation - where unlike California the citizens of Texas did not get to vote on - so why is Prop 50 now bothering you if the Texas legislation - which was the catalyst for Prop 50 - didn`t.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,703 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Not to mention that Congress isn't adhering to the Constitution with respect to the number of seats per population. The large states are massively underrepresented, which means a lot less representation for Democratic voters



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 4,711 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    He described himself in the speech last night as an immigrant. Naturalised citizens appear to be excluded. That's why Elon Musk can't run.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,617 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Gerrymandering is bad: of course it is. But a statement that general ignores the context in which the current situation is happening. One party is weaponising gerrymandering to tilt the next election result. The other is gerrymandering to limit or negate the impact of that.

    The Republicans care not a jot for precedent, tradition, decency etc… and the Democrats have frequently gotten their asses handed to them by refusing to fight fire with fire. Obviously, in an ideal world, there would be no need to do so and there'd be widespread reform of things like voting maps to make them as fair, representative and non-partisan as possible (sadly an increasing improbability in the hyper-charged partisan landscape of the modern US). That is not happening, and frankly the only way for the Democrats to respond to Republican games is to play by the same rules. That should only be an emergency measure until more meaningful reform can happen - but to sit there and do nothing all but ensures the future is tilted artifically in the Republicans' favour.

    When these things are done as a direct counter action to what the Republicans are doing, it's a totally different ballgame than if it was Democrats manipulating things off their own bat. I'm no fan of Newsom and think he'd be a poor presidential candidate if it comes to that, but no questioning this was a savvy and justified move - once which Californian voters have now given the nod to.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I think it's a bit like gun control legislation attempts. If the proposed bill did only what the headline item says (background checks, end gerrymandering) there might be more chance of movement, but things like the Freedom to Vote Act seem to always have additional provisions. You may personally think they are all good provisions, but each additional requirement increases the chance of objection.

    It would be nice if a party, and I accept it is likely to be the Democrats right now, submitted a bill which said "congressional districts shall be drawn by bipartisan (or non partisan) methods" and nothing else. If it works in their favor, then the rest is easier to pass later. But unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the American way.

    Until then, we have to look at the state level movements. If red states like Missouri, Ohio or Idaho can do it (and they have), then that is an additional course of movement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,703 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    It's pretty much a given that Republicans will vote against any measure that improves people's ability to vote. Comparing voting reform to gun control legislation is a bit silly. What negative impact does improving voting access have on a person? It would actually improve the Republican party, since their candidates would have to compete on the merits of their ideas again, rather than relying on cheating to win.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act

    What's objectionable here, from an objective viewpoint? There's nothing partisan in this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,804 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Just to clarify: Illinois redistricted in 2021 after the decennial census (as is the agreement in most states who do it). Not like Texas who are doing it much earlier.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,127 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    He is naturalized and not a US citizen from birth so is therefore ineligible to run for president. A person born to US citizens abroad can probably run, but that isn't the case for Mamdami who became a US citizen less than 10 years ago.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,850 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Nancy Pelosi announces she won't seek re-election in the mid-terms and will retire in January 2027.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3xw3dw0zxo

    Good. For too long she's been helping hold the Democrats back.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,196 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,600 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    About bloody time, she is 85

    She has made enough from her insider trading now I guess.

    75 should be retirement age for all public officials, Trump included.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,661 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Works for me. Be about 1/2 the Senate either over the age, or a year away. Frickin Chuck Grassley is 96, he's been in politics since I was born, a long time ago.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,149 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    You must be completely outraged by the various ways Trump and his family are profiting from the presidency, right?

    I actually agree that she should have retired a long time ago... But the selective ignoring of corruption from Trump fans is wild.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Agreed - but……

    She handled Trump brilliantly. Absolutely schooled him in his first shut down and made him look like a fool (I know, I know…)

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,015 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Why say uniformly that all politicians should retire at 75, and yet only mention allegations of insider trading of Pelosi and not all policitians, such as Trump?

    Well, I ask why…. but we all know the answer.

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,536 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    If Democrats had more like Pelosi and less Schumers and Jeffries' they would be in much better place.

    Pelosi was only person to treat Trump as he should have been treated.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    That doesn't deny that the redistricting was done in a deliberately gerrymandering manner. The state lost a district as a result of the census but still managed to turn two republican districts blue-dominant. Illinois has been on the "most gerrymandered" list for many years.

    Half the states are gerrymandered to hell and back, almost all of them managed to do it during "routine" redistricting. The when is fairly irrelevant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,850 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I wouldn't go that far. While she may have publicly displayed her contempt of Trump, it was also pretty performative and didn't really change anything. All the while she's been just as instrumental as Schumer and Jeffries in trying to keep the Democrats in that "not as bad as the GOP" territory rather than becoming a party people actually want to get behind and support.

    Not to mention digging her heels in and not properly codifying abortion rights into law, then when SCOTUS overturned Roe V Wade she was one of the first ones to send out campaign donation emails about how she would use those funds to fight for abortion rights.

    This line about her reciting a poem following the overturning of Roe V Wade says it all;

    Distraught internet viewers slammed the oration, decrying what they saw as "meaningless" theatrics in lieu of practical action.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,084 ✭✭✭✭threeball


    65 is plenty. When you're on the way out you shouldn't be deciding policies that younger people have to live with for decades. Out by 65, no share portfolios whilst in office. Wage capped at 2 times the average salary. Lets see who the fcukers work for then.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,617 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    An apt moment to remember one of the most mortifying moments in the history of Ireland-US relations: Nancy Pelosi reading Bono's atrocious St Patrick's Day 'poem' / limerick:



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,696 ✭✭✭TinyMuffin


    more winning.

    IMG_1742.jpeg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    what insider trading was she charged with? Anything like the Trump crypto business?



Advertisement
Advertisement