US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

[brokedownpalace10]

To the best of my understanding 'Inflation' is simply defined as 'the increase in the average price of goods and services' whereas the 'inflation rate' is the amount of inflation predicted or experienced over a specific time period.

A Trumper will generally want to measure inflation over the last 4 years. They want to pick a number favorable to their argument. That would be more accurately called cumulative inflation, probably. Inflation by itself is a general term.

Is it worth my repeating the fact that the promise of an immediate price drop in goods and services within the US may well best be described as враньё (vranʹjó) or indeed the middle-way I suggested? IF the MAGA core does indeed indulge in magical thinking, they may view it as vranʹjó? Maybe it's worth asking what the intention of the message was and who the message was directed at.

It was directed at swing voters. His base would vote for him regardless.
All the exit polls, everyone I talked to, he won on high prices. They believed him. Maybe not first day, but immediate tangible efforts and rapid results.
But he immediately weaseled, before even taking office. Then became dismissive of it. Then he started doing things counterproductive to lowering prices.

Anyway, it was an obvious lie. We will see what the future brings. And we need to remember that there are other things that drive the economy, remember that other numbers like unemployment, GDP, etc. pulled out of Covid quite quickly and then were dependably good under Biden

 

[brokedownpalace10]

she had an exemplary work record and was fired for her performance.

That's what I have heard from a couple people and read in the media as well. Screw with getting unemployment and your ability to get that next job.

 

[4DQSAR]

A Trumper will generally want to measure inflation over the last 4 years. They want to pick a number favorable to their argument. That would be more accurately called cumulative inflation, probably. Inflation by itself is a general term.

I think it resonable to say that cherrypicking specific time periods with a view to disguising a larger trend not to be unique to Donald Trump or his supporters. I suggest it may be the fact that we have come to expect perfidity to possess some element of guile. What we may be witness to is the affermation of H.L. Macncken's famous axiom boiled down to it's simplest form.

I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, just noting that I'm aware of politicians doing much the same in other nations.

 

[4DQSAR]

V0.001 - Please feel free to add to and modify as you all see fit. But I believe we may lack the appropriate vocabulary to efficiently discuss the current US government.

"Authoritarian conservatism"

A political ideology that seeks to uphold order, tradition and hierarchy, often with forcible suppression of radical and revolutionary enemies such as communists, Nazis, and anarchists. A defining tenet of authoritarian conservatism is a lack of coherent values on a larger range of issues.

"Babble Hypothesis"

A conjecture that posits a strong correlation between the amount or quantity of speaking time an individual has in group settings and their likelihood of emerging as a leader, as commonly opposed to quality of speech.

"Big Lie" (the)

A political propaganda technique designed to affirm a systematic falsehood in the face of evidential facts. A cardinal element of the big lie is the constant repetition across many different forms of media as necessary to provoke psychological motivation for the public to believe the extreme assertions.

"Blue MAGA"

A pejorative term used to compare some supporters of Democratic Party politicians, such as former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, 2024 Democratic nominee and former vice-president Kamala Harris, or Hillary Clinton to supporters of Republican President Donald Trump.

"Enemy of the People"

The act of casting opposing commentators as lying or otherwise acting in bad faith against the perceived best interests of a nation and/or it peoples. Notable for the disproportionate assertions of wrongdoing/damage and from there, disproportionate threats or other methodologies intended to silence unwanted commentary.

"Firehose of Falsehood" - first coined by the RAND Corporation in 2016. The four distinguishing factors are:

1) It is high-volume and multichannel.
2) It is rapid, continuous, and repetitive.
3) It lacks a commitment to objective reality.
4) It lacks commitment to consistency.

"Flood the Zone"

A political technique in which an individual or group seek to ensure a continuous stream of newsworthy actions and/or statements with the intent of overwhelming the media and preventing other news items to come to the attention of the majority of news consumers. See also "Firehose of Falsehood". Notable tactics are the usage of existing conspiracy theories, highlighting of unrelated events in other nations and assertion of facts proven to be untrue. See also "The Big Lie"

"Nutpicking"

The fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group — hence, "picking the nut". Politically, the act of taking an individual with the most extreme views and presenting them as an 'average' member of whatever grouping(s) that person belongs to.

"Reality distortion field" - Coined by Bud Tribble (Apple Computers) 1981

The ability of a person to convince themselves, and others around them, to believe almost anything with a mix of charm, charisma, bravado, hyperbole, marketing, appeasement and persistence especially when the person is able to significantly alter their position on an issue without explicitly stating that they have changed their position. See also "Firehose of Falsehood" and "The Big Lie"

"Vranyo" - Taken from the Russian

A lie in which both parties understand a statement to be factually untrue but which may contain elements of 'truthiness' and may serve to make a nations peoples disengage from mass media and instead use digital media which is prone to placing individuals in 'echo chambers' which re-enforce prejudices and explicitly avoid confronting a prejudice.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

I think it resonable to say that cherrypicking specific time periods with a view to disguising a larger trend not to be unique to Donald Trump or his supporters. I suggest it may be the fact that we have come to expect perfidity to possess some element of guile. What we may be witness to is the affermation of H.L. Macncken's famous axiom boiled down to it's simplest form.

I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, just noting that I'm aware of politicians doing much the same in other nations.

Sure. I was just speaking specifically about measuring inflation in an anti-Biden way.

I will say again though, that the response or attitude that, "They all lie" while speaking about Trump is in no way fair or valid. As I said in a previous post, others don't lie constantly, as standard operating procedure. And, most importantly, there are consequences for those lies.

When I looked up vranyo, it read, "Vranyo is a form of institutionalized lying, which means that everybody knows that everybody is lying but they all go along with it." It said that the closest American term for it would be, "bullshit". If true, the very fact that vranyo even being considered as to Trump's rhetoric speaks volumes. I don't want any politician in government who no one expects to believe. I don't envy the Russians in thinking that about their entire government.

As to the axiom, do you mean, "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."? If so, explain. (I'm just curious, informational not confrontational)

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Apologies for repling to posts days ago - I'm still playing catch up on a few earlier replies and trying not to post too much on any given day.

hey tlb, you would kind of expect mike walz to say that wouldn't you? i mean he's the national security advisor for the u.s. and somehow, on his watch, a bunch of high-level administration officials accidentally included a journalist on a secure group chat about a military bombing mission. a chat in which the secretary of defense stated "We are currently clean on OPSEC." (OPSEC is operational security).

Yes, of course I'd expect Mike Walz to be in a CYA mode. Thought I'd said as much in my response. Apologies if I didn't, or it wasn't clear.

While Donald Trump may not have been in that Signal group, it was only because a US journalist was accidently made part of the group that it became public. Was it a one-off? We don't know.

Of note, it was Biden's admin that approved the use of Signalfor such comms. And both parties have used it extensively - which I find very at odds with how we pressure our gov't employees to NOT hide things. We have security levels on information, we have Fauci et all actively avoiding leaving comms where FOIA can access them, we have congress persons (again, of both parties) who use the app. It's just weird a black/back channel comm system is so prevalent in a country that values transparency, and we hold none of those parties accountable.

But, the use of Signal is an 'oh, btw'. The real nut here is how/why the private chat included someone it shouldn't. As you note, we have no idea how much communication is done outside public view. We simply don't know. We know this time because those involved fkd it up. Badly. THAT is the real problem, not which tools they choose to use - it wasn't hacked, it wasn't leaked by weak or compromised staffers, it was an error that shouldn't happen. Oopsie!

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Of note, it was Biden's admin that approved the use of Signalfor such comms.

(Sigh) Biden's admin did not approve Signal for classified information.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

In context of 'no new wars'

but charles manson didn't murder anybody until 1969 so we'll give him a break for the murders after 1969

for context, biden didn't start any wars either.

There is an air of absurdity (beyond what you would credit to Trump on a daily basis) in your first statement. Maybe I'm not getting it, but let me try to roll with it. Trump not starting any wars (YET /ali) is akin to Manson not killing anyone until he did. Um..ok? Trump didn't start wars in his first term or this one. Nor did others start wars we got pulled into. You state this as if Trump will start wars. There is no indication he will. Manson? Crazy from the get go.

For context, Biden may not have actively started the wars, but both Hamas-Israel and Russia-Ukraine occurred under his lack of global strength. He didn't actively start them, but he passively allowed them to occur. Tell me you see a relationship between bad actors taking their opprotunity when the US has a weak President on the global stage that allows them to do so.

if you can't get anything done by negotiating with congress, then don't tell everybody you're going to build a wall and mexico will pay for it.

Trump is one of America's greatest negotiators - he will be happy to tell you so, while his supporters nod their heads in agreement like a line of ducks. But in negotiating, how is the process carried out? You aim for more than you want/need and give up ground you didn't think you'd get in the first place to arrive at an agreement that meets what you were really after. Part of that is putting your opponent in a bad position while you maintain leverage. Trump failed to do this in his first term on both Mexico and congress. This term, through tarriffs with Mexico he is already getting some of what he wants, starting with a closure on the flood of immigrants, supported by Mexican military getting active on their side with the Cartels. With Congress, I still don't see what leverage he is gaining to push them to the table and get what he wants, other than resetting the expectations of activity and transparency in the Executive branch, setting a bar so high that future presidents have to meet it; while also saying 'here is what I am doing that the American people voted for me to do, but mine effort is temporary and Congress has to act to make it permanent'. He is showing what can be done (border, spending, etc) that Congress can support and make permanent or they can be voted out if they fail to deliver what American's wanted and Trump/Congress were put in place to do. He doesn't have to play nice, whether congress is held by either party, as this is his last shot. He'll do everything he can, knowing it is up to Congress to follow through, and they will be held accountable at the ballot box.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Of note, it was Biden's admin that approved the use of Signalfor such comms.

They put out guidelines for "highly targeted individuals" to use in their day to day personal communications which recommended Signal. With a highly targeted individual, where they are going to be at any time and other mundane information might useful to a hostile foreign govt. The guidelines in no way mention classified or important information.

"While applicable to all audiences, this guidance specifically addresses “highly targeted” individuals who are in senior government or senior political positions and likely to possess information of interest to these threat actors. CISA is releasing this best practice guidance to promote protections for mobile communications from exploitation by PRC-affiliated and other malicious cyber threat actors.Best Practices CISA strongly urges highly targeted individuals to immediately review and apply the best practices below to protect mobile communications. Highly targeted individuals should assume that all communications between mobile devices—including government and personal devices—and internet services are at risk of interception or manipulation."

Loading…

www.cisa.gov

 

[alasdairm]

On the Musk side, courts have ruled he isn't "buying votes" but trying to get out the vote (something Democrats are very familiar with). Yes, he has his preferred candidate, but there are no strings connecting the $1m and who any citizen votes for. Honestly, if I were a Dem in Wisconsin, I'd be grabbing that money and running all the way to the voting booth

sure

but a democrat didn't grab that money. completely randomly, one winner just happened to be the chairman of the wisconsin college republicans. but there' sno proof that the whole thing was rigged bullshit so we'll assume it was not.

i remember back in 2012 (maybe 2008) when starbucks would give you a free coffee just for having an "i voted" sticker. and there was opposition to that because some felt it favored one candidate.

this said, there's a good chance that musk broke the law in wisconsin where state election law expressly prohibits giving anything of value in exchange for voting (regardless of the candidate) or not voting.

What does Wisconsin law say about Musk having offered money to voters?

"MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Billionaire Elon Musk’s unprecedented efforts to bolster the conservative candidate in the hotly contested 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race ran into legal hot water on March 28 amid accusations that he had broken state election law.

Musk announced late on March 27 that he planned to hold a March 30 rally in Wisconsin, where he said he would “personally hand over” $1 million checks to two voters who had already cast their ballots “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.”
...
Wisconsin law makes it a felony to offer, give, lend or promise to lend or give anything of value to induce a voter to cast a ballot or not vote.

Numerous legal experts argued March 28 that Musk’s first post promising payments to voters for voting appeared to be in clear violation of the bribery statute."

alasdair

 

[LucidSDreamr]

On the Musk side, courts have ruled he isn't "buying votes"

Good thing musk (and other special interests) never throw money to install judges or influence judges so they would rule that what he does is fine and totally legal.

Since this never happens we can trust that the judges are being impartial.

 

[alasdairm]

^ can we tone that down? passions run high but no need to start getting personal.

i feel like when you start using "you people", you're just giving up on discussing issues in good faith.

i simply do not understand how people can look at trump and not be absolutely repulsed by his disgusting behavior and aghast at his unhinged nonsense and tsunami of lies.

note that the operative part of that sentence is "i simply do not understand". that's on me.

i can't think of a less bs, more honest person on bluelight than tlb so hearing his perspective on trump and these issues helps me to understand.

alasdair

 

[neversickanymore]

Wisco giggles at Musks money

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/02/nx-s1-5349345/elections-wisconsin-florida-trump-musk-takeaways

 

[LucidSDreamr]

^ can we tone that down? passions run high but no need to start getting personal.

i feel like when you start using "you people", you're just giving up on discussing issues in good faith.

i simply do not understand how people can look at trump and not be absolutely repulsed by his disgusting behavior and aghast at his unhinged nonsense and tsunami of lies.

note that the operative part of that sentence is "i simply do not understand". that's on me.

i can't think of a less bs, more honest person on bluelight than tlb so hearing his perspective on trump and these issues helps me to understand.

alasdair

Giving these people the benefit of the doubt and believing they just see things from a different angle is exactly how they achieved minority rule. We’ve been giving the right a voice after literal wars they’ve lost, after coming to killing each other, and they’ve taken every bit of advantage of that kindness. Look where we are now.

Keep conceding to them. In done making explanations to excuse this. There is no explanation other than either greed (which I get), stupidity (I get that also); or something they are just too cowardly to say…but some of them are starting to say. The hiding behind the first two or just arguing against objective reality is what bothers me more than the last reason itself. I’d prefer if they were just honest than continuing to play this game.

Even with wholesale honesty progressives leaning groups would probably just try to accommodate them again; and end up getting taking advantage of again.

 

[sHR00m]

Giving these people the benefit of the doubt and believing they just see things from a different angle is exactly how they achieved minority rule.

Keep conceding to them. In done making explanations to excuse this. There is no explanation other than either greed (which I get) or something they are just too cowardly to say…but some of them are starting to say it.

No they archieved majority rule because both sides were largely living a parallel existence without interacting much. Living in their own bubbles, consuming their own (social) media. Why would talking with each other be a bad thing? As long as the talk is being done in good faith. Cant have a civilized debate if its not in good faith.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

No they archieved majority rule because both sides were largely living a parallel existence without interacting much. Living in their own bubbles, consuming their own (social) media. Why would talking with each other be a bad thing? As long as the talk is being done in good faith. Cant have a civilized debate if its not in good

They’ve been gifted minority rule and disproportionate representation in this country generations before social media existed.

Why not keep talking? Why did the civil war happen? Why did ww2 happen? Why didn’t they just talk more. I’m sure Europeans should’ve just been patient while people talked things out with the axis.

At a certain point things can’t be worked out. America hasn’t even realized this yet and it’s too late. We let someone that tried to kill his vice president to violently overthrow an election have the keys to the kingdom. You want to talk things out with these people?

 

[sHR00m]

They’ve been gifted minority rule and disproportionate representation in this country generations before social media existed.

Why not keep talking? Why did the civil war happen? Why did ww2 happen? Why didn’t they just talk more. I’m sure Europeans should’ve just been patient while people talked things out with the axis.

I don't see it like that. This rise of the neocon shit started arguably under George W. Bush and continued with the tea party, massive social media disinformation against Obama, etc. It wasn't quite like that before IMHO.

 

[alasdairm]

trump slapped tariffs on, well, everybody today. nobody got off!

for example, take jan mayen. it's an island in the arctic ocean about 145 square miles in size.

total population = 0
total value of exports to the u.s. - $0
110% of $0 = $0

maga!

alasdair

 

[4DQSAR]

Well, 'Libearation Day' is apon us.

Will Donald Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs drag US into recession?

President’s move to rip up global trade rule book will hit an economy already losing momentum, say economists

www.ft.com

I don't know how much veracity others place on the Financial Times but it's generally been quite good in the past, in my experience.

I am reminded of how Margeret Thatcher 'revolutionized' the UK economy in the 1980s. Her argument was that private businesses are more efficient than government entities and went on to systematically sell off all the institutions that had been founded and built on taxpayers money. As of 2024 the Tories were still finding smaller and smaller government assets to sell off.

It's worth noting that in the UK we pay more for energy, more for fuel, more for food and more for transport than any nation in Western Europe - because a private business has to make a profit.

It's unclear IF Donald Trump plans to sell off or simply close certain parts of the US government. All I can say is that I'm old enough to remember what followed Thatcher. It's 40+ years later and almost everyone has much less. Successive governments promise to improve things, but have nothing but taxation (of one sort or another) to supply the money.

I CAN see what MAY be DTs aim - but I note that the FT predicts a decrease in output from the US economy. That can translate into a loss of jobs. Well, it did in the case of the UK. But I am not about to assert it as a given.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Shame about the maga federal workers begging Elon for their jobs back. I guess they forgot voting has consequences. Lol