US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

[kris66]

A few are starting to. But things will probably get a lot worse before they begin to get better...

I'm glad a few are waking up. Hopefully it will continue. THE GOP are who really piss me off because they know better but are kissing up because they are whimps. If they don’t have the courage to do their jobs they should step down.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

A few are starting to. But things will probably get a lot worse before they begin to get better...

Don’t lie to yourselves. All this Trump voter regret media is liberal cope. These people could watch Donald Trump rape their children and dismember them and not lose a single shred of support for him.

They hate blacks more than they love themselves and will die to see blacks suffer.

There is no getting through to these people. They beleieve that Noah lived to be 900 for fucks sake. They beleieve this is a holy war. They are sick and delusional.

This is only going to end with the threat of or the use of violence (again). Too many concessions were made to the south after they lost the civil war; they should have been brutally eradicated.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Don’t lie to yourselves. All this Trump voter regret media is liberal cope. These people could watch Donald Trump rape their children and dismember them and not lose a single shred of support for him.

They hate blacks more than they love themselves and will die to see blacks suffer.

There is no getting through to these people. They beleieve that Noah lived to be 900 for fucks sake. They beleieve this is a holy war. They are sick and delusional.

This is only going to end with the threat of or the use of violence (again). Too many concessions were made to the south after they lost the civil war; they should have been brutally eradicated.

You have ~ 30% Dems, ~30% Republicans, and ~30% "independents". That last group is what decides elections.
That ~30% Repugs is largely a Trump fervent base now. Yeah, there's no reaching them at this point. Not even any point in separating out the ones who don't like Trump but will toe the line to get policy. Just no point in even trying anymore. They are a blight. Maybe even, "deplorable"

As to the ~30% "independents" who voted grocery prices, etc. There is some crumbling of support. But it's only around the edges. Yeah, "Leopards ate my face" stories get clicks and will be overemphasized. They're real, but there's not near enough yet. It takes a lot to budge this group. After the election most of them went back to barely paying attention.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

You have ~ 30% Dems, ~30% Republicans, and ~30% "independents". That last group is what decides elections.
That ~30% Repugs is largely a Trump fervent base now. Yeah, there's no reaching them at this point. Not even any point in separating out the ones who don't like Trump but will toe the line to get policy. Just no point in even trying anymore. They are a blight. Maybe even, "deplorable"

As to the ~30% "independents" who voted grocery prices, etc. There is some crumbling of support. But it's only around the edges. Yeah, "Leopards ate my face" stories get clicks and will be overemphasized. They're real, but there's not near enough yet. It takes a lot to budge this group. After the election most of them went back to barely paying attention.

I don’t agree that there is a large ideological middle ground.

Americans hate eachother more than anyone else on earth. They hate their neighbors. They fail to see that it is their leaders fucking them and will fall in line with these leaders and spill blood on their behalf.

We can tell ourselves stuff like you said to make ourselves feel better; maybe the middle class suburban moderate family isn’t going to take up arms; but they will support with a smile the march of their enemies to execution camps. We need to be real about how much this country hates eachother.

This has happened before not long ago; this has happened throughout history. It is nothing new and America is no exception to the laws of human nature

 

[jasperkent]

 

[kris66]

You have ~ 30% Dems, ~30% Republicans, and ~30% "independents". That last group is what decides elections.
That ~30% Repugs is largely a Trump fervent base now. Yeah, there's no reaching them at this point. Not even any point in separating out the ones who don't like Trump but will toe the line to get policy. Just no point in even trying anymore. They are a blight. Maybe even, "deplorable"

As to the ~30% "independents" who voted grocery prices, etc. There is some crumbling of support. But it's only around the edges. Yeah, "Leopards ate my face" stories get clicks and will be overemphasized. They're real, but there's not near enough yet. It takes a lot to budge this group. After the election most of them went back to barely paying attention.

Unfortunately I think you hit the nail on the head. But if it affects them personally; like grocery prices going up drastically, the stock market crashing, or a family member loosing a job, they will notice.

One thing that is interesting is how the tarrifs will affect farmers. Already in my state (midwest) the farm bureau has put out a statement about tarrifs affecting the farmers adversely. One of Trumps biggest supporters has been the farmers. We will see how this plays out.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Unfortunately I think you hit the nail on the head. But if it affects them personally; like grocery prices going up drastically, the stock market crashing, or a family member loosing a job, they will notice.

One thing that is interesting is how the tarrifs will affect farmers. Already in my state (midwest) the farm bureau has put out a statement about tarrifs affecting the farmers adversely. One of Trumps biggest supporters has been the farmers. We will see how this plays out.

And we are seeing the beginnings of that. I'm not saying it's not happening, just that it's not happening at levels we might think (yet).

**********************************************

When the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine was left with 1,900 nuclear weapons. They had the infrastructure to make them functional and that would have made them the third largest nuclear power. They gave them up in return for the signing of a commitment to, “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” and for the signatories to,“seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.”

They gave up 1,900 nukes for assurances that they would be defended in the interests of world stability and peace.

Now Trump's saying this invaded country he is fucking over is not interested in peace.

 

[kris66]

And we are seeing the beginnings of that. I'm not saying it's not happening, just that it's not happening at levels we might think (yet).

**********************************************

When the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine was left with 1,900 nuclear weapons. They had the infrastructure to make them functional and that would have made them the third largest nuclear power. They gave them up in return for the signing of a commitment to, “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” and for the signatories to,“seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.”

They gave up 1,900 nukes for assurances that they would be defended in the interests of world stability and peace.

Now Trump's saying this invaded country he is fucking over is not interested in peace.

That's horrible. Makes me ashamed of my country right now. That's a statement I never wanted to have to make.

 

[tryptakid]

That's horrible. Makes me ashamed of my country right now. That's a statement I never wanted to have to make.

I believe that the war on public education coupled with the mistrust of legacy or 'mainstream' media has created a generation that doesn't understand history outside of contrived narratives, and lacks the critical thinking skills to verify information that may 'feel' right while being totally inaccurate. Incidentally, it's also a generation that grew up on reality television (such as The Apprentice....coincidence? I think not) where the narrative is assembled through editing aspects of what happened into a story that may not represent the real turn of events. It looks coherent because of how it's constructed, and it's constructed through actual events, but the influence on those events, order they took place in, and motivation behind them are not always clear.. Narrative construction has replaced documentation as the means of explaining complex situations, and is easily spoonfed to the masses who struggle with basic reading, critical thinking, or contextual understanding of history.

I also think that this is a problem that is obvious to me with republicans/MAGA/alt-right, because their views are so different than mine making it easy to inspect them from a distance - at the same time, I see it regularly in progressive spaces as well, something that MAGA et al. will similarly notice and call out as hypocrisy.

I do wish people had more access to high quality education that allowed for a nuanced reflection of what views they hold and how they vote as a result. I hated seeing the DNC becoming a centrist bloc that was pro gun, pro police, and pro virtue signalling, while ignoring some of the fundamental problems that the eroding middle class is struggling with. It has long felt that people like me (and likely others on this thread) have very limited representation in government. AOC and Sanders seem like real ones, but there are plenty of corporate dems that are more interested in putting up pride flags to pwn the right while playing the stock market to their own advantage (looking at you Pelosi...)

 

[4DQSAR]

At the end of the day, whatever a person's opinion of Donald Trump being the US president, even with mid-term elections, executive orders essentially mean he is in control of the USA for the next 4 years.

I'm generally not a huge fan of his because you cannot run a nation as you would a business. While finances are a key metric, I don't think they are the only key metric.

It was only by reading an exchange between Donald Trump and SIr Kier Starmer that I could work out what he meant when he stated that other nations imposed 'tarriffs' on US exports when clearly they did not. His wording changed to suggesting that the US 'subsidised' imports which chearly it does not. In fact, what Donald Trump referred to was the fact that some nations are exporting more products to the US than the US was exporting to them. Three totally different things. I'm uncertain if Donald Trump doesn't understand the difference or if he misrepresented the truth, but neither reason paints him in a good light.

If another nation is able to produce and export a product or service at a lower price than the US is able to produce that product or service, why?

There are several broad catagories of reason but at the end of the day, this isn't something that happened overnight. If a US business could compete, they would compete. So imposing tarriffs isn't going to reduce prices and I do not believe it's going to produce the number of jobs Donald Trump believes it will. In developing nations, labour intensive products and services are cheaper as wages are lower. If a nation is able to acquire raw materials at a lower price, tarriffs aren't going to make products cheaper.

I'm aware that Canada exports huge quantities of iron ore to the US primarily via the Great Lakes, but that's simply a function of Canada having huge quantities of easily accessible ore. Canada hasn't 'cheated'.

Now I know one of the phrases Donald Trump repeated during the election campaign was his urging US oil companies to 'drill, drill, drill' in spite of the fact that US oil production is already at it's highest point in history and those oil producers have been quick to point out that overproduction will simply drive down prices. I checked the production cost (break even price) of US light crude (the overwhelming product they supply) and it's around $43/barrel ($31-$48) for existing wells but it projected to be around $65/barrel ($59-$70). The problem is that the US requires heavy crude and OPEC nations are able to produce it for just $27/barrel. Why? Because new US oil production will be overwhelmingly off-shore while OPEC is overwhelmingly on-shore.

So the problem I foresee in this case is that it's within the power of OPEC nations to increase production much faster (at the moment they artificially restrict production to sustain the price) BUT in the event of a trade war, they hold all the aces. They have a product that the US is unable to source and are able to undercut the US price. While the majority is currently heavy crude, this is a function of demand. OPEC is quite capable of producing huge quantities of light crude. There is already

Surely that isn't hard to understand? If there is competition between the US and OPEC, OPEC will win. If the US imposes tarriffs on OPEC heavy crude, it will be the US consumer who pays and given that heavy crude is used to produce so many different materials and products, the US cannot avoid importation. There are mature technologies to 'crack' heavy crude into light oils and gas, there are no technologies to produce heavy oils from light crude.

People may point to the fact that other nations have the potential to produce (more) oil but in each case there are factors that make reliance on them as sources uncertain. Technical limitations as well as political and security issues and mixtures of the three exist for each case. The truth is that while OPEC is the cheapest by far, Russian oil and gas are still cheaper than US oil and gas. So I'm uncertain as to why the US would appear to be supportive of Russia. If trade sanctions end, it's US producers that will lose out.

That's just one example that I spent some time exploring to better understand. It's also one of the largest industries in the world and there is a lot of data available.

 

[kris66]

I believe that the war on public education coupled with the mistrust of legacy or 'mainstream' media has created a generation that doesn't understand history outside of contrived narratives, and lacks the critical thinking skills to verify information that may 'feel' right while being totally inaccurate. Incidentally, it's also a generation that grew up on reality television (such as The Apprentice....coincidence? I think not) where the narrative is assembled through editing aspects of what happened into a story that may not represent the real turn of events. It looks coherent because of how it's constructed, and it's constructed through actual events, but the influence on those events, order they took place in, and motivation behind them are not always clear.. Narrative construction has replaced documentation as the means of explaining complex situations, and is easily spoonfed to the masses who struggle with basic reading, critical thinking, or contextual understanding of history.

I also think that this is a problem that is obvious to me with republicans/MAGA/alt-right, because their views are so different than mine making it easy to inspect them from a distance - at the same time, I see it regularly in progressive spaces as well, something that MAGA et al. will similarly notice and call out as hypocrisy.

I do wish people had more access to high quality education that allowed for a nuanced reflection of what views they hold and how they vote as a result. I hated seeing the DNC becoming a centrist bloc that was pro gun, pro police, and pro virtue signalling, while ignoring some of the fundamental problems that the eroding middle class is struggling with. It has long felt that people like me (and likely others on this thread) have very limited representation in government. AOC and Sanders seem like real ones, but there are plenty of corporate dems that are more interested in putting up pride flags to pwn the right while playing the stock market to their own advantage (looking at you Pelosi...)

I agree with you on the education. I've been thinking about that lately, where it went wrong. I know a lot of Trump supporters (they are plentiful in this area) and they really are not bad people. The ones I know don't agree with everything he does, but I still think they are blind to his faults. We need to be smarter than this if we are to survive as a race (I mean the human race.)

It's too bad Bernie Sanders did not go up against Trump the first time instead of Hilary. I have nothing against Hilary but I think he could have won. He is down to earth, brilliant, and his heart is with the working class. Sadly he's too old to run again.

 

[tryptakid]

I agree with you on the education. I've been thinking about that lately, where it went wrong. I know a lot of Trump supporters (they are plentiful in this area) and they really are not bad people. The ones I know don't agree with everything he does, but I still think they are blind to his faults. We need to be smarter than this if we are to survive as a race (I mean the human race.)

Aye - I have friends and family who voted for him and they're people I like/respect. I find it difficult to reconcile their political views but I respect everyone's right to come to their own conclusion. That said, I notice a willful ignorance of the problematic stuff that he does, and instead a focus on who he's going after (immigrants, people on welfare, 'criminals', liberals, antifa, communists, the establishment) - all are targets of ire from people who feel like they are owed something, or who feel like they've been mistreated. While he helps to channel anger between Proud Boys and BLM-types, he keeps the focus off of his own complicity in the things they are angry about. He's a tough guy who hides behind smoke and mirrors, shamelessness, and a very particular type of charisma to keep the chaos swirling around him, throwing everyone else into as a means of self preservation.

It's the same style of rule that putin perfected over the past 25 years, using his tradecraft from the KGB on a mass scale. The Russian empire is quite old, and has weathered the rise and fall of many empires during it's existence. The end of the cold war was not a defeat, but a tactical retreat creating a false sense of victory for the west. We're now seeing just how deep espionage really went in the 80s/90s and into today.

It's too bad Bernie Sanders did not go up against Trump the first time instead of Hilary. I have nothing against Hilary but I think he could have won. He is down to earth, brilliant, and his heart is with the working class. Sadly he's too old to run again.

I agree - once again, the DNC preferred to virtue signal and support an establishment entity in HRC (whom I don't dislike mind you, I respect her quite a bit) but in the process disenfranchised a truly progressive movement that was taking off in Sanders. The DNC is beholden to their own oligarchs and special interest groups, just as the RNC/GOP is. They signal support fo progressive causes while missing the mark on investing in those causes in a meaningful way. They've relied on culture, universities, and historic association with labor to get fat and greedy, leaving many people feeling abandoned by the democrats over the years.

I am hopeful that a new progressive movement emerges, perhaps outside of the DNC. I'll hold out hope as the power elite in this country is not interested in ceding control.

 

[kris66]

JD Vance didn't receive a great reception at a Vermont ski resort today. Quite a few protesters who shouted obscenities and held up signs telling him to go ski in Russia. Lol

 

[jpgrdnr]

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

This message was approved by Dr Strangelove !

 

[4DQSAR]

The UK has ended up in the same position as the US. Candidates are now being given much lower offers to enter university because it's now so expensive that it's not the most able that enter further education but those most able to pay. It dilutes the value of an undergraduate degree as students have been recast as customers, educators have been recast as service providers.

I mean, back in the 80s UMIST would generally offer a place if a student got 3 Bs in their A-levels or maybe an A and 2 Cs if someone was clearly able in the subject they applied to studiy but admitted that the other 2 A-levels were chosen out of neccessity rather than desire. I'm told by a neice that now they will offer people 3 passes. That's a big drop in academic achievement to get into a well regarded university.

As for the less well regarded universities, I've heard that a single A-level pass is often offered. Because the university simply has 24 places and may only have had 24 people seek entry in a given subject. Essentially, it's now possible for the majority of students to go into further education. They don't like to fail people as it makes them look bad.

If I learnt one thing, it's that few axioms exist and that any study is based on research and experimentation to build a weight of evidence. If I learnt two things, it's that whatever my opinion of an author, a piece of research, a data-set or whatever, it has to be approached with an equal amount of skepticism. I have been wrong many, many times because I was prejudiced to WISH something to be the case. But if the weight of evidence suggests a given conclusion, wherever it came from, if it's evidence, it should be included.

That is why I do see a couple of things that Donald Trump has stated he wishes to do that don't appear unreasonable. The birthright of US citizenship is the exception rather than the rule. Not many other nations have such a law and I can see how it could be abused.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to stop fentanyl from reaching the US. I would expect any incoming US president to make it a priority. But fentanyl is merely one class of opioid. Nitazenes are likely to be a much worse problem and when that is controlled the next class of highly potent opioid will simply take it's place. The list of precursors would end up so big that it would be impossible to enforce. At the end of the day, if there is a demand, there will be suppliers.

I actually made a list of various classes but thought better of posting. But I assume anyone in that business would know.

So I would have welcomed some measures to mitigate demand. Note that Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment & Research donated $106 million to Donald Trump's election campaign. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them making such a large donation, I think it important to note that their USP (unique selling point) is that they claim to be 'the only certified local clinic to offer medication-assisted-treatment (MAT)'. In other words, methadone and buprenorphine. What surprised me was that the US is infamous for the high cost of medications but as far as I can tell, in bulk the US is the cheapest source of buprenorphine ($6140/Kg) and methadone is a reasonable ($2096/Kg). That WAS a surprise.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

The birthright of US citizenship is the exception rather than the rule. Not many other nations have such a law and I can see how it could be abused.

I may agree, but the 14th Amendment is worded in such a way that you really have to do mental backflips to interpret it as he wants to.

 

[4DQSAR]

I may agree, but the 14th Amendment is worded in such a way that you really have to do mental backflips to interpret it as he wants to.

I have been told that. As I understand it there are just two simple definitions in birthright citizenship:

1-By virtue of the person's birth within a United States territory.
2-Because at least one of the parents was a US citizen at the time of the person's birth.

I suspect that in all likelyhood we are, once again, witness to Donald Trump making demands that would require a huge rewrite of the amendment but in truth, seeks to close the known loopholes. I only just looked but there is a staggering number of different nonimmigrant visas. I was really surprised.

But it seems that 'birthright tourism', temporary workers and those present within the US with no valid visa represent virtually all of the cases. I don't know for certain, but those appear to be the three catagories where data suggests a significant number of births. It's certainly the ones the media mentions.

I have to say, I was shocked at just how many different types of non immigration visa the US issues. I'm uncertain why a physician would be in a different catagory from a professor (for example).

It just seems to me that a lower-key announcement that included a full explainatinon of the proposed changes would have been more constructive. I have a friend, a computer game developer. He and his wife moved to the US many years ago with his having 'a speciality occupation in a field requiring specialist knowledge'. But at the moment, couples in their position can't plan to start a family or, at least, the non-specific announcment adds an extra unknown.

I forget who said it but one former US president remarked 'You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose' which I take to mean that on the campaign trail, it's reasonable and expected for a candidate to paint a picture of their vision in broad strokes so voters understand, but the constitution with it's amendments, federal laws, state laws, interstate compacts, international agreements and so forth. It wouldn't be possible for ANY candidate to be aware and even less fully understand them all.

That said, even before taking power, isn't there a two month gap between winning the vote and inauguration. So don't those two months at least allow major campaign promises to be detailed to ensure they are fit for purpose?

I ask as an outsider. I have tried to understand but sometimes it can be quite confusing.

 

[chippermonk]

The UK has ended up in the same position as the US. Candidates are now being given much lower offers to enter university because it's now so expensive that it's not the most able that enter further education but those most able to pay. It dilutes the value of an undergraduate degree as students have been recast as customers, educators have been recast as service providers.

I mean, back in the 80s UMIST would generally offer a place if a student got 3 Bs in their A-levels or maybe an A and 2 Cs if someone was clearly able in the subject they applied to studiy but admitted that the other 2 A-levels were chosen out of neccessity rather than desire. I'm told by a neice that now they will offer people 3 passes. That's a big drop in academic achievement to get into a well regarded university.

As for the less well regarded universities, I've heard that a single A-level pass is often offered. Because the university simply has 24 places and may only have had 24 people seek entry in a given subject. Essentially, it's now possible for the majority of students to go into further education. They don't like to fail people as it makes them look bad.

If I learnt one thing, it's that few axioms exist and that any study is based on research and experimentation to build a weight of evidence. If I learnt two things, it's that whatever my opinion of an author, a piece of research, a data-set or whatever, it has to be approached with an equal amount of skepticism. I have been wrong many, many times because I was prejudiced to WISH something to be the case. But if the weight of evidence suggests a given conclusion, wherever it came from, if it's evidence, it should be included.

That is why I do see a couple of things that Donald Trump has stated he wishes to do that don't appear unreasonable. The birthright of US citizenship is the exception rather than the rule. Not many other nations have such a law and I can see how it could be abused.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to stop fentanyl from reaching the US. I would expect any incoming US president to make it a priority. But fentanyl is merely one class of opioid. Nitazenes are likely to be a much worse problem and when that is controlled the next class of highly potent opioid will simply take it's place. The list of precursors would end up so big that it would be impossible to enforce. At the end of the day, if there is a demand, there will be suppliers.

I actually made a list of various classes but thought better of posting. But I assume anyone in that business would know.

So I would have welcomed some measures to mitigate demand. Note that Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment & Research donated $106 million to Donald Trump's election campaign. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them making such a large donation, I think it important to note that their USP (unique selling point) is that they claim to be 'the only certified local clinic to offer medication-assisted-treatment (MAT)'. In other words, methadone and buprenorphine. What surprised me was that the US is infamous for the high cost of medications but as far as I can tell, in bulk the US is the cheapest source of buprenorphine ($6140/Kg) and methadone is a reasonable ($2096/Kg). That WAS a surprise.

I don't know anything about the Adelson Clinic, but it was established by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. He made his billions in the casino business and had been a long time ultra conservative donor to political causes before he died, but his wife kept up the political activism and is a big donor to Trump. It's odd funneling the donation through the clinic, which I believe is a nonprofit, but probably there is some sort of tax advantage. Or perhaps it's a way to get around some political donations laws pertaining to individuals.

 

[4DQSAR]

Ah, to be fair, I heard something on the radio which said that one of the biggest doners was a 'single issue' voter and in her case, it was the relationship between the US and Israel. The Wikipedia entry on the lady suggests that what I heard was referring to her.

Casino business you say? Well, to be fair, anyone with the money to invest can likely see that with the fentanyl and soon the nitazene epidemic in the US, being in the private detoxification industry is like betting on a certainty.

I may be being totally unfair and the lady has lost loved ones to drugs, but even I was IMPRESSED by just how cheap buprenorphine and methadone are now being sold for on the legal market in the US. If someone signs a long-term contract to buy hundreds of Kgs of each every month for several years, a manufacturer can buy the precursors in bulk, dedicate a production line and generally plan for longer term than is usual.

I don't know how 'non profit' enterprises work in the US, but in the UK it really is a massive tax avoidence scheme. I'm not saying that is the reason in this case, only that it is hugely tax efficient and executives and board members can still earn vast salaries. The worst examples spend 40% of donations on 'managing assets', 30% on 'advertizing' and 20% of actually collecting, and managing assets - leaving 10% that actually goes to help.

Thanks for highlighting that to me. When people are worth billions and have a very strong opinion on a single topic, I guess $106 million isn't a huge amount to them.

One thing that bugged me was before the election people would complain about how the US government was pandering to Israeli interests. I'm not saying it's true of if doing so is right or wrong; but I kept seeing people make that complaint. But I don't hear that complaint any more. I wouldn't sit there complaining whoever won the election, but it's odd that when it's one government supposidly doing it, it's a conspiracy... now it seems the US is just as supportive but nobody complains about it...