US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

[tryptakid]

Welcome to my ignore list. Bye bye.

Be kinder and you won't end up with such a vast compendium of ignored users.

 

[Foreigner]

lol and what is your direct experience in government so that you know "how it works".

Why should I share the personal details of my life here, in an argument that I don't really care about?

you act around like you know everything best, look down on others, never substantiate anything because your opinion seems self-evident to you, but opinion is all you are.

I think I've explained where I'm coming from with pretty rational means, but yes ultimately it's just my opinion.

All you guys have are personal attacks at this point, just because you can't bend my will. This has become the "pile on Foreigner" thread. The tantrums are getting tedious.

also, you constantly act around like you know science better than people who work in science, but I have never seen you talk a shred about your own scientific work. all I know is that some years ago you wrote about doing something in "traditional medicine". go figure...

Like I said, personal attacks... including doxxing my posting history which is very par for the course with leftists.

The arguments speak for themselves. What do my credentials and personal history have to do with anything? Like if I say I'm a credentialed scientist or I do clinical work, are you then going to ask me for my license number and clinic address? Because that's what would be required for you to actually verify it. And even if it could be verified, do you think that people who work in those fields can never hold a wrong opinion? Or you'll just say that I work in the wrong subfield of science to have any real opinion. I've played this game before online, which is why I know it's a total waste of my time trying to meet people's empty appeals to authority. They don't actually care about truth, they just want to win.

You could take 10 people with masters degrees in polisci and they will all disagree on this very topic. Like dude above who said he worked in government so that means his subjective political opinion is more credible somehow, even though the content of what he says, on its own, is pretty flimsy.

Credentials are just an appeal to authority. Who cares, especially here in BL. We are all nobodies.

All that matters is the argument, and even then I'm not super invested.

If you don't agree with the things I've said, that's fine. Couldn't care less. But you're making it personal and that's unnecessary. It's okay, you don't have to be right, nobody needs to be right. We are just talking. Like imagine sitting around a coffee table playing cards, having a spirited argument about politics, and people asking you to cite sources. lmao

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Why should I share the personal details of my life here, in an argument that I don't really care about?



I think I've explained where I'm coming from with pretty rational means, but yes ultimately it's just my opinion.

All you guys have are personal attacks at this point, just because you can't bend my will. This has become the "pile on Foreigner" thread. The tantrums are getting tedious.



Like I said, personal attacks... including doxxing my posting history which is very par for the course with leftists.

The arguments speak for themselves. What do my credentials and personal history have to do with anything? Like if I say I'm a credentialed scientist or I do clinical work, are you then going to ask me for my license number and clinic address? Because that's what would be required for you to actually verify it. And even if it could be verified, do you think that people who work in those fields can never hold a wrong opinion? Or you'll just say that I work in the wrong subfield of science to have any real opinion. I've played this game before online, which is why I know it's a total waste of my time trying to meet people's empty appeals to authority. They don't actually care about truth, they just want to win.

You could take 10 people with masters degrees in polisci and they will all disagree on this very topic. Like dude above who said he worked in government so that means his subjective political opinion is more credible somehow, even though the content of what he says, on its own, is pretty flimsy.

Credentials are just an appeal to authority. Who cares, especially here in BL. We are all nobodies.

All that matters is the argument, and even then I'm not super invested.

If you don't agree with the things I've said, that's fine. Couldn't care less. But you're making it personal and that's unnecessary. It's okay, you don't have to be right, nobody needs to be right. We are just talking. Like imagine sitting around a coffee table playing cards, having a spirited argument about politics, and people asking you to cite sources. lmao

All of the defensive posturing rather than just posting sources...

Arguments can easily be based on flawed data, if you can't back up the argument then there is no reason to entertain it as anything based in reality

 

[Foreigner]

I was under the impressaion that Donald Trump suggested he wished to 'take over' Canada, Greenland, Panama and Gaza. That thetoric DOES have rather a lot of historical prescedent, don't you think?

IMO he is just cage rattling ahead of trade renegotiations, especially NAFTA. But one can never be 100% sure with Trump.

While authoritarian popularism isn't inherently on the oversimplified left<--right-->model, they are by definition not in the centre or they would be popular rather than popularist. Two similar terms that have quite different meanings in this context. I provided examples and was explicit in saying that they were not exclusive to one ot other of the monoliths BUT if you read about each on in detail, they were largely constituted by members of one of the two groupings. Not necessarily voted for by one monolith, but composed of one AFTER their election.

I would argue that Trump found the populist niche that also had popular appeal. A whole lot of left and right leaning moderates voted for him.

If you can provide an example of a centralist authortiatian popularist government, I would certainly be interested to learn about it.

We don't agree that Trump is totally populist though, so I don't feel a need to kowtow to this demand.

I think we should be considering 'the elite' and 'the people' as the two major grouping within authoritiarian populism. Along with 'the other', obviously.

I was interested to note that many months before the election, researchers had noted that the likelyhood of someone voting for Donald Trump was not associated with intelligence or the outdated left<--right-->model but on how authoritatian their opinions were.

I've seen many puff pieces like this with pet theories about Trump. They are a dime a dozen. Most are questionable.

In short, the KEY marker in a voter supporting Donald Trump was their readiness to accept blind submission to authority. Which in it's own way is a self-defeating behavior. Because that authority is composed of the 'elite' and I suggest that said elite is out to enrich itself.

This sounds like a left-wing diatribe to avoid responsibility for why Trump got elected in the first place. He had a better platform and he spoke very strongly to the issues that most people cared about. Whether he actually resolves those issues satisfactorily is another story.

Trump is an expert at opinion sampling, finding the untapped niche, and amplifying its concerns. Exactly what a business person does when looking for new markets to enter.

I think everybody knows that our political process has become parochial with many unspoken expectations about how elections should look and who an "acceptable candidate is." Trump blew all of that out of the water with his niche market sampling process, and his opponents couldn't compensate. It was like watching version 1.0 try to fight against version 2.0. The only reason why Harris stood a modicum of chance was because the entire media rallied to cover up how unprepared she was, and even then their entire establishment working 24/7 to puff her up didn't work.

Fascism has a much more coherent set of values and as I previously noted, one cornerstone of fascism is the concatination of business and state - something I feel sure the elite would NOT wish to happen.

Yes, and is another example of why fascism is not currently occurring.

They tried to assassinate him 3 times. That's how badly they did not want him to air the government's dirty laundry. Everything they throw at him does not stick and I personally find that rather amusing. We have needed a wrecking ball like Trump for a really long time, if only just to get in there and audit corruption. I think in term 1 he was willing to work with the parochial system. But now that they tried to defund, disenfranchise, imprison and literally kill him, he has become the agent who will end the old DC elitism you're talking about.

Don't forget that Trump had his first term to expose the government waste and corruption. He was probably at least partially aware of it already because Trump is all about money and power. How could he not see where the gold was going. But then they tried to PERSONALLY ruin him. So now he's personally ruining them back, and in doing so we are finally getting a full government audit. It's hilariously ironic.

 

[jasperkent]

OK, I give credit where credit is due. Trump has finally proposed something that I agree with. For years I've been saying we should get rid of the one-cent coin (I think I made a thread about it) because every penny costs about two* cents to make...

Loading…

www.npr.org

Now, can we get rid of the twice yearly time change?
I don't care if we use Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time-- but let's settle on one and stop this back-and-forth nonsense.

* (edit) I just heard on the radio that the cost has actually gone up to three cents apiece. It's utterly ridiculous to throw away money like this.
Surely this is a nonpartisan issue.

 

[4DQSAR]

IMO he is just cage rattling ahead of trade renegotiations, especially NAFTA. But one can never be 100% sure with Trump.



I would argue that Trump found the populist niche that also had popular appeal. A whole lot of left and right leaning moderates voted for him.



We don't agree that Trump is totally populist though, so I don't feel a need to kowtow to this demand.



I've seen many puff pieces like this with pet theories about Trump. They are a dime a dozen. Most are questionable.



This sounds like a left-wing diatribe to avoid responsibility for why Trump got elected in the first place. He had a better platform and he spoke very strongly to the issues that most people cared about. Whether he actually resolves those issues satisfactorily is another story.

Trump is an expert at opinion sampling, finding the untapped niche, and amplifying its concerns. Exactly what a business person does when looking for new markets to enter.

I think everybody knows that our political process has become parochial with many unspoken expectations about how elections should look and who an "acceptable candidate is." Trump blew all of that out of the water with his niche market sampling process, and his opponents couldn't compensate. It was like watching version 1.0 try to fight against version 2.0. The only reason why Harris stood a modicum of chance was because the entire media rallied to cover up how unprepared she was, and even then their entire establishment working 24/7 to puff her up didn't work.



Yes, and is another example of why fascism is not currently occurring.

They tried to assassinate him 3 times. That's how badly they did not want him to air the government's dirty laundry. Everything they throw at him does not stick and I personally find that rather amusing. We have needed a wrecking ball like Trump for a really long time, if only just to get in there and audit corruption. I think in term 1 he was willing to work with the parochial system. But now that they tried to defund, disenfranchise, imprison and literally kill him, he has become the agent who will end the old DC elitism you're talking about.

Don't forget that Trump had his first term to expose the government waste and corruption. He was probably at least partially aware of it already because Trump is all about money and power. How could he not see where the gold was going. But then they tried to PERSONALLY ruin him. So now he's personally ruining them back, and in doing so we are finally getting a full government audit. It's hilariously ironic.

I thought I had made it fairly clear that any left<-->right metric was inherently unhelpful in any description of Trump supporters.

It's also a bit odd that I made many more points which you declined to comment on and there WAS context to all my points. Context which has been removed.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

It helps control the narrative when things are purposely omitted

 

[4DQSAR]

Well, it's odd that I've been at pains to signal my agreement but in return, points are merely ignored so I'm uncertain if it's disagreement or disinterest in a constructive dialogue. But I am always prepared to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Hanlon's razor being another tool I make use of.

 

[Foreigner]

I thought I had made it fairly clear that any left<-->right metric was inherently unhelpful in any description of Trump supporters.

I understand that's what you are saying, but I don't have to adopt that paradigm in my response to you.

It's also a bit odd that I made many more points which you declined to comment on and there WAS context to all my points. Context which has been removed.

I didn't ignore what you said. You made an initial premise that I disagreed with (and I stated why), and then built three or four more points upon that premise like a pyramid. I perceived that by addressing your initial premise, that it rendered the subsequent clauses not applicable, so why bother addressing them. If the first premise is incorrect (in my view) then the subsequent premises are also invalid.

I'm not lying by omission I simply disagree with you.

Now we're talking-about-talking-about what happened one post ago, instead of continuing to talk about the actual topic. This forum is weak for debating. I wish people would stop trying to manipulate the parameters of debate in order to enforce their will and just have a normal conversation.

 

[Foreigner]

Well, it's odd that I've been at pains to signal my agreement but in return, points are merely ignored so I'm uncertain if it's disagreement or disinterest in a constructive dialogue. But I am always prepared to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Hanlon's razor being another tool I make use of.

Then it's bizarre that you didn't notice I debunked your initial premise and thereby your subsequent premises that followed from it. That's debating 101. Instead you are mystified.

I'm not going to argue your entire thesis when your very first point was subjective and easily worked around.

I'm cool with your thesis being your opinion on how the world is, but when you state it factually like it's a shared, common conversational reality, and whine about why I'm not just automatically on board with it -- I'm going to call that out.

 

[4DQSAR]

M intial point being.

'I was under the impressaion that Donald Trump suggested he wished to 'take over' Canada, Greenland, Panama and Gaza. That thetoric DOES have rather a lot of historical prescedent, don't you think?'

So you disagree that there is historical prescedent?

Well, I'm sure people will make their own minds up on that one.

 

[Foreigner]

M intial point being.

'I was under the impressaion that Donald Trump suggested he wished to 'take over' Canada, Greenland, Panama and Gaza. That thetoric DOES have rather a lot of historical prescedent, don't you think?'

So you disagree that there is historical prescedent?

Well, I'm sure people will make their own minds up on that one.

Thank you. I appreciate you going back to the meat of this conversation. The theoretical tangent on political spectra and populism vs. popularism was just... not necessary.

What kind of historical precedent do you think it has? Everything political has historical precedent. I need you to be more specific to know whether I agree or disagree.

 

[4DQSAR]

Thank you. I appreciate you going back to the meat of this conversation. The theoretical tangent on political spectra and populism vs. popularism was just... not necessary.

So you are saying there IS a conventionel left<-->right demographic among supporters of Donald Trump? I'm merely asking to be clear on that point. Because you were at pains to say that wasn't the case.

 

[Foreigner]

So you are saying there IS a conventionel left<-->right demographic among supporters of Donald Trump? I'm merely asking to be clear on that point. Because you were at pains to say that wasn't the case.

There are many possible lenses through which to look at politics, not just one. The left/right spectrum is one. It's not the only one. Which ones you utilize depends on the situation.

 

[4DQSAR]

But you rejected the left<-->right paradigm, appeared to agree with the authortarian popularist concept, or at least didn't see fit to disagree when I first suggested it, then went straight back to using the left<-->right paradigm in later answers.

You know, it almost appears that a paradigm is FINE until it shows something you disagree with.

So I would appreciate selecting an appropriate paradigm as without it, all we end up doing is gainsaying which is of no value to anyone. If the 'situation' is merely 'what is most amenable for this one moment', that's EXACTLY what authortarian popularism is based on. A lack of coherence - which I pointed out long ago. So in a way, you have somewhat shown the precice problem here.

 

[tryptakid]

Seems like Kendrick got under his skin a bit

 

[4DQSAR]

Seems like Kendrick got under his skin a bit

Err... are you referring to Kendrick Lamar? It's a genuine question, I really don't know to what you are referring. I don't get out much.

 

[jasperkent]

 

[mal3volent]

Awesome to finally have all the wasteful spending being slashed in Washington!

 

[tryptakid]

Err... are you referring to Kendrick Lamar? It's a genuine question, I really don't know to what you are referring. I don't get out much.

Yeah, he performed at the Superbowl halftime show - started off with the sentence "The revolution will be televised, you picked the right time but the wrong guy" (biting at Trump as he was in attendance). Samuel L. Jackson introduced him dressed up as Uncle Sam and did a black minstrel inspired bit. Lots of very black 'ghetto' dancing with red white and blue dressing.

A prudent juxtaposition to the white MAGA anti-culture that has taken hold. Black American music is the lifeblood of our cultural output at this point