Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Dana Milbank has a suggestion.
(paywall-free gift link)
But if Democrats can’t stop a reckless president from creating unnecessary crises and harming millions of Americans, they certainly don’t need to give a bipartisan veneer to the atrocity. Let Republicans own the consequences of breaking government. Don’t save Trump from himself.
(paywall-free gift link)
But if Democrats can’t stop a reckless president from creating unnecessary crises and harming millions of Americans, they certainly don’t need to give a bipartisan veneer to the atrocity. Let Republicans own the consequences of breaking government. Don’t save Trump from himself.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Why?
Did you watch the dumpster fire of the Demonrats election campaign?
Are you watch the idiot Demonrats now?
You people are clowns
The world dodged a bullet in 2025.
Because they elected a rapist and a felon with a proven track record of bankrupcies, crime, mismanagement of public health and massive deficit increases.
It must only be right wing news agencies and social media because if you watched anything else, you would have seen the fact checking on Trumps constant flow of lies and illegal actions against Americans and the Constitution.
So it looks like one of Elon Musk's lieutenants, a leader within the Department of Governmental Efficiency, is a hardcore racist. Marko Elez had this to say on X about his beliefs: “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool." "You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity.” “Normalize Indian hate.” (Tech bros hate Indians because a lot of them work in Silicon Valley.) “99% of Indian H1Bs will be replaced by slightly smarter LLMs [a type of artificial intelligence], they’re going back don’t worry guys.” “I would not mind at all if Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth.”
These are the people who are now your leaders.
These are the people who are now your leaders.
Yet, most of the world is turning against Trump and America. I'm curious, do you prefer to live in a country like North Korea, Hungary or Russia?
The list of lies from his first term tallied at about 30,573 according to the Washington Post, who documented them all. Here is a short list of Trump recent lies...
Fact-checks | PolitiFact
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
It's on again: They've been working so hard for this day.
It's interesting, the way in which, for you, the distraction seems to be the point. Look, it's one thing if Mr. G is an historical relic of this community's failures, but that's the sort of historical subtlety you tend to disdain. Meanwhile, "Traffic has definitely increased and improved in the last 12 months or so," is subjective at best and, as you're treating the statement, meaningless. Yet, compared to literally editing out the explanation in order to ask why↗ (hardly honest), or expecting we should skip out on history↗ in order to "respect" you (hardly novel), it isn't any surprise you're so willing to spelunk this particular rabbit hole: The distraction is the point, toward which, remember, there's more to it than just numbers, i.e., "increased and improved", and we could waste an entire thread on what you mean by "improved" without you ever actually saying.
Trust me, I've seen this routine many times, before, and inasmuch as anyone is supposed to believe it's always an accident, okay, whatever. But if you go back to your list and attend the amount of fallacy that gets posted around here, the question remains what you mean by improved.
(If we look far enough back in history, it used to be that supportable argument was somehow important, around here. And as we read through the history, it either starts to become clear how that idea became inconvenient, or it doesn't. The difference is probably significant.)
Anyway, at the very least, it's kind of hilarious that it's G giving shit.
But that's the thing, think of it this way—
—there's a reason Billvon, for instance (as the occasion has it), cannot think past this level of response. It's one thing if, as such, certain traffic is up, but that doesn't mean it's not noise. In a cacophony where all speech is presumed to have equal merit for the sake of having been uttered, it's probably easier to avoid any substantial discussion of what constitutes improvement.
Once upon a time, maybe the difference between fact and fallacy was supposed to make a difference around here, but that's got nothing to do with you—(right?)—in order to respect your place in my community.
Still, beyond all that, per the pretense of good men doing nothing, oh, wait, never mind, that's got nothing to do with you, either.
Anyway, beyond all that, given the density of bad news coming from "Trump 2.0", it really is no wonder that some people need to mitigate the impact and space out the discussion so that it looks less contiguous in a thread like this.
No, really, I've seen this bit many times, before. It's right on schedule. Honestly, I don't care why, these days. The only real question is whether you stake your analysis on its own merit or seek shelter in the cacophony. In its way, I'm fascinated; the day someone finally makes the argument, I'll learn something. No, it's not how we get to fascism, but it's as much part and parcel of the Trump experience as it was what came before, both here at Sciforums and in daily living experience.
Remember, this manner of distraction is part of the Trump experience, both how we got here and how it sustains. It's one thing if G does his little turn, another if someone else wants to waste any discussion on him, but to bullshit through it like you did only reminds that the distraction is the point.
Last edited:
That particular racist at least had the decency to resign as soon as those posts were made public. The issue is that none of these people had gone through any sort of screening beyond Musk's approval. And that such a racist got through speaks volumes for Musk's own failings in this regard.
Sometimes I think it's like something we see here, that Trump voters are more about anti-identification.
Outside Sciforums, where there is a larger data sample, it is easily perceptible; in a smaller setting like ours, it can read like the prevailing wind. And that's the thing, figuring it out is a psychoanalytic proposition.
For instance, twelve years ago↗:
From a psychoanalytical outlook, the morality of personal values is found emanating from the core of the psyche. To genuinely believe something will ultimately affect action according to its real priority as a neurotic function. Thus, one cannot simply hold a personal value that dark skin means lesser animal, for instance, and not expect that sentiment to bleed out in function. It radiates like a toxic aura, affecting every little question one considers, decision one makes, and action one does or does not undertake. That is to say, simply holding an "immoral" belief can be judged as "immoral" because the "immoral" aspect will affect other people regardless of the individual's intentions. But in the same moment, we must also note that the psychoanalytical outlook would be inherently reluctant to make "moral" assessments, and would view the question of "morality" as a question of function and utility. In that case, a discordant belief will affect all human communication one engages, thus empowering the neurotic conflict and lending it to the human experience. It is a degradation of functional efficiency, a diminution of a variable influence within a behavioral formula. Or, morality aside, it promotes a disruptive effect within a cooperative species.
One of the most obvious anti-identifications in play is anti-liberalism, but it's also a tricky definition. For instance, the Democratic Party, in my lifetime, has never truly been liberal, so what does it mean, then, to be anti-liberal, because the prospect that anti-liberal Americans are willing players in internationalist kleptocratic revivalism is way too easy. But that also offers a certain contrast: No matter how simplistic their arguments and characterizations might be, their behavior is a more complex discussion than they are apparently capable of comprehending. That is, if we take them at face value in this context, the real problem is that they're just that ignorant and incapable. And as much as that seems a leap of faith, it also just keeps coming up, over and over and over.
†
Thirty years ago, for instance, a Jewish lawyer defended a neo-Nazi in an American court, ostensibly because someone needed to do the job. This time later, after liberals watched Glenn Greenwald emerge as a cynical rightist, it still seems strange to think that even back then, we could have said no, it's not really because someone needs to do the job, but because he is a sympathizer and collaborator. But for anyone who witnessed his transformation, no, the turning point was not the Russians, but Pierre's money; that's when Greenwald deleted twenty-nine thousand tweets and started down the path to being such a raving nut that even the Harper's-letter folks didn't want him. After his demonstrative self-cancellation, the difference between before and after his cynical acceptance of being labeled a rightist only reminded that he always was this way. It's also unlikely he is so rare. It used to be that Americans would say we let the KKK march down Main Street because the First Amendment is just that important. And it is, but look at our elections; at some point, we must accept that so many people would let the KKK march down Main Street because they sympathize. Having at least the period of my lifetime to show us otherwise, it turns out they're upset at the idea that they should.
†
It's one of the reasons, for instance, notas hold the line the way they do. Historically, it is important to remember how the Reagan period transformed the word "liberal" into a pejorative; at this point, conservatives tell you what is liberal in order to tell you what they oppose. As a narrative consideration, this point does not stand out to, or have any apparent effect, on notaconservatives who play along. Think of the so-called radical center, the one thing Trotskyists and the magatude can agree on is that liberals are the problem. That is, whether it's the communist who wants a revolution, or the Christian nationalist who wants to rule them all, they both can agree the problem is the people feeding the hungry.
Think it through: Alleviating suffering staves off the revolution, but it also alleviates suffering. The commie doesn't get a revolution, and the Christianist doesn't get to inflict suffering. And then take a moment to consider that anyone would bothsides that, because it's an example of how liberalism is the antipode of the so-called radical center.
In its way, anti-liberalism is kind of like religion, or conspiracism, in that it fears rational and supportable discussion of outcomes. For notas, remember, their critique is against something, and ostensibly not for something else, yet if we check for the results, it turns out the notas would perpetuate, empower, and even propagate what they pretend they are not. Part of the result is notas don't have a rational, supportable argument to fend off unfavorable discussion of outcomes. For the religious, God says so; for everyone else, the way things go are just the way things go, as such.
The main difference between the notas and their more openly affirming neighbors is mainly a matter of openness. In the end, if you follow the logic, the notaphenomenon tends to accept the outcomes it asserts to not be.
Watching notas squirm on the hook is not actually enjoyable, but failing or refusing to address the phenomenon directly only perpetuates harm. And their confusion is the stuff of legend, like, ¿Really, suddenly the mere fact of psychology confuses you? Imagine that we made it through the first Trump administration, and sometime around 2021, are suddenly expected to believe how improbable it is that someone might not be aware their behavior and attitudes are racist. I mean, really, in all of psychology, racism is the one exception? The thing is, no, it's not, and while it's not really about "one exception", it's still an extraordinary pretense, but pursuit of its general principle must account for a prejudice against rational and supportable discussion of outcomes. It's like when the science↗ starts to inform differently↗ than the superstitions↑ of the prevailing societal narrative; at some point, they don't have a rational, supportable argument.
But, to reiterate, from a few years ago↗:
Let us consider … First, for whatever reasons, someone up and goes off in a manner unquestionably supremacist. This is something that happens a lot, in diverse forms, for many reasons. While there is an argument that such behavior isn't supremacism, but just someone making some kind of point, the priority of choosing to make whatever point in that manner still stands out.
Second, we might think of others who would make excuses for the one. And while that can become a complicated consideration for the number of ways in which one might give such comfort, we can at least consider what priorities motivate such a defense, excuse, justification, or other abetment.
(Boldface accent added)
Second, we might think of others who would make excuses for the one. And while that can become a complicated consideration for the number of ways in which one might give such comfort, we can at least consider what priorities motivate such a defense, excuse, justification, or other abetment.
(Boldface accent added)
We come back to the question: What "informed" their decision to vote for Trump?
Fear and ignorance are the stuff of a gut hunger for empowerment. That is and always has been the point, but once upon a time people used to at least pretend a basic functional pretense of not burning the place down just to make a point. In the end, though, it's a matter of priorities. Akin to all the creepy daddy-talk from Tucker Carlson, Mel Gibson, and even Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL19)¹, this is about empowerment and satisfaction.
The shit they're making up in their head isn't entirely arbitrary, but just try accounting questions of priority, ego defense, fear, and satisfaction. One important variable is the amount and type of anger stirring their hunger for empowerment. It's one thing to consider the comfort of familiar contempt compared to their fear of what is unknown and unfamiliar↗, but there is also the petulant anger nurtured for generations, and that's before we get into the other issues they're supposedly upset about, where they work so hard to prevent progress and then complain bitterly about the lack of progress. And as science and enlightenment inform differently than their superstitions require, facts become just another perspective, and since everything that's wrong is simply because liberals say so, well, now the conservatives want to make stuff up just because they say so. One of the things about the pathology of the bully is that the reason why↗ doesn't need to make sense.
____________________
Notes:
¹ Historical note: The story about Biswal and Kumar↑ also runs through Florida Nineteen.
Trek probably doesn't think any of them are lies. He probably believes whatever FOX News tells him to believe. The 2020 election was stolen, Biden is a pedophile, Hillary Clinton runs a secret child sacrifice/pedophilia ring in the basement of a pizza place in Washington DC etc etc.
And don't forget - to conservatives even an obvious, impossible to ignore lie isn't a lie. It's an "alternative fact."
What stands out to me is the degree to which people tolerate, mitigate, or even facilitate this sort of lying.
That's the thing, for the last twenty-five years, the only reason conservatives have gotten away with this kind of lying is that enough people are willing to let them.
It's not even a matter of falling for shiny, vapid language. It's more like the enemy of an enemy being a friend.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Trek
Valued Senior Member
You are projecting.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Common sense…
Tired of complete buffoonery..
A need for adults to clean up the toddlers mess…
Tired of the crime ( car jacking, murders, illegal immigrants…)
20-30 million illegal aliens crossing the borders completely unvetted
Someone who knows what a woman is…
The bumbling nonsense of a so call commander in chief..
I could literally write volumes as to what informed normal, rational, reasonable peoples choice as to what informed decisions to vote for Trump.
But this just off the top of my head, having just woke up and not even had coffee.
That administration is the worst, and anybody that thinks they were a force for good is no different to them.
At this point, we have left politics, and entered into a rotting mindset, which Trump and his team are going to unveil for the world to see.
Have a good day, Bruh!
It's really hard to recognize a lot of these things as people. I know I'm not supposed to say shit like that, but, seriously, "you people"? Is there anything that I have ever posted here that would lead a person--a person--to conclude that I'm a Democrat? Again, AI surpassed these things ages ago in all relevant regards--here, the critical aspect being reading comprehension.Why?
Did you watch the dumpster fire of the Demonrats election campaign?
Are you watch the idiot Demonrats now?
You people are clowns
The world dodged a bullet in 2025.
Last edited:
But insofar as "image" and perceptions go, the underlying point is that the GOP has clearly embraced a strategy antithetical to the Southern Strategy. Where previously they employed coded dog-whistles and the like, now they just say exactly what they think and believe. Anyone confused--and especially those pretending to be confused--by this--
ought to just eat the bullet and spare us all.
Trek
Valued Senior Member
Where did I conclude that you were a democrat?