The All Things Political Topic - Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

36 minutes ago, majestic said:

No, Trump's always funny, just not in the ha ha sense.

I think the funniest thing about Trump is that he has done more to harm his followers than anyone else and they still worship him like a golden calf.

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Malcador said:

I really have no idea why, though. Must be the degradation due to the Internet 

Career politicians tend to have a particular speaking style designed to appeal to people who elect career politicians, ie selection committees and other politicians. Someone who doesn't speak like that appeals to people who doesn't like career politicians. It's particularly evident in Britain where every political leader I can remember talks like they're delivering a very obvious lecture, to 2 year olds. And the exception there is very relevant for Trump: Boris Johnson, who spoke like a two year old himself. 

Much like Trump that departure was widely seen as part of the charm by many people. And indeed Boris's 'stupid'- the ill fitting clothes, funny hair, wacky stunts etc- was all deliberate and part of him developing a maverick man of the people persona. From a bloke whose real name was Alexander de Pfeffel and went to fricking Eton. The only genuine thing he did was occasionally bulldozing small Japanese children playing rugby, yet people loved him.

Trump tends to talk like people actually think, full of digressions and rambling and remember when I did something really cool and relevant even if it didn't happen. Politicians and people in the public eye tend to spend a lot of time making sure they don't make speeches like people think but make speeches like they're, well, making a speech. If you're sick of politicians you're sick of people talking like politicians.

It is, overall, like the old chestnut of wanting a leader who you could have a beer with. For some people it will be far more important to have a leader who drinks fermented grain beverage rather than fermented grape beverage or god forbid, adam's ale. Stupid qualification for electing a leader, yes, but it's a genuine qualification for some.

[majestic]

There's also the problem that people are somewhat unable to deal with more abstract concepts, especially large numbers. We had the case of former FPÖ party leader Strache who was filmed while talking about making deals with the niece of a Russian oligarch. Except, well, there was no niece and no oligarch, and it was just a trap. While that ultimately forced him out of the government at the time (at the behest of the coalition party), the wider public opinion of him only started to shift once reports came in that he was using taxpayer money to pay for Clash of Clans.

Offer a random, supposedly Russian, woman with deep pockets billions in public contracts in exchange for her buying his party favorable media coverage? Well, why not, they're all bad, that is just part of the game. Misappropriating party funds to pay for his 3000€ / month Clash of Clans bill? Bring out the pitchforks, he's not one of us, he's spending more on a mobile game than most of us make a month.

Saw plenty of something similar during the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns when politicians started to talk about how 50% of all hospitalized patients were vaccinated, claiming that the vaccines don't work. I mean, sure, when half of the patients in the hospital (and close to all of them in intensive care) come from the much smaller part of the population that is unvaccinated... but people gobbled it up nonetheless, after all, with an even split in patients?  

Edit: Trump being able to scam his cultists (and people with too much money when paying for an invite to a party with bad food and barely any presence by Trump) with his meme coin without backlash but causing some - even if very, very mild- criticism and bewilderment amongst his own base when accepting an obvious bribe in the form of a plane is like that too. A plane as a bribe, that's something tangible, something people can understand more readily. It should not be, but such is the world we live in.

Edited May 27 by majestic

[Malcador]

Still find he sounds like a politician to me, last campaign was pretty much 

The first one was sort of the same.  But yah, I guess if it works, it works. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, majestic said:

Trump being able to scam his cultists (and people with too much money when paying for an invite to a party with bad food and barely any presence by Trump) with his meme coin without backlash but causing some - even if very, very mild- criticism and bewilderment amongst his own base when accepting an obvious bribe in the form of a plane is like that too. A plane as a bribe, that's something tangible, something people can understand more readily. It should not be, but such is the world we live in.

I think a lot of his supporters realize Trump is a conman but think that they're in on it rather than marks. All big winners of the Fell for it again award.

[rjshae]

German court convicts 4 ex-Volkswagen managers of fraud in emissions scandal

A decision that resembles actual justice? Well good on the German judiciary then.

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, majestic said:

No, Trump's always funny, just not in the ha ha sense.

He is both, he says weird and inaccurate things but he also cracks jokes and often its done to provoke the media and create drama for liberals. So when he talks about staying on for another term, he is doing that exactly because he knows the reaction he will get 

But there are lots examples of him just joking, like the baby clip I posted 

[majestic]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

So when he talks about staying on for another term, he is doing that exactly because he knows the reaction he will get 

No, he's not. He is saying exactly what he means, i.e. he wants to be dictator perpetuo. Except, well, I don't see the senate taking care of that problem in this day and age. 

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, majestic said:

No, he's not. He is saying exactly what he means, i.e. he wants to be dictator perpetuo. Except, well, I don't see the senate taking care of that problem in this day and age. 

Imagine Trump being a leader for life 

But on  a serious note, Trump wont be a  contender in 2028 and he has discussed his successor several times and those are honest interviews where he isnt trying to troll the media

 

https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/trump-puts-an-end-to-the-third-term-joke/1956953135112089/

 

[majestic]

20 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Imagine Trump being a leader for life 

But on  a serious note, Trump wont be a  contender in 2028 and he has discussed his successor several times and those are honest interviews where he isnt trying to troll the media

 

https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/trump-puts-an-end-to-the-third-term-joke/1956953135112089/

 

Sure, except that Ben Shapiro only imagines that Trump said anything about not wanting to go for a third term in that video. Trump is not asked about a third term and he is not talking about not running for a third term - he's just rambling about who his successor might be after being asked exactly that.

[BruceVC]

46 minutes ago, majestic said:

Sure, except that Ben Shapiro only imagines that Trump said anything about not wanting to go for a third term in that video. Trump is not asked about a third term and he is not talking about not running for a third term - he's just rambling about who his successor might be after being asked exactly that.

Yes but  if you planning on running for a  third term in 2028 you wouldnt be responding to questions about a successor because you wouldnt need a successor

If Trump was serious about a 3rd term he would have said something like " why do I need a successor, I want to run again "

The entire point of the questions was who comes after you and its specific to 2028 which is why he mentions Vance 

 

 

[majestic]

34 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes but  if you planning on running for a  third term in 2028 you wouldnt be responding to questions about a successor because you wouldnt need a successor

If Trump was serious about a 3rd term he would have said something like " why do I need a successor, I want to run again "

The entire point of the questions was who comes after you and its specific to 2028 which is why he mentions Vance 

 

 

There is nothing specific about 2028 in that video. Rewatch it. He is just asked about his successor. Perhaps there's more context in the full interview, but the context is simply not there in the snippet Ben Shapiro posted. One would think if there were something more substantial for this to serve as a clear rebuttal, he would have posted that part too. Ben Shapiro is an obsequious toad, but not a complete idiot. As it stands, this means nothing. A successor is needed for Trump anyway, regardless of how many terms he wants or can run or how long he'll be in office.

Sheesh. 

Edited May 28 by majestic

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, majestic said:

There is nothing specific about 2028 in that video. Rewatch it. He is just asked about his successor. Perhaps there's more context in the full interview, but the context is simply not there in the snippet Ben Shapiro posted. One would think if there were something more substantial for this to serve as a clear rebuttal, he would have posted that part too. Ben Shapiro is an obsequious toad, but not a complete idiot. As it stands, this means nothing. A successor is needed for Trump anyway, regardless of how many terms he wants or can run or how long he'll be in office.

Sheesh. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20lwedn23o

Here is better link that summarizes this debate, Trump would have to change the US Constitution and the GOP dont have the numbers in Congress  or support in the state legislatures even with there current majority. Then there is a " loophole"   way to do it but that doesnt seem realistic or likely and the link discuses that as well 

"On the face of it, the US Constitution seems to rule out anyone having a third term. The 22nd Amendment states:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once."

Changing the constitution would require a two-thirds approval from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as approval from three-quarters of the country's state-level governments.

Trump's Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress but does not have the majorities needed. Additionally, the Democratic Party controls 18 of the 50 state legislatures. " 

[majestic]

15 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20lwedn23o

Here is better link that summarizes this debate, Trump would have to change the US Constitution and the GOP dont have the numbers in Congress  or support in the state legislatures even with there current majority. Then there is a " loophole"   way to do it but that doesnt seem realistic or likely and the link discuses that as well 

"On the face of it, the US Constitution seems to rule out anyone having a third term. The 22nd Amendment states:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once."

Changing the constitution would require a two-thirds approval from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as approval from three-quarters of the country's state-level governments.

Trump's Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress but does not have the majorities needed. Additionally, the Democratic Party controls 18 of the 50 state legislatures. " 

 

Serves me right for enganging with you in the first place, I guess. Nice goalpost shifting.

[BruceVC]

33 minutes ago, majestic said:

 

Serves me right for enganging with you in the first place, I guess. Nice goalpost shifting.

Im not " goalpost  shifting  "

He cant Constitutionally run for  a 3rd term and the GOP cant change the Constitution because they dont have the numbers 

This is the legal reason he wont run for a 3rd term even if you believe he intends to 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

He is saying exactly what he means

I mean this is what's baffling for me, the guy talked about tariffs every damn day for a year and you still had people shocked about "Liberation Day" tariffs. At some point you have to assume the stupid **** he says is genuinely what he believes instead of dreaming up a scenario where a dementia-addled boomer is playing 1776d chess by rambling on his twitter fork.

[Gfted1]

On 5/25/2025 at 1:25 AM, BruceVC said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/may/23/indiana-explore-redrawing-state-line-illinois-despite-opposition-gov/

@Gfted1

Latest suggestion to reconfigure the Indiana and Illinois border 

Anything to this, is this something that you know about or is just   Internet drama and sensationalism?

 

Never heard of it until you posted it.

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

He is both, he says weird and inaccurate things but he also cracks jokes and often its done to provoke the media and create drama for liberals. So when he talks about staying on for another term, he is doing that exactly because he knows the reaction he will get 

But there are lots examples of him just joking, like the baby clip I posted 

Is funny how much benefit of the doubt he gets with you.  

[Zoraptor]

Given Trump's ego you suspect he's serious about running at least once more so he can claim to be the winningest President ever, everyone says he's the best and won the most, and the burbling about it is at least partly getting people used to the idea.

OK, winningest equal, and only if you accept he was the real winner in 2020. But all evidence suggests Trump doesn't do that sort of ellipsis.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

Apparently the US government doesn't know what it knows. Rummy was on to something. 

Edited May 28 by Malcador

[majestic]

56 minutes ago, Malcador said:

 

 

 

Apparently the US government doesn't know what it knows. Rummy was on to something. 

Jeanine Pirro looks like she's working really hard to not burst out in laughter. 

[rjshae]

Court says Trump doesn't have the authority to set tariffs

Quote

The court, ruling in two separate cases, issued a summary judgment throwing out all the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

"Stuff" just got real. But why did it take them so long to rule?

[uuuhhii]

as if excutive are not openly defy court and law in the last few month

court ruling doesn't mean anything now

[BruceVC]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9y4exj822o

Its official, Musk is leaving DOGE 

" Elon Musk has said he is leaving the Trump administration after helping lead a tumultuous drive to shrink the size of US government that saw thousands of federal jobs axed.

In a post on his social media platform X, the world's richest man thanked Trump for the opportunity to help run the Department of Government Efficiency, known as Doge. "

Long over due, he should never have been involved in the first place 

 

Edited May 29 by BruceVC

[Lexx]

So Musk defeated all of his enemies and doesn't have to fear going to jail anymore, I guess.