• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2017 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Boehner had to deal with the first wave of Tea Party nuts, weird as it is for me to defend him. Those guys came on with their own AM radio agenda and knowing compromise is for pussies and libtards. So I'm not surprised he eventually knocked back his breakfast scotch and said, "fuck it". I think if Ryan's having better control, it's either we don't hear as much or the new kids have learned some things. And they are still short on dismantling everything.
 
Scrofula said:
I think Boehner had to deal with the first wave of Tea Party nuts, weird as it is for me to defend him. Those guys came on with their own AM radio agenda and knowing compromise is for pussies and libtards. So I'm not surprised he eventually knocked back his breakfast scotch and said, "fuck it". I think if Ryan's having better control, it's either we don't hear as much or the new kids have learned some things. And they are still short on dismantling everything.
Click to expand...
Good analysis. I almost felt bad for Boehner. Almost.

Could Trump fuck up any worse at being president? It's just getting stupid at this point
 
There's nothing to speculate on. Trumps the kinda guy who wants to feel and have other people think of him as powerful. There are lots of people like him who say stupid shit like that all the time, the only difference here is he actually IS powerful, but it's still the same empty motivation behind it.

You could speculate on it all day, but way I see it, with someone like him, there's no point, cause coming from his mouth it means nothing. Just Trump being Trump. Trump is the personality type that seeks out, and will generally find somewhere where they can exercise power. Which is unfortunate cause it's also a personality type that inevitably winds up abusing power. Of types that wind up in leadership rolls they are some of the worst at it because they foster low morale and mistrust among their subordinates who become terrified of them. Subordinates can either go along with them, or be cast aside. They don't tend to listen to advice very well, another quality good leaders have that people like him don't. Because they have such high self esteem and confidence they can't stand feeling wrong in even very very minor respects. And since their subordinates are scared to give advice that they know their superior won't agree with, they won't give it. People like this tend to explosively overreact to hearing anything that suggests anything less than total competence on their part.

It probably means he thinks something bigs coming soon with North Korea, but even if he does, it's still meaningless as to anything actually happening. People like him have a need to feel more powerful than anyone else. In situations where they don't have absolute power, they fantasize about it instead. He doesn't have absolute power in the North Korean situation, shit like this is how people like him cope with that. Making thinly veiled threats and thinking a lot about what they'd like to do about it if they were God. Being able or willing to back them up or not doesn't come into it one way or the other.

Seriously, that's all I think there is to it and I honestly think it is completely pointless to speculate on such things. It's just part of his personality, it might mean something, but it could just as easily, and I think likely will wind up meaning nothing.

The only intelligent thing about it was him keeping it vague enough and cryptic enough that it can't ever be solidly stated to be the meaningless blustering that it is.

Thankfully, in the real world, USUALLY types like him find themselves in positions with pretend power but no real power. So security guards, educators, Internet moderators, and the like. Many positions of real power have recruitment systems that try to screen such people out. But sometimes like this they end up somewhere they can cause real damage either because the systems in place that are supposed to stop it either failed or as in this case, don't exist. He's the first president in my lifetime that I would say was this type.
 
Last edited:
I thought "quiet before the storm" was in relation to Iran?

considering the outcomes of US-led invasions in recent (and not-so-recent) years, the American government's about-face on Iran (since trump's election) is deeply disturbing.
while I agree we need to take his comments and threats with a massive pinch of salt - he is also the commander in chief of the world's largest military.

trump is a massive threat to global security. his bellicose tone absolutely dwarves the threat of islamic terrorism, in my opinion.
without being too alarmist, I'm concerned about the impact of his 'strongman' posturing on the world stage. it's bad enough when measured, disciplined presidents make military threats, but with trump - anything could happen. and that's not a good thing.
 
Maybe it was Iran, who knows, my point stands either way.

I completely agree with you. I was getting at why he does it, not the dangers of him doing it. I agree, it’s dangerous and irresponsible, like so much of what he says.

All I’m saying is the danger trump poses is the same no matter what stupid shit he says. I don’t get any more or less concerned because of his latest rhetoric cause it could easily be meaningless.
 
It's crazy how aptly this latest gun rampage sums up the reality of gun laws in the US
Not just that...
It is evidence enough that the immigration bans implemented in order to prevent 'Islamic extremism' from entering the US are really just a complete farce
 
Keeping brown people out, at great cost to our economy, is worth it to feel vaguely safe. Effective gun control to actually be safe? C'mon, we live in the real world! It's just tyranny anyway!

Skylab said:
I thought "quiet before the storm" was in relation to Iran?
Click to expand...

The best pinch of salt to take with Iran is how it seems to come up before elections, especially midterms. Those should be gearing up soon. Iran can handle all levels of bullshit flung at it, being so removed from out interests.

Now might be a calm before a rhetorical storm about it. I wonder if the GOP will want something to get hawks all hot and bothered--they can blame on Obama and the actually helpful NP treaty--to challenge any NK issues that Trump might get hit on.
 
Help me understand why the tea partiers were nuts? I need reeducation...to me the tea partiers were Americans who recognize the importance of the Constitution at a time when many felt the Constitution was seen as insignificant. They wanted to be seen and heard. Where did I go wrong?! Help me back into the fold, please. ?

Scrofula said:
I think Boehner had to deal with the first wave of Tea Party nuts, weird as it is for me to defend him. Those guys came on with their own AM radio agenda and knowing compromise is for pussies and libtards. So I'm not surprised he eventually knocked back his breakfast scotch and said, "fuck it". I think if Ryan's having better control, it's either we don't hear as much or the new kids have learned some things. And they are still short on dismantling everything.
Click to expand...
 
The Tea Party's main platform was "GAH OMG TAXES!!" That in itself is fine, except when you destroy everything in the process. At heart there was nothing new but the name, stolen from some Ayn Rand libertarians, and a lot of questionably-used campaign contributions.

Otherwise it was just the same GOP base red meat in party form. Other than a name that refs an event that occurred the same century it was written, there's nothing especially Constitutional about the Tea Party's stated goals (the Boston version would have still been illegal under the Constitution, and those kinds of tariffs are things the Trump administration has supported and proposed). The burden would be on any current or past tea party members to explain just what part of the document they were recognizing. Like Article and Section. Eg., Trump is in violation of Article 1 section 9 (and yet none have come forth to denounce him.)

Some people at the time, I guess, were told that a common market for buying health insurance and extending Medicaid to people my age, was socialism. The Constitution doesn't say anything about it, therefore the ACA is a total destruction of it, and the black President was a Tyrant like we knew all along.

Sadly, the Tea Party never managed to become a party of its own, and maintained its Republican registrants. That worked out occasionally with primary challenges screwing up established GOP politicians, but pushed the incumbents further to the right; instead of flipping a lot of seats, it landed a few of them the actual election.

Now, frothing rage is usually not a good place to choose your reps from, and the guys (of course it was white guys) who went in had a short vocabulary--NO, and if Obama had anything to do with it, FUCK NO.

Certainly they were seen and heard; i'd say too much of both, and plenty wound up in Congress, where they supported the Constitution by shutting down the government. Those are the ones Boehner had to deal with. Things are much more quiet and confused among them today, as they find they have a constituency that now realizes it was bamboozled on the Replace part, of the Repeal of the ACA. And that certain parts of it are kind of swell. Soon the chants, instead of "government out of my Medicare!" may be, "government out of my Obamacare!"
 
I imagine he never tires from his accomplishment. Becomes Donald Trump, then POTUS. He is not a politician, just a human. If I were a Trump in power, I'd be better...Im sure they all say that.
 
how is the president of the USA not a politician?

I suppose scams are accomplishments, to the people that pull them off...
 
So wait, are politicians then good or bad in the popular mind?

I'd say a politician knows how to parse a phrase, with an ear to his constituency, for good or evil. That requires a person to mentally picture the mind of another, a skill that Trump seems to lack.

He didn't win this spot as a politician, but as a joke and protest vote, against a candidate that nearly pulled it off anyway, after thirty years of planning by the GOP.
 
I can only speak of myself. I grew up hearing what they say. I came of age in Clinton but only started paying attention at his impeachment.

Are they good or bad? They are good when you like them, or there is a war you support. They suck when you don't like them or engage in wars you don't support.

Then after 16 years of active voting you decide the non politician is best because politicians =Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton and I went suicidal. I didn't vote that year but I could not contain my joy at the outcome.

I'll take the politician over the dictator only because I dont have a privileged position in a dictatorship.
 
MorningGlorySeed said:
I'll take the politician over the dictator only because I dont have a privileged position in a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Well I can at least appreciate someone who doesn't sugarcoat their stance with false patriotism or flag waving.


I'm not sure if you meant that the way it came out.
 
He won it for the same reason that most bad things that happen in democracies happen. Cause in general people are retarded. They are really really dumb.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Clinton was a great option either. The fact we are even in the situation of having had to vote for either is a reflection of how retarded people are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top