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.
Gaetz is withdrawing. Either he doesn't have a back bone or he has too many skeletons in the closet.
Predictions for his next choice?
[x] giuliani
[x] giuliani
[x] giuliani
In d2topia, the existence of pineapple on pizza would definitely be illegal.
so i wasn't that wrong when i said this time there was a decent chance it was actually 4d chess for Trump.
Gaetz is out of the house now
nah go all the way , if it is an utopia, it's legal but not a single person wants it so it doesn't happen anyway
I have never met anyone who likes pineapple on pizza. At least not that I know of, I don't know everyone's deepest darkest secrets. Suffice to say, if we were ordering pizza, and somebody requested pineapple, I'd have to seriously reconsider my circle of friends.
Could you show me this law that outlaws the existence of a thing?
spoiler: it's going to refer to an action, not an object as the thing that is illegal
This seems a little semantic when the "action" is a passive activity such as having the thing in your home. If someone said to me that silencers were illegal in NY state, I don't think that my instinctual response would be to argue that, if you read the statute, it is only the act of keeping a silencer in your home that is illegal.
This seems a little semantic when the "action" is a passive activity such as having the thing in your home. If someone said to me that silencers were illegal in NY state, I don't think that my instinctual response would be to argue that, if you read the statute, it is only the act of keeping a silencer in your home that is illegal.
Also a fair point.
Gaetz is withdrawing. Either he doesn't have a back bone or he has too many skeletons in the closet.
Predictions for his next choice?
[x] giuliani
[x] giuliani
[x] giuliani
I don't know who Trump will nominate, but the true odds of Giuliani being the next head of the DOJ are longer than 1000 to 1 imo.
This seems a little semantic when the "action" is a passive activity such as having the thing in your home. If someone said to me that silencers were illegal in NY state, I don't think that my instinctual response would be to argue that, if you read the statute, it is only the act of keeping a silencer in your home that is illegal.
gorgo is the kind of person who denies covid vaccination has ever been mandated, because you always had the option not to attend the college you had paid for, or to quit your job
This seems a little semantic when the "action" is a passive activity such as having the thing in your home. If someone said to me that silencers were illegal in NY state, I don't think that my instinctual response would be to argue that, if you read the statute, it is only the act of keeping a silencer in your home that is illegal.
It was a semantic discussion from the start. I was asked why I chose a word, and I explained why I chose one over another. It triggered one dude, and then 2 or 3 others have tried, unsuccessfully, to come to his defense, and for some reason, I'm the one being ridiculous. I didn't start this, but I'm right, and I'll defend my position.
The action is "possessing" or "occupying" in some cases, but it's still the act, and not the object. And that's the entire point. It's the reason I chose a different word than illegal. I was asked why, that's why.
That this is still going on is mystifying to me, but what am I to do here?
gorgo is the kind of person who denies covid vaccination has ever been mandated, because you always had the option not to attend the college you had paid for, or to quit your job
Obviously. Because the discussions were about the government mandating it, and those are private entities mandating it. It's cute how you suddenly pretend not to know the difference though.
So Luciom, is it the existence of the drugs that is illegal? You have an example of a law declaring a house illegal? You seem to have abandoned the argument without conceding, only to try to lob some insult grenades (unsuccessfully) from your hiding spot.
What gives? Man up. Provide evidence or admit error.
so i wasn't that wrong when i said this time there was a decent chance it was actually 4d chess for Trump.
Gaetz is out of the house now
Unlikely imo. First, I doubt that it was important to Trump to get Gaetz out of the House. Gaetz is a huge Trump bootlick, and Trump has always been more interested in flexing on House Republicans than in getting their approval.
Second, if Trump really thought that giving Congressional Republicans a scalp was important, then I think that he would have engineered this so that the Congressional Republicans had a more credible claim to having scuttled the nomination. This just looks like Gaetz is tucking tail.
It was a semantic discussion from the start. I was asked why I chose a word, and I explained why I chose one over another. It triggered one dude, and then 2 or 3 others have tried, unsuccessfully, to come to his defense, and for some reason, I'm the one being ridiculous. I didn't start this, but I'm right, and I'll defend my position.
The action is "possessing" or "occupying" in some cases, but it's still the act, and not the object. And that's the entire point. It's the reason I chose a differen
I understand your argument, and I think it has more force when you are arguing that a particular formulation has been chosen for the dubious purpose of stigmatizing human beings who don't deserve to be stigmatized.
When we start talking about inanimate objects like silencers, it's a big "who cares" for me, even though you are semantically correct.
I understand your argument, and I think it has more force when you are arguing that a particular formulation has been chosen for the dubious purpose of stigmatizing human beings who don't deserve to be stigmatized.
When we start talking about inanimate objects like silencers, it's a big "who cares" for me, even though you are semantically correct.
I'm not worried about my argument having force or not. I didn't even bring it up. I'm just correcting people who are accusing me of being factually incorrect.
I have never met anyone who likes pineapple on pizza. At least not that I know of, I don't know everyone's deepest darkest secrets. Suffice to say, if we were ordering pizza, and somebody requested pineapple, I'd have to seriously reconsider my circle of friends.
My family used to order it a lot when I was a kid-- I'm fine with but it's not going to be my typical order. But there is definitely nothing "wrong" with it. Pineapple is a delicious fruit. And it's fine to have fruit on savory pizza-- pear/gorgonzola is a pretty normal combination.
I do enjoy that the analogy that I came up with in 2 seconds on the throne at like 4:30 this morning is still bearing its own fruit.
So to speak.
My family used to order it a lot when I was a kid-- I'm fine with but it's not going to be my typical order. But there is definitely nothing "wrong" with it. Pineapple is a delicious fruit. And it's fine to have fruit on savory pizza-- pear/gorgonzola is a pretty normal combination.
Always knew you were suspect.
Unlikely imo. First, I doubt that it was important to Trump to get Gaetz out of the House. Gaetz is a huge Trump bootlick, and Trump has always been more interested in flexing on House Republicans than in getting their approval.
Second, if Trump really thought that giving Congressional Republicans a scalp was important, then I think that he would have engineered this so that the Congressional Republicans had a more credible claim to having scuttled the nomination. This just looks like Gaetz is
Trump had to repay allies in the house more important that Gaetz imho. He isn't repaying "congress", he is repaying a specific faction in the house.
Btw the senate itself will still have to kick at least one ass, if not more (DoD, HHS, NIH, the other 3 suprising nominations), they are happy they don't have to do it more time anyway even if Gaetz ends up sitting among them.
There is an open seat in the senate for Florida (Rubio seat) which is ready for Gaetz
I understand your argument, and I think it has more force when you are arguing that a particular formulation has been chosen for the dubious purpose of stigmatizing human beings who don't deserve to be stigmatized.
When we start talking about inanimate objects like silencers, it's a big "who cares" for me, even though you are semantically correct.
FWIW, it is nice for someone to finally acknowledge that I'm right.
So thank you for that.
