Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
what makes you think I need to explain my life to you?
My thoughts and my feelings are my own and not subject to your inspection or your analysis.
this isn't a debate, nor is this debatable as being of a questionable ideology.
so it is written, so shall it be done.
Hate for the sake of hate then
Cool, you’re an *******
+1 to the ignore list
Edit: remember when you were spewing that pennsyvania was rigged for Kamala bullshit cuz of some tv image you ****ing degenerate? Anything to say about that to the people who will actually read it?
Hired a company to clean our gutters this morning. It’s great now that Trump is president we don’t have to pay these people for completed work!
The fact that those subsidies are popular with 56% of the people doesn't negate anything of what i wrote.
Notice how "more likely to vote" means they can care about it but it's not single-issue. As i wrote, many of those recipients perhaps would like to keep those subsidies yet consider other parts of the Trump policy platform more desirable.
Yet you want "choose for them" because "you know better".
Reading comprehension is key - it's popular with 78% of voters, not 56%:
The poll findings also showed 78% of voters support making permanent the Affordable Care Act (ACA) enhanced tax credits and 56% were more likely to vote for a candidate who supports it.
Trump plan to attack the Biden era government sponsored online censorship
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1855119856...
6 min long but the tl;dr is to throw the book with the full force of the state agains every single individual in the federal government which contacted social media to talk about censorship of legal content.
And sec 230 will be limited only to companies that meet "high standards of neutrality". Basically if you want to curate content then you have to be fully legally liable fo
I suggest taking a look at Trump's track record on lawsuits (as both a civilian and president) before getting too excited.
in social media you mean? IF trump gets what he proposes done, then mods can exist to censor illegal content , but if a platform wants sec 230 protections they can't censor anything that isn't illegal in the USA.
Sounds like lots of lawsuits to me. It will probably kill lots of sites then. I wonder what truth social will look like lol
Sounds like lots of lawsuits to me. It will probably kill lots of sites then. I wonder what truth social will look like lol
Can't lose users if you don't have any.
Anyway, the idea is that IF companies think that losing sec 230 protection is very detrimental, they stop censoring content... which is the intended outcome.
Personally i would put a size threshold though, because censorship efforts by private actors should in general be legal (and not discriminated against), and it's only if they become about systemic cartel efforts that they are a threat to national security (like it happened with covid), so i would do the proposed change only for (say) platforms with more than 10M active american users or something like that.
I fully understand a legal right to organize online only among people who share a subset of values shared across the population should exist and be promoted. And i think conservatives don't want a christian forum to be swamped with blasphemy with no recourse for example.
Can't lose users if you don't have any.
Anyway, the idea is that IF companies think that losing sec 230 protection is very detrimental, they stop censoring content... which is the intended outcome.
Personally i would put a size threshold though, because censorship efforts by private actors should in general be legal (and not discriminated against), and it's only if they become about systemic cartel efforts that they are a threat to national security (like it happened with covid), so i would do the
Great idea on the last one, I’m going to start doing that if this happens.
Which it probably won’t since so many tech billionaires supported his campaign
Can't lose users if you don't have any.
Anyway, the idea is that IF companies think that losing sec 230 protection is very detrimental, they stop censoring content... which is the intended outcome.
Personally i would put a size threshold though, because censorship efforts by private actors should in general be legal (and not discriminated against), and it's only if they become about systemic cartel efforts that they are a threat to national security (like it happened with covid), so i would do the
So you want to kill Freedom for small business owners? Nah They get to come on board in my version.
No users now--until it becomes a den of villainy and vice(it's not illegal to talk about illegal things like drugs btw) and the biggest anti-trump platform on the internet 😀 This is probably going to turn into an easy way to score loot just suing snowflakes.
Great idea on the last one, I’m going to start doing that if this happens.
Which it probably won’t since so many tech billionaires supported his campaign
Or you know, meta and google start moving toward the twitter model of far less censorship and that's how they prevent those changes to happen in those terms.
So you want to kill Freedom for small business owners? Nah They get to come on board in my version.
No users now--until it becomes a den of villainy and vice(it's not illegal to talk about illegal things like drugs btw) and the biggest anti-trump platform on the internet 😀 This is probably going to turn into an easy way to score loot just suing snowflakes.
uh? i wrote the opposite, to leave sec 230 as it is for almost everyone except the biggest platforms. Which btw is nothing new as a concept in regulation, the EU just passed stricter regulations (bad ones, but that's not the point) for the very biggest companies and not for everyone else for example.
they don’t have a hateful content policy. it’s not heavily enforced but still there.
It applies to the USA as well? I thought that only applied to content generated in countries with hate speech laws.
Anyway if they do they will have to change that (or get sec 230 written as to reflect basically exactly what twitter does, basically forcing others to copy or lose it's protections)
uh? i wrote the opposite, to leave sec 230 as it is for almost everyone except the biggest platforms. Which btw is nothing new as a concept in regulation, the EU just passed stricter regulations (bad ones, but that's not the point) for the very biggest companies and not for everyone else for example.
If Freedom is on one side of your list how is it also Freedom on the other side? And if both sides are equal to Freedom what are we delineating again?
It applies to the USA as well? I thought that only applied to content generated in countries with hate speech laws.
Anyway if they do they will have to change that (or get sec 230 written as to reflect basically exactly what twitter does, basically forcing others to copy or lose it's protections)
lol
Obviously kind of true, as long as nothing on the list happens. It's pretty obvious that as long as you have boring politics then whatever you do personally is going to be more important than a 5% tax cut or a 50 dollar increase in benefits, but not quite as true if a hurricane destroys your house and the government won't help you because of the way you voted.
But that isn't quite a response to the post. There's a problem that, in response to report's about Trump's desire to murder protesters o
A legitmate worry is arguable but i would certainly rank the likelihood and its personal effect lower than the worry that leads me to a drug or alcohol abuse amongst many other factors due to politcal fear
Ive personally seen, and im sure youve had has well, folks go down a dark path after 2016 and i wouldnt argue that those particular fears were rational.
We are seeing a new batch of this fear now like with rhe OP in question, and it will ruin some people, and it doesnt need to.
The Trumpapocalypse is here (again).
Not surprising that the same type of people who fear monger over climate change and are terrified of catching a cold, are the same ones wetting their pants over another Trump presidency.
Some people have to have something to be terrified about. It defines their existence.
The Trumpapocalypse is here (again).
Not surprising that the same type of people who fear monger over climate change and are terrified of catching a cold, are the same ones wetting their pants over another Trump presidency.
Some people have to have something to be terrified about. It defines their existence.
And some people need imaginary foes to have a purpose in life.
The Trumpapocalypse is here (again).
Not surprising that the same type of people who fear monger over climate change and are terrified of catching a cold, are the same ones wetting their pants over another Trump presidency.
Some people have to have something to be terrified about. It defines their existence.
Millions of people died of covid, many of them elderly or disabled. I have friends whose parents died of covid. What an insane and immoral take.
Love this in front of Horseshoe/Paris:
