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.
My guess is it will be something along the lines of "Our freedoms are negative rights, not positive rights." As if thats an explanation for ****ing anything.
? You lack nuance completely and think everyone else does.
Ideological purity is for midwits.
Pragmatism accepting tradeoffsnand case by case considerations in exceptional circumstances is for grown adults
? You lack nuance completely and think everyone else does.
Ideological purity is for midwits.
Pragmatism accepting tradeoffsnand case by case considerations in exceptional circumstances is for grown adults
****ing king of nuance here, who thinks ideological purity is for midwits and also that the right to bear arms means civilians should be allowed to own tanks and nuclear warheads.
No idea. I really have no clue why people keep believing a con man who is quite obviously a compulsive liar after he lies to them over and over again. The only explanation I can come up with is that they're morons. I mean, it makes sense, a lot of people are (source: quick glance at the graph of e^(-x^2)).
What's that, the function for immigrants that "can't be integrated"?
****ing king of nuance here, who thinks ideological purity is for midwits and also that the right to bear arms means civilians should be allowed to own tanks and nuclear warheads.
I am in favour of amending the 2a to circumscribe the right to sensible weaponry.
That doesn't mean we can invent interpretations just because we prefer them though.
Do you get the difference?
No idea. I really have no clue why people keep believing a con man who is quite obviously a compulsive liar after he lies to them over and over again. The only explanation I can come up with is that they're morons. I mean, it makes sense, a lot of people are (source: quick glance at the graph of e^(-x^2)).
Maybe your premise is wrong. They dont believe him. They do know what the democrats are supporting.
I'll keep making this point because it's so fundamental. People are increasingly unhappy with the status quo. Whatever they answer in polls and however they rationalsie it, they really want change and if we dont offer it they will increasingly vote for anyone who does.
I am in favour of amending the 2a to circumscribe the right to sensible weaponry.
That doesn't mean we can invent interpretations just because we prefer them though.
Do you get the difference?
If your argument is that you're not an absolutist and/or that you are in the habit of nuanced analysis, then yeah, computer says no.
Maybe your premise is wrong. They dont believe him. They do know what the democrats are supporting.
I'll keep making this point because it's so fundamental. People are increasingly unhappy with the status quo. Whatever they answer in polls and however they rationalsie it, they really want change and if we dont offer it they will increasingly vote for anyone who does.
Ok, but if you're unhappy with the status quo and vote worse just because it's different, you are still a moron. It's actually quite hard to do something only a moron would do and then find a justification for it which doesn't involve being a moron, but keep trying.
CNN is a reasonable source. It may have bias, but it doesn't outright lie to it's audience on the daily, like Fox and many right-win media outlets. Tell me the equivalent of a media matters.org site for conservative media, and then we'll have a real conversation. None exist.
From the CNN article:
Musk and his conservative allies have insinuated the released messages provide evidence of illicit behavior by the FBI, suggesting the exchange of secret files pertaining to Hunter Biden, and improper pa
You need to use better sources. Your CNN story is false.
Much of the public ignored the reporting or assumed it was false, as over 50 former intelligence officials charged that the laptop story was a creation of a “Russian disinformation” campaign. The mainstream media was primed by allegations of election interference in 2016 — and, to be sure, Trump did attempt to use the laptop to disrupt the Biden campaign. Twitter ended up banning links to the New York Post’s report on the contents of the laptop during the crucial weeks leading up to the election. Facebook also throttled users’ ability to view the story.
In recent months, a clearer picture of the government’s influence has emerged.
In an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast in August, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that Facebook had limited sharing of the New York Post’s reporting after a conversation with the FBI. “The background here is that the FBI came to us — some folks on our team — and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election,’” Zuckerberg told Rogan. The FBI told them, Zuckerberg said, that “‘We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump.’” When the Post’s story came out in October 2020, Facebook thought it “fit that pattern” the FBI had told them to look out for.
Zuckerberg said he regretted the decision, as did Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter at the time. Despite claims that the laptop’s contents were forged, the Washington Post confirmed that at least some of the emails on the laptop were authentic. The New York Times authenticated emails from the laptop — many of which were cited in the original New York Post reporting from October 2020 — that prosecutors have examined as part of the Justice Department’s probe into whether the president’s son violated the law on a range of issues, including money laundering, tax-related offenses, and foreign lobbying registration.
Documents filed in federal court as part of a lawsuit by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana add a layer of new detail to Zuckerberg’s anecdote, revealing that officials leading the push to expand the government’s reach into disinformation also played a quiet role in shaping the decisions of social media giants around the New York Post story.
According to records filed in federal court, two previously unnamed FBI agents — Elvis Chan, an FBI special agent in the San Francisco field office, and Dehmlow, the section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force — were involved in high-level communications that allegedly “led to Facebook’s suppression” of the Post’s reporting.
Oh look, speaking of morons. BJ's ears must have been burning.
Ok, but if you're unhappy with the status quo and vote worse just because it's different, you are still a moron. It's actually quite hard to do something only a moron would do and then find a justification for it which doesn't involve being a moron, but keep trying.
I dont agree. I wouldn't do it but sometimes you have to go backwards first.
Supporting polarisation by for example calling huge swathes of the electorate morons is also making it worse but I wouldn't say the people who do it are morons
Supporting polarisation by for example calling huge swathes of the electorate morons is also making it worse but I wouldn't say the people who do it are morons
So we can't criticise anyone for anything ever, because that would be "supporting polarisation". Or we can criticise them, but only in chez approved ways. Lol ok bro.
Public roads on public land why not? Public property is common property and communal owners can use their communal property.
I am not anarchocapitalist
I dunno, you seem to have all sorts of wacky and eccentric ideas, I thought you might be one of the "taxes are theft, society should be run by a charity" guys like that dude in the other thread. Otherwise I don't know why you even mentioned central banks?
I am in favour of amending the 2a to circumscribe the right to sensible weaponry.
That doesn't mean we can invent interpretations just because we prefer them though.
Do you get the difference?
It wasn’t until 2008 that the sc decided the second amendment should be interpreted to give the individual a right to guns.. So much for strict constructionism and stare declsis. We should probably hang those guys, huh?
So we have your theory, which is that they're playing 4d chess, and we have what we'll call "Occam's theory" which is that they are morons. Let's examine the evidence, like, say, the article that was posted in this thread where they said "we're so disappointed, with Trump's cabinet picks, we thought he was on our side". Gee, I wonder who is right, chez or Occam? It's a ****ing poser, I tell ya.
I dunno, you seem to have all sorts of wacky and eccentric ideas, I thought you might be one of the "taxes are theft, society should be run by a charity" guys like that dude in the other thread. Otherwise I don't know why you even mentioned central banks?
Because the vast majority of libertarians, even those that accept a minimal state, are against the existence of a central bank.
In a meeting of libertarians I am basically in the top 2% of "statists" every time
So we have your theory, which is that they're playing 4d chess, and we have what we'll call "Occam's theory" which is that they are morons. Let's examine the evidence, like, say, the article that was posted in this thread where they said "we're so disappointed, with Trump's cabinet picks, we thought he was on our side". Gee, I wonder who is right, chez or Occam? It's a ****ing poser, I tell ya.
Smacco razor is they voted for the winner so they are smarter than those who voter for the loser though
I thought libertarianism was something people grew out of by the time they left their teens.
So we can't criticise anyone for anything ever, because that would be "supporting polarisation". Or we can criticise them, but only in chez approved ways. Lol ok bro.
Sure you can critcise people.
Contributing to the 'vote for us you stupid racist bigots' is a mistake. A doozy of a mistake. One made by people who definitely aren't all morons.
I dont agree. I wouldn't do it but sometimes you have to go backwards first.
Supporting polarisation by for example calling huge swathes of the electorate morons is also making it worse but I wouldn't say the people who do it are morons
No one does this directly, but carry on hacking away at that straw man.
