Donald J. Trump (For everyone else except Victor)
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I would like to post a non-traditional view of Trump rooted in biology and herd psychology.
I believe that the human herd is getting the signal that a significant involuntary population reduction event is imminent.
I would ask you ..... would you want the responsibility of sorting the world's population into surviving and non-surviving subgroups when the non-surviving group is going to be massive ??
For most conscientious people, the answer is a resounding no. Look at the images of Lincoln before and after he took office. He aged a LOT during the Civil War. It was an immense personal burden to himself to lead through so much bloodshed and death.
This is where someone with a personal like Trump comes into play. He's not an accident of nature. We have evolved from billions of years of evolution through creatures that have known famine and population reduction. Our survival has depended upon having people with diverse traits, including the willingness among a subset of us to decide who lives and who dies in the situations where that must happen.
Trump didn't create the system. He didn't a human nature which is competitive in mate selection and in which money determines who is fit to raise children. So the competition to accumulate more and more money is an expression of our nature. At the same time, that personal survival and dominance motivation becomes malignant with respect to the species population as a whole.
Looking at Trump's actions .... tariffs are meant to ensure that the US has the self reliance in advance of global supply failure. Border control and citizenship is a means of deciding who is in and who is out. Agression with respect to foreign territory such as Greenland and the Panama Canal is another means of expressing dominance in a world in which a lot of people aren't going to make it.
I don't like Trump. But I don't blame him for being who he is. He didn't choose his DNA and upbringing any more than I did mine. He serves a purpose which I find ugly and brutal, but also natural. Nature is both beautiful and brutal at the same time. I wish i didn't have to live through an era that calls for his traits. But I don't get to choose.
I would prefer an alpha like FDR, but the path to someone like that gaining prominence in the either political party in the USA today is pretty close to zero.
As they said in Game of Thrones, I wish you all good fortune in the wars to come.
I don't like Trump. But I don't blame him for being who he is. He didn't choose his DNA and upbringing any more than I did mine. He serves a purpose which I find ugly and brutal, but also natural. Nature is both beautiful and brutal at the same time. I wish i didn't have to live through an era that calls for his traits. But I don't get to choose.
Are you asserting that one's genetics and upbringing hardwires people to be lifelong pieces of shiit and they have zero ability to ever change and that's just the way it is?
That's weak af.
Are you asserting that one's genetics and upbringing hardwires people to be lifelong pieces of shiit and they have zero ability to ever change and that's just the way it is?
That's weak af.
Fatalism doesn't require any amount of courage.
And it's rather contradictory to be so fatalistic while continuously referring to traits linked to survival/success.
Trump didn't avoid the draft by taking a principled stance and declaring as a conscientious objector, he avoided it by a cowardly act of deception. He's a literal embodiment of the romanticized meme about easy times creating weak men and weak men creating tough times...
A C/O-1 has a lot more backbone than an individual that obtains a fraudulent medical exception.
Are you asserting that one's genetics and upbringing hardwires people to be lifelong pieces of shiit and they have zero ability to ever change and that's just the way it is?
That's weak af.
I don't have a belief system that sorts behavior into good vs bad, virtuous vs evil. I simply see a world of cause and effect and a Darwinian exercise in survival of the fittest.
Our primate cousins betray and deceive each other when it suits their interests. Does that make a chimpanzee a "piece of ****" ?
Einstein didn't believe that people had free will. He didn't give himself credit for his discoveries because he didn't consider it a choice or a developed skill. He considered it innate.
So, when you imply that Trump is a "piece of ****" ..... I would ask you, why have those traits survived billions of years of genetics editing ? And more importantly, I would ask the question ..... if the world were facing a situation in which the population was destined to shrink involuntarily, how would you decide who lived and who died, understanding full well that you're probably not going to get a sufficient number of volunteers to join the non-surviving subgroup ?
This isn't trolling. I am asking a serious question.
For me, the demand for someone like Trump is far scarier than Trump himself. He's not the only one with his traits. Like the LA Dodgers, nature creates a strong bench. There are more people like him waiting in the wings.
One of the problems we have in understanding what's going in the world is that most people have been brainswashed from birth by their parents about "right and wrong". We are completely dependent upon our parents for survival and they indoctrinate us into seeing the world through a lens of right and wrong. Even if we reject our parents views about their definition of right and wrong ..... we still maintain a view that we are right and they are wrong ...... we don't let go of the "right vs wrong" framing.
So when you look at someone like Trump ..... you say to yourself, I am good and he is bad and forego the entire exercise of asking WHY those traits exist.
There is no good and bad. Just preferences and cause and effect.
ok nut^2 I do understand the deterministic approach to a good degree, but you haven't provided any element to argue in favor of your thesis: why should the world be close to an event that greatly diminishes it's population?
even the "worst pandemic in a century" failed to reduce world population lol. we get better every day at growing more food with the same land and we don't qmixmize that only because extremely evil leftist forced regulate us against it.
but even within the horrific rules imposed by the leftist devil's we are still able not only to feed everyone, but to have obesity as one of the primary problems not only in the first world, but also in plenty of middle income countries.
we swing in food like humanity never ever did in it's history.
so again what's going to significantly reduce world population soon?
Fatalism doesn't require any amount of courage.
And it's rather contradictory to be so fatalistic while continuously referring to traits linked to survival/success.
Trump didn't avoid the draft by taking a principled stance and declaring as a conscientious objector, he avoided it by a cowardly act of deception. He's a literal embodiment of the romanticized meme about easy times creating weak men and weak men creating tough times...
A C/O-1 has a lot more backbone than an individual that obtains a f
There's a difference between fatalism and being non-judgmental and analytical.
I have a very strong preference for a progressive alternative to Trump. A modern day version of FDR.
Right now, both political parties in the US are dominated by neoliberal economic policy which yields a malignant concentration of wealth that threatens the stability of the working class and creates the demand for someone to BREAK the paradigm.
If we wanted a do over to avoid the German starvation which led to the Nazi's, Holocaust and WW 2, we can see that the thing we would do differently is change the Versailles agreement. Letting people starve and expecting them to gracefully roll over and die was a mistake for those who wanted to avoid WW2. We learned a hard lesson and the Marshall Plan was more compassionate and effective.
Homelessness went up by a record 18% in the US in 2024 under the Biden / Harris leadership. Did either of them mention it ? No. Did either of them suggest policy to reverse the trend of capitalists buying up American residential real estate and gouging the maximum rent from the US working class ? No.
The people in the US are getting a similar feeling to the Germans of the 1920's. That they are living in a system which is indifferent to their survival. And they are correct.
Since Democrats have thoroughly blockade an FDR analog like Bernie Sanders from leading their party, the USA no longer has a democratic pathway to an FDR. The Democratic party is an oxymoron. Kamala was not nominated by the voters and had no history of broad popular support with voters. She was nominated by elites because of fealty to the elite. And nature only provides us with two path's to relieving the problem of malignant wealth concentration .... progressive legislation and violent fascism. Nature bats 1.000. There is no other way.
That's cause and effect. There is no judgement about right and wrong. It's just a cogent explanation of survival forces at work.
nut nut homeless went up in the USA during the Biden admin exclusively because of immigrants.
there weren't more american homeless in 2024 than in 2020.
Biden let in millions extra of random poor people and some of them ended up sleeping rough as expected.
nut nut homeless went up in the USA during the Biden admin exclusively because of immigrants.
there weren't more american homeless in 2024 than in 2020.
Biden let in millions extra of random poor people and some of them ended up sleeping rough as expected.
Do you have any evidence to support this or are you just spouting self serving BS ?
I don't have a belief system that sorts behavior into good vs bad, virtuous vs evil. I simply see a world of cause and effect and a Darwinian exercise in survival of the fittest.
That's even worse.
Our primate cousins betray and deceive each other when it suits their interests. Does that make a chimpanzee a "piece of ****" ?
Are you asserting that humans are no more intellectually evolved than chimpanzees?
So when you look at someone like Trump ..... you say to yourself, I am good and he is bad and forego the entire exercise of asking WHY those traits exist.
I don't, actually. Whenever someone constantly thinks to themselves, "I am good, and they are bad" they are walking a slippery slope. Lots of evil have been done by "good people" who gradually transitioned to evil people through hundreds of tiny bad decisions, especially in the name of fighting evil. People who have convinced themselves they are good people and are incapable of being bad people, so they stop checking themselves and over time they are committing horrendous acts.
A lot of the J6 folk were probably good people at one time and then through small bad decisions in the name of fighting what they perceived as bad, they became animals. If you have "God on your side" it's very easy to do very bad things while thinking you're doing good things.
That is just nihilistic edge lord bullshit.
It really depends upon how you assess intelligence. Certainly, our combination of frontal cortex, voice box and capacity for language separates us in terms of the power of a single specimen.
The achievements of just a relatively small number of brilliant humans enabled to unlock the secrets and engineering process to build atomic bombs. Chimps don't have the mutations necessary to do anything like that.
But intellect is only one dimension of humans. It's a big brain strapped onto the same primitive fight or flight survival mechanisms located lower in the brain stem. That big brain is amplified in its capacity for magnifying the worst of our instincts.
If an anthropologist saw a chimp hoarding more bananas than it could eat and they rotted while other chimps in the group starved, they would wonder what disease that chimp was possessed with. In humans, they put those put on the cover of magazines and they lead corporations and buy elections to ensure the status quo.
Chimps don't have birthright succession. The leader of the pack arrives as a result of what nature instills in them in terms of their capacity lead.
Humans are in a period where they have abandoned that. Donald Trump got rich because of a handout from his father. Kamala Harris because the party elites chose her. The Democratic Party had zero intra-party competition about the best ideas for leading the country. Name two Democrats who disagree with each other ?
So ..... we are a step behind chimps when it comes to the meritocratic process of selecting leaders. People with ideas that compete with neoliberal economics are not allowed a public space to compete.
To the extent that our greater intelligence has given us a mastery of Machiavellian divide and conquer tactics, that's not smart if one has the objective of getting the entire herd to work together.
Our capacity for cooperation is arguably less than chimps. Chimps don't reward other chimps to play the roles of Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity and divide them into tribes that despise each other.
A surge in immigration that peaked just as last year’s homeless count was taken accounted for the bulk of its historic rise reported in December, grossly inflating the picture of homelessness in America.
Because the local agencies taking the count across the country do not ask for immigration status, homeless numbers ballooned in a handful of states that took in tens of thousands of immigrants, and those states, in turn, pushed the national number to an unprecedented high of nearly 772,000.
It's always magical how the left CREATES A PROBLEM and then uses the problem IT CREATED ON PURPOSE to ask for MORE POWER TO THE LEFT to fix it, claiming it was caused by something else entirely.
Trump's promise to immediately lower food prices was of course ridiculous.
But this sort of unserious grandstanding by Democrats isn't great either.
If you look at his source, no, of course, he does not have any evidence to support his bs claim.
He is worse than Playbig at backing up his claims.
Trump's promise to immediately lower food prices was of course ridiculous.
But this sort of unserious grandstanding by Democrats isn't great either.
How is that even remotely grandstanding? Trump made outrageous promises that he hasn't kept and the opposition party is calling him out on it. That's sort of how politics works.
lol bOtH sIdEs
Trump's promise to immediately lower food prices was of course ridiculous.
But this sort of unserious grandstanding by Democrats isn't great either.
Don’t forget ending Ukraine war in 1 day too .
How is that even remotely grandstanding? Trump made outrageous promises that he hasn't kept and the opposition party is calling him out on it. That's sort of how politics works.
Democrats need different framing. "He's a liar" is obviously true, but no one seems to care.
Proposing to use the FTC to crack down on "surveillance pricing" is not a realistic solution to elevated food prices, and I doubt that Elizabeth Warren believes it is a realistic solution. It's just something to put in a letter so you can make it appear as if there is some easy solution that everyone is failing to implement.
What is this thing you guys have about making up cute little names for everyone you don't like? Seems sort of 7th gradish, but that isn't surprising.
Fauci's sin was to shake his head when your idiot in chief said the stupidest crap that came out of his tiny mind.
Democrats need different framing. "He's a liar" is obviously true, but no one seems to care.
Proposing to use the FTC to crack down on "surveillance pricing" is not a realistic solution to elevated food prices, and I doubt that Elizabeth Warren believes it is a realistic solution. It's just something to put in a letter so you can make it appear as if there is some easy solution that everyone is failing to implement.
Did Warren actually say cracking down on surveillance pricing would be a "solution" to food prices? AFAICT, the article shows her aiming completely valid criticism at Trump failing to live up to the promises he made. That's a far cry from Warren claiming she has a realistic solution.
Whether or not surveillance pricing is something the FTC should be combating is something we can debate, but Warren is hardly "grandstanding" by opposing it any more than any politician opposing a policy is grandstanding.
