[Politics] Donald Trump 2024

[Curious Orange]

Like football, that video is a game of two halves.

It's interesting, but I don't know why the author felt the need to attack wokeism.

Yes, I thought that was a bit odd too, given the general tone of the piece. Though, I suppose you could argue that it handily illustrates the point he makes - viewing 'woke' as all bad is intelligent people believing stupid things.

 

[marlowe]

Just waiting for Trump's latest Truth Social rant:
"THE BALTIMORE BRIDGE WOULD NEVER HAVE COLLAPSED IF I HAD BEEN PRESIDENT"

 

[Triggaaar]

It’s just an opinion piece, that I thought was really good, so I posted it. Rather than attack the source, why don’t you tell us all what the points are that you disagree with?

The piece is complaining about how immigration is handled under Biden, but doesn't look at how it was handled under Trump, or how he failed in the immigration promises he made before the last election. The author is writing specifically to help his side in the debate, so it doesn't provide value in that debate. It's like only listening to either the prosecution or defence in a court case. I'm not going to listen to what one side has to say if I can't hear the response from the other side.

I’m open to listening to opposing opinions, that’s the whole point of a forum isn’t it? If you’re convincing enough it may even swing my vote…

If you are genuinely interested in opposing opinions, then I'd suggest you try and find news sources in the US that provide good opinions from both sides. I appreciate that's easier said than done in the US as there seems to be little to no regulation on what can be presented as news. Although with GB News in this country, maybe the regulations here aren't great either.

If I were voting in the US elections, there are many things that would put me off voting for Trump. Off the top of my head:
- he stirs up hatred among the population, aiming to divide rather than unite
- he avoids questions about his policy and governance, and when called up on anything he simply attacks the journalist and claims it's fake news. I've never seen that sort of behaviour from a leading politician in the US or UK before. It attempts to end debate and be unaccountable.
- he appears to be racist, and tells non-white Americans to go home, despite the fact that they were born in the US
- he is sexist and treats women poorly - these values don't match my own
- he strikes me as quite an unintelligent man, as demonstrated when he suggested that they looked at getting disinfectant and ultra violet light into the body to kill covid. And when called up on that, he simply lied and pretend it was sarcasm, which it clearly wasn't.
- on covid, he denied that it was an issue for months, until such a time that it was impossible to ignore the number of people were dying, so he simply lied and said that he warned of covid first, and that he knew the most about covid.
- when he lost the election, he tried to circumvent democracy by asking officials to lie and pretend that he won. That alone would give me a serious issue with voting for him.


While my own needs about how policies would affect my family would come into my decision, I also don't believe he's able to fulfil his promises of making America great again. He promised that last time, but it didn't happen, so why would this time be any different?

Where I vote in the UK I am not fond of any particular party, I'm fairly disappointed by them all, so I change my vote quite regularly depending on the leader and the policies they put forward. A fair number of people here do seem wedded to one party, but that seems to be even more the case in the US, so it often doesn't matter what policies are put forward. I don't really understand such a blinkered view on governance.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The piece is complaining about how immigration is handled under Biden, but doesn't look at how it was handled under Trump, or how he failed in the immigration promises he made before the last election. The author is writing specifically to help his side in the debate, so it doesn't provide value in that debate. It's like only listening to either the prosecution or defence in a court case. I'm not going to listen to what one side has to say if I can't hear the response from the other side.



If you are genuinely interested in opposing opinions, then I'd suggest you try and find news sources in the US that provide good opinions from both sides. I appreciate that's easier said than done in the US as there seems to be little to no regulation on what can be presented as news. Although with GB News in this country, maybe the regulations here aren't great either.

If I were voting in the US elections, there are many things that would put me off voting for Trump. Off the top of my head:
- he stirs up hatred among the population, aiming to divide rather than unite
- he avoids questions about his policy and governance, and when called up on anything he simply attacks the journalist and claims it's fake news. I've never seen that sort of behaviour from a leading politician in the US or UK before. It attempts to end debate and be unaccountable.
- he appears to be racist, and tells non-white Americans to go home, despite the fact that they were born in the US
- he is sexist and treats women poorly - these values don't match my own
- he strikes me as quite an unintelligent man, as demonstrated when he suggested that they looked at getting disinfectant and ultra violet light into the body to kill covid. And when called up on that, he simply lied and pretend it was sarcasm, which it clearly wasn't.
- on covid, he denied that it was an issue for months, until such a time that it was impossible to ignore the number of people were dying, so he simply lied and said that he warned of covid first, and that he knew the most about covid.
- when he lost the election, he tried to circumvent democracy by asking officials to lie and pretend that he won. That alone would give me a serious issue with voting for him.


While my own needs about how policies would affect my family would come into my decision, I also don't believe he's able to fulfil his promises of making America great again. He promised that last time, but it didn't happen, so why would this time be any different?

Where I vote in the UK I am not fond of any particular party, I'm fairly disappointed by them all, so I change my vote quite regularly depending on the leader and the policies they put forward. A fair number of people here do seem wedded to one party, but that seems to be even more the case in the US, so it often doesn't matter what policies are put forward. I don't really understand such a blinkered view on governance.

All those things are fair.

But, in my view just the "grab them by the pussy" comments on their own are enough to exclude someone from holding public office

 

[schmunk]

Just waiting for Trump's latest Truth Social rant:
"THE BALTIMORE BRIDGE WOULD NEVER HAVE COLLAPSED IF I HAD BEEN PRESIDENT"

Maybe he'll suggest replacing it with a wall - it's a damn good idea.

 

[FamilyGuy]

Out of how many start ups and what do you define as bankruptcies? I can think of 2 successes of the top of my head, The Apprentice TV series or was it 12 seasons? Also his Golf courses. I know his Trump university came a cropper but his truth social has potential which is what it was sold on.

Again

 

[FamilyGuy]

"Trump is trying to unite the people against the establishment, when he left Fulton Jail he drove through poor/black areas and was well received, that's one of the ways he reaches out to different groups."

... and that's not the actions of a patronising out-of-touch idiot at all is it?

Trump IS the establishment, and the "poor black areas" are populated by people that he wouldn't share any space with unless there was a photo opportunity (as is self-evident by the fact that "he drove through poor/black areas")

Anyone who is innocent of a crime would work hard to speed up the trials as an opportunity to exonerate themselves (and as part of an election campaign to therefore gain votes) - the fact that DT is doing the opposite is simply more evidence that suggests his guilt.

"I'm innocent, and I'm gonna do everything I can to avoid proving that in court", is not something that DT is heard to say

"I'm innocent, and I'm gonna delay, delay, delay every opportunity to prove it" is surely NOT the message of a truly innocent/rational man.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

I thought ‘popularism’ in politics a range of policies that embrace the idea that the ‘elite’ is set against the masses/the ‘people’ - it doesn’t presume corruption of the elite

When was Trump in Fulton? I must have missed that - so many court cases and indictments over the years, it really has been impossible to keep up.

Thats what Lawfare does, as for Fulton use google.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Don't like piling on you but this is one of the main things I just don't understand in beliefs about Trump. How is this bloke anti establishment or anti The Man or whatever you'd like to call it? It's like that thing about voting for Bush Jnr because he seemed to be "the sort of bloke you could have a pint with". Is that really your overriding reason for voting for them? Don't get it.

All Presidents from Washington to Obama came from either the political or military establishment. He has pitched himself against this, OK he didn't get done things he wanted to last time for various reasons. But has been saying he will break up the military industrial complex, the swamp, the deep state etc.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Despite the fact that he is the establishment

See my definition above, all US populists have come from the broad establishment, Roosevelt and Ross Pero for example. They can see clearly what is going on.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

"T

Anyone who is innocent of a crime would work hard to speed up the trials as an opportunity to exonerate themselves (and as part of an election campaign to therefore gain votes) - the fact that DT is doing the opposite is simply more evidence that suggests his guilt.

The purpose of this lawfare is to knock him out of the election by draining him of funds, taking up his time and discrediting him. All this has been clear enough to generate mirth in this thread so please less of the "I know why he is really doing it" BS, you all know why and are laughing about it.

 

[Bodian]

The purpose of this lawfare is to knock him out of the election by draining him of funds, taking up his time and discrediting him. All this has been clear enough to generate mirth in this thread so please less of the "I know why he is really doing it" BS, you all know why and are laughing about it.

But if he's innocent of all he's accused of, he won't get convicted of anything. And if he's so innocent, then any decent lawyer should be able to get him through the court cases quickly.

Instead he is paying millions of dollars to lawyers to constantly try and keep these cases out of the courts for as long as possible. And he is then going to have to pay them when the cases are heard anyway. He could have saved a fortune, and loads of times by not doing this.

So, simple question for you - please explain why it is better for him to spend all these many millions ('draining his funds'), prolonging everything as much as possible ('taking up his time') - when the simple way to have avoided both would have been to get the court cases over with cheaply and quickly - and get acquitted of everything?

Looking forward to your reply.

 

[lasvegan]

The piece is complaining about how immigration is handled under Biden, but doesn't look at how it was handled under Trump, or how he failed in the immigration promises he made before the last election. The author is writing specifically to help his side in the debate, so it doesn't provide value in that debate. It's like only listening to either the prosecution or defence in a court case. I'm not going to listen to what one side has to say if I can't hear the response from the other side.

I am truly dumbfounded by your post. Do I need really need to explain to you what an opinion piece is? Yes I do…it’s about presenting one side of the debate (my side in this case) as opposed to the other. If you enjoy debating yourself, be my guest. You may even win one or two…

If you are genuinely interested in opposing opinions, then I'd suggest you try and find news sources in the US that provide good opinions from both sides. I appreciate that's easier said than done in the US as there seems to be little to no regulation on what can be presented as news. Although with GB News in this country, maybe the regulations here aren't great either.

This thread is about 95% of presenting one side of the debate (yours), so if you are genuinely interested in opposing opinions then I suggest you read them (I do) and even welcome them instead of just blowing them off. But it seems you are more interested in regulating (banning) opinions that you don’t agree with.

 

[FamilyGuy]

The purpose of this lawfare is to knock him out of the election by draining him of funds, taking up his time and discrediting him. All this has been clear enough to generate mirth in this thread so please less of the "I know why he is really doing it" BS, you all know why and are laughing about it.

Again

 

[One Love]

All Presidents from Washington to Obama came from either the political or military establishment. He has pitched himself against this, OK he didn't get done things he wanted to last time for various reasons. But has been saying he will break up the military industrial complex, the swamp, the deep state etc.

If you think he's running for any other reason than for himself then you are naive.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Now claiming royalties on 'God Bless America ' bibles. (Added the US constitution to the Bible FFS)

Twat.

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

Money not for campaign, might be an issue of separation of church and state? But he does need dosh to settle any fines he may have associated with fraudulent use of money to pay off a pornstar he poked while his wife was at home with their newborn child (among other things)



Jesus wouldn't like this



Sod draining the swamp, cleanse the f***ing temple.

 

[Triggaaar]

I am truly dumbfounded by your post. Do I need really need to explain to you what an opinion piece is? Yes I do…it’s about presenting one side of the debate (my side in this case) as opposed to the other. If you enjoy debating yourself, be my guest. You may even win one or two…

Insults - excellent.

This thread is about 95% of presenting one side of the debate (yours), so if you are genuinely interested in opposing opinions then I suggest you read them (I do) and even welcome them instead of just blowing them off. But it seems you are more interested in regulating (banning) opinions that you don’t agree with.

I'm interested in the truth and if people post biased lies against Trump I'm not interested in them, just as I'm not interested in biased lies supporting Trump and against Biden. I don't think the opinion piece you gave adds anything useful to the debate. I haven't asked for it to be removed or banned, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

From your posts here I don't get the impression that you are interesting in understanding different opinions, it just seems that your intention is to preach your side.

 

[BadFish]

Insults - excellent.




I'm interested in the truth and if people post biased lies against Trump I'm not interested in them, just as I'm not interested in biased lies supporting Trump and against Biden. I don't think the opinion piece you gave adds anything useful to the debate. I haven't asked for it to be removed or banned, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

From your posts here I don't get the impression that you are interesting in understanding different opinions, it just seems that your intention is to preach your side.

It reads like LV has some confusion between fact and opinion. As far as I am concerned opinions need no citation but when those opinions are based on or presented as fact then some analysis of their source is necessary.

As you say the opinion piece offered doesn't really add much to to debate and it is right to dismiss it, taking note of the author. I see this as another form of misinformation whether deliberate or accidental presenting opinion as fact is somewhat dishonest, as is the catch cry after doing so of 'we are all allowed an opinion'. Which is of course true but equally everyone else is allowed to dismiss that opinion when based on shonky, bogus or unreferenced 'facts'.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

I do realise the Trump was only at Fulton jail to be processed for the election interference charges and not actually incarcerated - it was a joke to suggest he had served jail time which most people would have found funny or at least mildly amusing in reference all his convictions and indictments in response to your post that said ‘when he left Fulton jail’.

As far as ’popularism’ is concerned - it says as much about the gullibility and selfishness of the ‘people’ being manipulated into believing the ‘popularist‘ candidate has come to ‘save them from the establishment‘ as it does about the demagogues that use such political tools to win over an electorate - usually to get into/retain power to satisfy their own thirst for power for powers sake.

To paraphrase Karl Marx - Popularism is the opium of the masses.

Fulton bit, Dont know what your on about it doesn't relate to what I posted.

Populist bit, even if true you need to explain why all these populist movements arrived globally in a decade or so turning systems on their head, Brexit, Trump, 5 Star etc. Did all these grifters get lucky at the same time?

 

[Crawley Dingo]

But if he's innocent of all he's accused of, he won't get convicted of anything.

Debatable, Smiths trying to get the document cases shifted to a more Democrat area from a Republican one (As an aside this is what the Klan used to do to get their people of the hook and theirs a law against it that could find Smith on the receiving end.)

So, simple question for you - please explain why it is better for him to spend all these many millions ('draining his funds'), prolonging everything as much as possible ('taking up his time') - when the simple way to have avoided both would have been to get the court cases over with cheaply and quickly - and get acquitted of everything?

Looking forward to your reply.

See my answer above.