President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
he lied about beheaded and burned alive Jewish children so that the Israel could behead and burn alive and bury alive 100s of thousands of non-Jewish children.
but I guess that wasnt dumb. it was pretty smart and exactly what his handlers told him to do.
Are you disappointed that the number of total dead is only 72k? Most of which were terrorists. Your predictions came up way short. So much for the “genocide” talk.
But what Biden couldn't do was eliminate inflation early on which people in the US found painful. It wasn't his fault in my opinion. But he never publicly dealt with it.
Yes, it was inevitable that inflation was going to go through the roof after shutting down the economy and giving out $3.5 trillion in relief - regardless if Trump remained in office or if another president came into office, and it was going to take a while for the chickens to come home to roost. It's like gas prices - once reserves are used up, then we're going to really see the effects of the strait being closed, hence why Trump is really wanting to find an offramp before mids.
That said, inflation went up to over 9% under Biden but was brought down to 2.4% before election time. Trump took it from 2.4% to 4.2% and tanked the job market to covid levels. Doubt we'll ever dip below 3% for the remainder of his presidency.
I think if Biden had not run in the primary the Democrats would have won the presidential election against Trump as I think Kamala wouldn't have been the nominee. But it might have been close because of inflation.Nobody could be worse than Trump is. It was just sad that Kamala couldn't beat him in the election. I actually thought she had a shot the day before the election bu
Well, Clinton would have pummeled him if Comey didn't announce he was opening the investigation into her emails 11 days prior to the election.
Kamala was never on that good of footing, and it was a gross oversight to stick with her. They thought there were sane people who wouldn't vote for a convicted felon who was best friends with a pedophile and adjudicated a rapist in civil court, particularly after how he ended his first term.
It's hilarious to watch all the pikachu faces when a guy convicted of 34 felonies comes into the White House and is committing felonies.
Ok.
The one and only reason: She's not Trump.
Vote for you over Trump and you're the main contender and you've shown yourself to not be retaaded like Trump? Yes.
Kinda crazy to treat Trump like any other random non incumbent over the past 36 years without mentioning he’s the only one out of the group to have already been president.
A President who had a dismal approval rating and LOST. I think you're making my point stronger, not weaker.
Maybe Carter should have tried for a rematch with Reagan in 1984.
He probably wouldn't have done worse than Mondale.
Not a dig at you but many will vote for almost anyone. However poor their policies etc
so that's what they get. Tragically it doesn't even work
I would probably only vote for Nut Nut if I thought he wouldn’t be able to do anything. Otherwise I think Trump is preferable to him policy-wise.
I would probably only vote for Nut Nut if I thought he wouldn’t be able to do anything. Otherwise I think Trump is preferable to him policy-wise.
so should the least worsters vote trump if nut nut could do stuff?
A President who had a dismal approval rating and LOST. I think you're making my point stronger, not weaker.
Maybe Carter should have tried for a rematch with Reagan in 1984.
If want want to argue Dems should have won in 2024, incumbent advantage is one of the worst arguments you could make.
Based on what he has stated on the forum he is worse than Trump, so probably. Someone else might have a different opinion.
I wouldn’t vote for someone who wants everyone to be confined to enviro-camps for the good of some abstract concept of planetary health. Sounds worse than anything Trump has done and proposed.
Based on what he has stated on the forum he is worse than Trump, so probably. Someone else might have a different opinion.
I wouldn’t vote for someone who wants everyone to be confined to enviro-camps for the good of some abstract concept of planetary health. Sounds worse than anything Trump has done and proposed.
Sure you would. We just need to find someone even worse
This may be an exaggerated hypothetical but it is the path of the least worsters. Over time it keeps getting worse.
Sure you would. We just need to find someone even worse
This may be an exaggerated hypothetical but it is the path of the least worsters. Over time it keeps getting worse.
I thought over Trump was implied there. If a negative utilitarian who wanted to end the world was running he might have a shot to get my vote.
I don’t think the fact that there could be someone Nut Nut is preferable to is much of an argument in favor of him.
I thought over Trump was implied there. If a negative utilitarian who wanted to end the world was running he might have a shot to get my vote.
I don’t think the fact that there could be someone Nut Nut is preferable to is much of an argument in favor of him.
Sure, it's not an argument in favour of anyone
It's an argument for voting for what we don't want and while so many do it then that's what we get. Sometimes the least worst candidate wins and maybe things fall apart a bit less slowly while setting things up for when the worst worst wins.
Sure, it's not an argument in favour of anyone
It's an argument for voting for what we don't want and while so many do it then that's what we get. Sometimes the least worst candidate wins and maybe things fall apart a bit less slowly while setting things up for when the worst worst wins.
I'd probably vote for NN over Deuces if I were forced to vote, simply on the basis that Nut Nut has more moments of honesty and that he may actually become distracted from some of his fantasy role playing ideas if he could be contained in a barracks surrounded by masturbating women. But I would snap vote for Kim Jong Un over both.
But the whole worsters argument can only reach a certain point before people give up on voting or leave the country. Two things that people won't be able to do anyway if the worsters or near worster became president.
I'd probably vote for NN over Deuces if I were forced to vote, simply on the basis that Nut Nut has more moments of honesty and that he may actually become distracted from some of his fantasy role playing ideas if he could be contained in a barracks surrounded by masturbating women. But I would snap vote for Kim Jong Un over both.But the whole worsters argument can only reach
It would be very fun to have some sort of politics forum members game draft or poll (tournament most fun) where we vote for the potential president.
I have no idea how to implement such a thing , maybe poggers knows.
Based on what he has stated on the forum he is worse than Trump, so probably. Someone else might have a different opinion.
I wouldn’t vote for someone who wants everyone to be confined to enviro-camps for the good of some abstract concept of planetary health. Sounds worse than anything Trump has done and proposed.
You misunderstand.
I don't think there is any risk to planetary health. The planet will be fine until the Sun reaches a later stage in its life cycle and expands. Then the Earth will simply disappear.
My motivation is the longevity of the human species and civilization which is completely dependent on the Earth remaining in the narrow range of the last few million years or the last 0.1% of Earth's history.
There's nothing abstract about it. Nearly all versions of Earth's 4.5 billion year history are incompatible with human life. We have lived in a very specific version that was ideal for our expansion and multiplication. We are now becoming the victims of our own success as the metabolic outputs of our industry are creating a version of the planet which will kick us off.
Some people like yourself would choose extinction over adaptation.
I suspect most people would prefer life.
I would encourage a mock debate and election. Sounds like an interesting exercise.
If I were to provide an analogy for my candidacy ......
Our situation is equivalent to having fallen out of an airplane from 20,000 feet.
My candidacy offers a parachute.
My opponents reject the parachute. They don't grasp the consequences of impact. They enjoy the experience of free falling which I acknowledge is quite pleasant, albeit highly temporary.
Hey, thats all good stuff....let's do this. Let's continue it on one of your threads but I ask for two things from you if i could.1) let's ignore all moral or legal ramifications of how people may or may not be treated in thia ideal situation and you let your opinions rip to the fullest. No Bernie takes.2) with that, explain how your ideas would actually accomplish your env
It's all one integrated story.
This is titled the "Donald Trump" thread.
Donald Trump is the symptom of a situation which is headed for an involuntary population reduction. He has the heartless personality which lends itself to deciding who lives and who dies. His appeal is to people who want to rally behind a leader who will survive as a result of their being in good favor with the person making those decisions.
It's not altogether complicated.
There is any intelligent discussion of Trump (or the project 2025 apparatus behind him) without addressing their purpose in nature. It's all about tribal warfare and competition.
Trump is just an avatar of a world preparing for involuntary population reduction. If you don't like him but are unwilling to support the degrowth policies necessary to eliminate the demand for a monster like him, then you are part of the problem.
Could we please talk about how Trump is a baby throwing a tantrum refusing (pointlessly since it becomes law in a few days automatically if he doesn’t veto/sign) to sign the Housing bill?
Or talk about how his man Vance is a spineless coward giving in to every Iranian demand for empty promises that Iran doesnt even feel the need to give?
It's not absolutely clear that it becomes law in the absence of his signing it. If he doesn't sign it within ten days, it only becomes law if Congress is in session. Congress has an upcoming recess planned which may occur before the 10 days expires.
If he vetoes it, then Congress would need to vote again and approve it with a 2/3 majority.
He and his Project 2025 backers want to use all the leverage they can to get their voting legislation passed and make it more difficult for their political opponents to participate in the electoral process. They're trying to figure out ways to maintain control without popular backing.
He's a bully throwing a tantrum. But his effectiveness as a bully is waning as someone who polls a net 20% unfavorable.
