Play Nice 47th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 20: If you want Capitalism, you got it

[Gethelred]

Mod Notice
* Thread monitored actively. User who drag it down will be removed

Specifically: reference to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and its counterpart 'Trumpanzee' or anything similar will no longer be allowed.

Personal attacks are also to be kept to a minimum.

Just a reminder, even if it hasn't come up for a few pages and y'all should know this stuff by now:

This thread is not about Covid, lockdowns, or vaccines. It is about Donald Trump. While Trump was in office during the pandemic and his response to Covid is relevant, there are pertinent threads for you to post your opinions on those things in.

It might also do with reminding a few that when you post on the SRP, you are responsible for backing up/verifying your claims to fact. What this means is that you will be asked time to time to support your claims with evidence, to ensure that this forum is as free of misinfomation as we can make it.

Do not post conspiracy theories on this forum. We have an entire other forum for that.

Thanks all.

As always, please submit ideas for the thread title by tagging Gethelred! We're looking for something new to match the new thread!

USA - 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris (pt II)

Continued from Part 1 - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2024-us-presidential-election-trump-vs-harris.1383317/

www.bigfooty.com

USA - Kamala Harris Concedes. God Help America

www.bigfooty.com

< - Trump 19 is back there.

 

[treeebeard]

Those things were not necessary before. People worked out a long time ago that men and women were different, and nearly everyone was one or the other, that men and women should use different toilets for reasons that were obvious and that it is not a good thing to sexualize children in primary school by exposing them to books which sexualize children, sometimes read to them by men presenting themselves as women.

Those hitherto obvious things have had to be codified in law because there is a group who wish to tell lies about obvious facts, through the use of language eg by re-defining the meanings of existing words like "gender", and inventing new words because they believe that words are facts.

And you know, scientists discovered much new knowledge about DNA and its impact on gender.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Because elections are not morality or virtue contests.

In a race of establishment shills v flawed populism, People rejected the elitist establishment and gambled on a deeply flawed populist.

Which ever way you cut it, it won’t make sense, but accepting it for what it is and viewing it objectively is the only way for dems and the left to recover. Blaming voters and being hateful or embracing elitism will only push voters away.

I think an election held after a previous election where one candidate has continued to refuse to accept the result, even after 61 of his 61 separate legal actions failed or were thrown out, is most certainly a morality contest. How can it not be?

The moment the 61st legal action was refused was the moment Trump needed to say, OK, I concede.

And so, given that he didn't, the only possible reaction (unless someone wants to make the case that 61 failed legal actions is not proof enough) is to say "The guy is not to be taken seriously. He doesn't even agree the principles of a fair contest apply to him".

Even though our politics clearly differ greatly, I know you are a genuine, respectful poster, definitely not a troll. So let me ask you something -

To my mind, all partisanship aside, when a Trump supporter is presented with the fact of Trump's blatant cheating and dishonesty, there are only three possible logical responses:

- No, he's not a blatant cheat, it's all lies and the whole system is rigged against him

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but his opponent was even worse

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but the country is in such dire straits that it's better to vote for a blatant cheat who promises to fix it, even though he has repeatedly shown we are not to believe a word he says. It's that bad.

Which one do you think is the answer? Genuine question, because I'm still wrestling with how these people reconcile with his fundamental dishonesty.

 

[treeebeard]

Is it possible, in 4 years, for changes to be made, so Trump can be president for a 3rd time?

 

[Financialpanther]

Is it possible, in 4 years, for changes to be made, so Trump can be president for a 3rd time?

Extremely unlikely given the pace of cognitive decline, high probability of losing the house in the mid terms and structures holding up.

 

[Chadwiko]

What level of control does he think an American President has over this kind of stuff...

 

[Dirty_banchez]

What level of control does he think an American President has over this kind of stuff...

Jokes on him. The AUD will be King one day.

 

[campbell]

What level of control does he think an American President has over this kind of stuff...

100% tariffs eh.

Trump threatens 100% tariff on BRIC bloc of nations if they act to undermine U.S. dollar

President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday threatened 100% tariffs against a bloc of nine nations if they act to undermine the U.S. dollar. His threat was directed at countries in the so-called BRIC alliance, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and...

japantoday.com

Flat track uneducated bully boy.

 

[troybe]

 

[Not Important]

that’s the purpose - dumb down, indoctrinate, and manipulate.

John Collins (@logicallyjc.bsky.social)

Abolishing the Department of Education has to be one of the dumbest ideas of my lifetime.

bsky.app

who’d have thought a lefty could side with the actor, but he’s spot-on.

 

[Not Important]

“woke” as a made-up word which i loathe cos the peeps who use it mostly are rednecks with a shoe-size i.q. but this goes some way in offering a plausible explanation.

Mary Resists - Dump Trump 🌊💙💙 (@antitrumpalways.bsky.social)

Have you noticed?

bsky.app

 

[E Shed]

I think an election held after a previous election where one candidate has continued to refuse to accept the result, even after 61 of his 61 separate legal actions failed or were thrown out, is most certainly a morality contest. How can it not be?

The moment the 61st legal action was refused was the moment Trump needed to say, OK, I concede.

And so, given that he didn't, the only possible reaction (unless someone wants to make the case that 61 failed legal actions is not proof enough) is to say "The guy is not to be taken seriously. He doesn't even agree the principles of a fair contest apply to him".

Even though our politics clearly differ greatly, I know you are a genuine, respectful poster, definitely not a troll. So let me ask you something -

To my mind, all partisanship aside, when a Trump supporter is presented with the fact of Trump's blatant cheating and dishonesty, there are only three possible logical responses:

- No, he's not a blatant cheat, it's all lies and the whole system is rigged against him

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but his opponent was even worse

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but the country is in such dire straits that it's better to vote for a blatant cheat who promises to fix it, even though he has repeatedly shown we are not to believe a word he says. It's that bad.

Which one do you think is the answer? Genuine question, because I'm still wrestling with how these people reconcile with his fundamental dishonesty.

I believe its the last.

I'm at the point of disgust with Australian Politics, with the growing realization that the major power duopoly will put the nations interest below their need to perpetuate the system as it is; that it is now completely captured by corporate interest and incapable of meaningful reform I'm not going to vote even labor anymore.

Fortunately in Australia we have a better political system where electing quality independent candidates is possible and can lead to a genuine ability to change the system in sufficient numbers.

Nothing, nothing could ever convince me that voting for a moral cesspit like Trump is likely to improve anything but if you have no other way to protest the status quo than to try and blow it up then he's your best chance.

Vote 1 chaos & hope there is a chance to salvage a new order from the rubble.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Is it possible, in 4 years, for changes to be made, so Trump can be president for a 3rd time?

Trump has already alluded to possibly dispensing with electoral procedure in 2028.

Trump tells supporters they won’t have to vote in the future: ‘It’ll be fixed!’

 

[troybe]

Let them eat cake, if they can afford it.

 

[Coolangatta]

Trump has installed loyalist nutters to him in charge of the military, the CIA, FBI, NSA, you name it. America is so ****ed.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I think an election held after a previous election where one candidate has continued to refuse to accept the result, even after 61 of his 61 separate legal actions failed or were thrown out, is most certainly a morality contest. How can it not be?

The moment the 61st legal action was refused was the moment Trump needed to say, OK, I concede.

And so, given that he didn't, the only possible reaction (unless someone wants to make the case that 61 failed legal actions is not proof enough) is to say "The guy is not to be taken seriously. He doesn't even agree the principles of a fair contest apply to him".

Even though our politics clearly differ greatly, I know you are a genuine, respectful poster, definitely not a troll. So let me ask you something -

To my mind, all partisanship aside, when a Trump supporter is presented with the fact of Trump's blatant cheating and dishonesty, there are only three possible logical responses:

- No, he's not a blatant cheat, it's all lies and the whole system is rigged against him

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but his opponent was even worse

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but the country is in such dire straits that it's better to vote for a blatant cheat who promises to fix it, even though he has repeatedly shown we are not to believe a word he says. It's that bad.

Which one do you think is the answer? Genuine question, because I'm still wrestling with how these people reconcile with his fundamental dishonesty.

I would suggest a 4th option:

"I'm not willing to concede he's a blatant cheat (despite the volume of evidence proving that he is) and anyway his opponents are really, really bad and much worse than him (though I can't provide any evidence to support this)".

They typically don't say the bits in brackets out loud.

 

[Chadwiko]

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I would suggest a 4th option:

"I'm not willing to concede he's a blatant cheat (despite the volume of evidence proving that he is) and anyway his opponents are really, really bad and much worse than him (though I can't provide any evidence to support this)".

They typically don't say the bits in brackets out loud.

Well yes, this is where I think we’ve come to.

I keenly await Old Mate’s reply because despite our diametrically opposed political views, I do believe them to be a genuine poster.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

View attachment 2179655

The best councillors are reformed addicts.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

I think an election held after a previous election where one candidate has continued to refuse to accept the result, even after 61 of his 61 separate legal actions failed or were thrown out, is most certainly a morality contest. How can it not be?

The moment the 61st legal action was refused was the moment Trump needed to say, OK, I concede.

And so, given that he didn't, the only possible reaction (unless someone wants to make the case that 61 failed legal actions is not proof enough) is to say "The guy is not to be taken seriously. He doesn't even agree the principles of a fair contest apply to him".

Even though our politics clearly differ greatly, I know you are a genuine, respectful poster, definitely not a troll. So let me ask you something -

To my mind, all partisanship aside, when a Trump supporter is presented with the fact of Trump's blatant cheating and dishonesty, there are only three possible logical responses:

- No, he's not a blatant cheat, it's all lies and the whole system is rigged against him

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but his opponent was even worse

- Yes, he's a blatant cheat, but the country is in such dire straits that it's better to vote for a blatant cheat who promises to fix it, even though he has repeatedly shown we are not to believe a word he says. It's that bad.

Which one do you think is the answer? Genuine question, because I'm still wrestling with how these people reconcile with his fundamental dishonesty.

Appreciate the good will in your response bro!

I would say my thinking is closest to c)

I’m not disputing any of the issues against trump. I just think it’s extremely lazy thinking to think it’s all because Americans or at least trump voters are simple and dumb. It’s so so much more nuanced than this. And simplistic thinking like this essentially exonerates and ignores the significant systemic issues the dems refuse to accept and adjust to.

 

[Jamolad]

The best councillors are reformed addicts.

Do the best counsellors imply that heroin makes you a better student?

 

[liz]

Appreciate the good will in your response bro!

I would say my thinking is closest to c)

I’m not disputing any of the issues against trump. I just think it’s extremely lazy thinking to think it’s all because Americans or at least trump voters are simple and dumb. It’s so so much more nuanced than this. And simplistic thinking like this essentially exonerates and ignores the significant systemic issues the dems refuse to accept and adjust to.

Do you believe that the Trump administration will address and fix (even partially) the systemic issues facing America?

 

[bourbons]

Because elections are not morality or virtue contests.

In a race of establishment shills v flawed populism, People rejected the elitist establishment and gambled on a deeply flawed populist.

Which ever way you cut it, it won’t make sense, but accepting it for what it is and viewing it objectively is the only way for dems and the left to recover. Blaming voters and being hateful or embracing elitism will only push voters away.

If people can't tell by now that Trump is the very definition of an establishment shill there is no hope for them.

 

[Magnum27]

Sounds like another charmbucket appointment. Sure is a classy list Donnie is putting together.

Of course he is appointing jack asses, gives him more time to golf and do **** all, and when they inevitably **** up, his response will be " not my fault , they told me they could handle the role ", and the cult will just fall in line and agree with him. Because Donald is never at fault.

 

[stefcep]

Even Australian culture was different a long time ago. I'm sure someone else with higher sociology qualifications than I might take you to task over and question whether Western culture actually has all of the answers.

Culture changes all the time. Not all of it is good. Being unable to say what a woman is not good thing.

No culure has all the answers. Yet immigration world wide is almost exclusively TO Western cultures. Clearly Western culture has much going for it that others don't.

From a purely anatomical viewpoint, men and women have always been quite distinct. I've had a number of clients over the years that have been born with "girl bits" and "boy bits", but that is relatively rare. Even after surgery, identity confusion can be difficult for these (usually young) people.

As you say people with genetic conditions are rare. They deserve support. However inter-sex people that are chromosomally deviate from the norm are NOT what is nearly always referenced in gender and identity politics.

But anatomy is only one component of human psychology. Those clear distinctions have not always been as evident in the cognitive and emotional state of many individuals. As neuroimaging becomes even more advanced, I'm certain there will further revelations into why human brains show "female", "male", "both" or "neither" traits, independently of what their genitalia might indicate.

I have no doubt there will be knew "revelations". Very few will actually be accepted as fact and stand the test of time because later studies won't be able to reproduce those "revelations".

 

[stefcep]

This isnt push back, its who they are. They just feel safer coming out of their hole now.

Don't mess with people's livelihoods and don't indoctrinate their kids and nothing happens. Its pretty simple really.