The All Things Political Topic - What's Going On...?

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

 

A nutjob who was invited to the inaugural gala of Mango Mussolini because by now he's an influencial figure among the alt-right / neo-reactionaries. You know, someone who wants to turn the United States into a monarchy, with ties to the vice president, in an administration where the president has posted and talked about himself as being the king on more than one occasion. Who said that voting for him would be the last time people need to vote.

With people like Bruce still believing he's joking. The tech bros are, as Gromnir put it, vying for control. Absolute control. I mean, what can you do when you're so rich that you and your familiy will never want for anything for any forseeable future? Well, why not become king?

Come on, you cant seriously believe Trump wants to become a leader for life or  an absolute Monarch 

You cant really believe that, tell me you joking  

[Lexx]

It drives me mad that Bruce still gives Trump the benefit of doubt. Tell me it's not possible to be this naive? Trump is doing *exactly* what he said he would.

Edited Sunday at 08:34 AM by Lexx

[Bartimaeus]

If you continue to read BruceVC posts of your own free volition, you are mad indeed. Well, maybe I should check to see what he said myself...

Oh wait, I can't! And I think to myself...what a wonderful world. Well, except for all the other stupid, disingenuous ****s out there, but it is what it is.

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Lexx said:

It drives me mad that Bruce still gives Trump the benefit of doubt. Tell me it's not possible to be this naive? Trump is doing *exactly* what he said he would.

Trump has said lots of things and 40-60% of what he says is BS or nonsense as you guys often quote and post and we laugh about 

And it IS  a  BS and sensationalized  story that somehow Trump is going to stay on  forever as US president

Rather focus on the policies and things he does that are real like migration enforcement  and tariffs 

But  he will never become a leader for life like in Russia or NK

 

[BruceVC]

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

The only way Trump  could stand for another term is to change the Constitution and the GOP simply doesnt have that support,  so its not possible and thats just a third term so the idea of him becoming a Monarch is even more unlikely . So it doesnt matter what he says or what some of his supporters say. This is just a sensationalized story peddled by MAGA and then people respond to it as if its possible 

" 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. "

 

 

 

[rjshae]

In the aftermath of the Jimmy Kimmel show's indefinite suspension, I have to wonder:

Apart from the political alignment, how is what Jimmy Kimmel said about the suspect any different than what DJT said?

In this case, the only difference I can see between Kimmel and DJT is in who has more polical power. Both claim without evidence that the suspect is a member of an extreme political faction; one claims left wing and the other the right wing. Indeed, conspiracy theories included a conjecture about the suspect being a member of the far right Groypers, who are in conflict with Kirk. Likewise, DJT immediately jumped to the conclusion that the (then unknown) suspect was a member of a radical left group.

As usual, the answer is probably somewhere in between.

[Malcador]

12 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But  he will never become a leader for life like in Russia or NK

 

And you believe this why ? You know his heart, or better yet, the people around him for whom he's a cheap puppet ?

Edited Sunday at 09:15 PM by Malcador

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

And you believe this why ? You know his heart, or better yet, the people around him for whom he's a cheap puppet ?

I see my point is being misunderstood and maybe its my fault for not clarifying something which I thought I did 

Im sure there are people who genuinely want Trump to become a leader for life and Trump would love to have a 3rd term 

But he cannot because that would require changing the US Constitution and the GOP doesnt have that support, as the previous link mentions to change the US Constitution you need 

• 2/3 control of both the House and Senate
• 75% control of State Legislatures

Even after the massive GOP win in the last election they dont have that support and  in the midterms I predict the GOP will lose seats in Congress. 

So when Trump and some of  his MAGA supporters say " I want to stay on for a 3rd term " you can ignore it because its not legislatively possible 

Its no different to the whole Gaza Riviera, annexing of Canada and Greenland becoming part of the US 

You will notice no one talks about those "ideas" from Trump anymore but yet at the time people responded to them as if they were real and possible 

Trump becoming a leader for life\monarch\3rd term is the same 

 

[Pidesco]

It's very fortunate then that the GOP hasn't been ignoring the constitution with no consequences, so far. We really dodged a bullet here, thanks for the help. 

[Gorth]

@BruceVC I don’t think Trumps ambitions are relying on getting elected for life, just on being able to seize power for life. Those tiny cogwheels inside his head trying to assess whether or not his interior police/national guard goons will help him do away with the pesky election process or whether the regular army will oppose it (I get the impression that US veterans are not fond of him)

 

edit he has repeatedly shown little interest in following rules other than when it benefits him. Insurrection, hello?

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Gorth said:

@BruceVC I don’t think Trumps ambitions are relying on getting elected for life, just on being able to seize power for life. Those tiny cogwheels inside his head trying to assess whether or not his interior police/national guard goons will help him do away with the pesky election process or whether the regular army will oppose it (I get the impression that US veterans are not fond of him)

 

edit he has repeatedly shown little interest in following rules other than when it benefits him. Insurrection, hello?

Yes and that would be the worst possible outcome for the US and the reality of Democracy 

Some dystopian event where Trump seizes power militarily and becomes a leader for life with no more elections 

I cant imagine that ever happening but I understand the concern 

[BruceVC]

39 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

It's very fortunate then that the GOP hasn't been ignoring the constitution with no consequences, so far. We really dodged a bullet here, thanks for the help. 

I  want to ask you something 

Trumps presidency has had several examples where he has been accused of ignoring the Constitution like with National Guard deployments and deportations

And then these actions get challenged in  the various courts and sometimes Trump wins and sometimes he loses

Do you consider that the same as him ignoring the Constitution around a third term?

In other words do you believe its irrelevant what Congress thinks  or what  the courts will rule if Trump decides to stay on as president? Do you believe he can decide something as fundamental as ignoring the 2 terms rule and it  will become a reality

I believe Congress and the courts in the US can and absolutely do have final say on what any US president can or cannot do on many things 

 

 

 

[Pidesco]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I  want to ask you something 

Trumps presidency has had several examples where he has been accused of ignoring the Constitution like with National Guard deployments and deportations

And then these actions get challenged in  the various courts and sometimes Trump wins and sometimes he loses

Do you consider that the same as him ignoring the Constitution around a third term?

In other words do you believe its irrelevant what Congress thinks  or what  the courts will rule if Trump decides to stay on as president? Do you believe he can decide something as fundamental as ignoring the 2 terms rule and it  will become a reality

I believe Congress and the courts in the US can and absolutely do have final say on what any US president can or cannot do on many things 

 

 

 

First both Houses are entirely toothless. Entirely. They will either endorse whatever comes out of this administration, or ah-hum their way to the apocalypse, with vague hand wringing about norms and civility.

As for the courts, the system is slow, but the Supreme Court has already clearly  shown who it stands with.

 

Congress, lol. 

[Malcador]

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-updates-afd-tops-poll-with-highest-support-ever/live-74072701

For fun, go watch some right wing Americans "discuss" this topic.  Apparently Germany has been dominated by the far left for decades. 

[Lexx]

Germany had the middle-right CDU for 16 years (Angela Merkel's party). We sure as **** weren't dominated by the left, lol.

Edited 17 hours ago by Lexx

[rjshae]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

And then these actions get challenged in  the various courts and sometimes Trump wins and sometimes he loses

believe Congress and the courts in the US can and absolutely do have final say on what any US president can or cannot do on many things 

When he loses it tends to happen in the lower courts, then win when it is taken to the SCOTUS, the final authority. The difference is that the lower courts are populated by both liberal and conservative justices selected by various Presidents, whereas the SCOTUS is majority conservative with three of its members selected by DJT. What shouldn't be happening is so many of his decisions needing to be validated by the court system. It seems to be part of DJT's personality to try and skirt legal restrictions as much as possible.

What will be particularly interesting is whether his tariff packages survives appeal at the SCOTUS. Technically it shouldn't, since the required emergency conditions just don't exist.

[Hurlshort]

Looks like Jimmy Kimmel is coming back Wednesday, which is was either the plan all along, or Disney desperately trying to hit the undo button after getting lambasted by everyone that isn't on Team Maga. My guess is the latter.

[Bartimaeus]

47 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

Looks like Jimmy Kimmel is coming back Wednesday, which is was either the plan all along, or Disney desperately trying to hit the undo button after getting lambasted by everyone that isn't on Team Maga. My guess is the latter.

More and more, I think corporations are learning the hard way that doing anything to draw political attention to yourself in this polarized climate is pretty much always the wrong thing to do - you do something to score points and you get the other side angry at you, then you walk it back and now both sides are angry at you. You could've just done nothing and sat quietly in your corner, blissfully happy that nobody was thinking of you being political in any meaningful way.

[rjshae]

Political satire like the Jimmy Kimmel show should probably be migrating to streaming channels where the FCC has less control. That will keep them more independent of a thin-skinned President. They can always license it back to the networks for broadcast.

[Lexx]

17 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

More and more, I think corporations are learning the hard way that doing anything to draw political attention to yourself in this polarized climate is pretty much always the wrong thing to do - you do something to score points and you get the other side angry at you, then you walk it back and now both sides are angry at you. You could've just done nothing and sat quietly in your corner, blissfully happy that nobody was thinking of you being political in any meaningful way.

I'm really curious which side has the biggest impact, though. Purely based on feelings, I would say that right wing "boycotts" never amounted to anything at all. The famous "Go woke, go broke" is basically non-existing as far as I am aware. Maybe Disney rolled back because the push back from the "woke" crowd was a magnitude bigger than the other one. Right wingers seem to be just really very loud snowflakes (or russian bots lol).

[Bartimaeus]

I would assume that it depends on the brand/business/product. For ABC/Disney, it's probably safe to say that they would have more left-wing people in their camp than right-wing, so yes, I would imagine they would've been much better off just quietly ignoring all of this. There are enough other significant voices out there saying so much worse about Charlie Kirk than the nothingness that Kimmel did (his comment didn't even really directly concern Charlie Kirk but rather the shooter), this shouldn't have even been on anyone's radar, especially given the kind of audience Kimmel has in the first place. Foolishness all around on the decision-makers at ABC/Disney, though I do understand that the threats between FCC and Sinclair/Nexar were probably persuasive in the moment. ABC/Disney will still have to sort that nasty business out.

Edited 14 hours ago by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

3 hours ago, Lexx said:

Germany had the middle-right CDU for 16 years (Angela Merkel's party). We sure as **** weren't dominated by the left, lol.

Well, if one's on the extremely far right-end of the political spectrum, everything and everyone else looks left. Besides, if one just excludes economic politics (in which the AfD is hilariously out-capitalist-ing the FDP) like the far-right populists generally do, backed by wealthy people as they all seem to be, the mainstream opinion of simply accepting other forms of family or concepts of living together outside of what politicians in Germany call the "core" (father, mother, children) family is something that can be seen as left insofar as the left leaning parties are the ones pushing for more sociall progressive policies.

It's not like the CDU (or our equivalent, the ÖVP) were at the forefront of opening marriage for homosexual poeple. They hemmed and hawed until they were just forced to. Angela Merkel was chancellor at a time where society as a whole moved towards more understaning and acceptance of alternative ways of life. One act of accepting refugees might have caused a cascade reaction landing us in some dangerous waters in this day and age, but left-wing does that not one make. Certainly not the CDU, and even less their Bavarian appendix.

Edited 14 hours ago by majestic

[rjshae]

Trump makes unfounded claims about Tylenol and repeats discredited link between vaccines and autism

I see our Secretary of Pseudo-Science has been busy, striding boldly into a new future of national quackery. I'm feeling so proud right now... 

[Oerwinde]

6 hours ago, Lexx said:

I'm really curious which side has the biggest impact, though. Purely based on feelings, I would say that right wing "boycotts" never amounted to anything at all. The famous "Go woke, go broke" is basically non-existing as far as I am aware. Maybe Disney rolled back because the push back from the "woke" crowd was a magnitude bigger than the other one. Right wingers seem to be just really very loud snowflakes (or russian bots lol).

Conservatives used to have the bigger impact with Disney, what with being a family oriented company, but they alienated that audience already. So now they can't afford to lose the cat ladies too. Boycotts depend on the industry and consumer base. The Bud Light one sent Bud light from #1 beer brand to #3 or #4, so that was pretty effective, but if it's something mostly progressives consume, a conservative boycott won't do much, and Vice Versa. The Hogwarts Legacy boycott resulted in it being the #1 selling game of the year for instance. Alienating men seems to have been the bigger disaster for a lot of stuff, rather than political sides, just look at the collapse of Marvel and Star Wars.

[Pidesco]

He is risen!