Donald Trump reveals plans for second term

[silentkisser]

Ah ok, that was great after world war 2 and during the cold war. However the USA endless wars are catching up with them. If the attack Russia, they will have to answer to the BRICs alliance who are ditching the USA dollar as reserve currency. This is a big deal. Very reminiscent of how countries were aligning together in the world wars.

The word "if" is really carrying a lot of weight there, isn't it. Why would the US attack Russia? Like, seriously? Why would they start a hot war with a nuclear power? It makes absolutely no sense. I mean, it is called a nuclear deterrent for a reason. And, frankly, what would the US gain? The only scenario where that could happen is if Russia attacked a NATO ally first. And it would probably be a limited engagement.

And, I think it should be pointed out here that the US and the other militaries around the world are looking at the successes Ukraine has achieved in attacking Russian-based assets. They can circumvent air defence systems, sink ships in harbour and so forth. You can bet your sweet ass that this is being studied and incorporated into any contingency plans...

 

[squeezer]

LEAKED Trump Video Shows Him LOSING IT BAD

 

[kherg007]

Strong US currency is one of its superpowers.
The R's railed at Obama about his bailout in 2009 "debasing the currency". Rand and Ron Paul in particular, but most of the R's.
Currently the biggest threat to the US dollar are the Rs when they do not have the presidency and they push to default. Trump actually offered that in his first campaign, that he'd get the US to "pay pennies on the dollar" to get out of debt citing his experience managing debt. Yikes.
Trumps new plan is to devalue the dollar to improve US exports. Of course the US gets a ton of its product from overseas so that will jack up prices in the USA. The 10% tariff he propsed will raise prices.....10%. Trump still does not comprehend that the tarriff is paid by US consumers. He just assumes they don't know so he lies his arse off saying "money is pouring back into the country". Utter nonsense.
His plan to bully the Fed, if it works, will supercharge monetary flow and that too will cause inflation.
I have yet to see any plan he has that is even borderline sane, except to lie and blame Biden (USA has the Best - lowest - inflation of all the developed countries).

 

[squeezer]

 

[SchlongConery]

 

[Valcazar]

Only in your mind LMAO.

Even I assume Butler was joking.

 

[Valcazar]

Again, you are mischaracterizing my views to reframe them within your own personal mandate.
From my position voters don't punish politicians, they choose whether to support them or not. To call it punishment infers they own my vote already and its just being mean to withhold it. I understand I don't control them and I owe no party any allegiance and my only power is to actively choose to support or not support a politician. Not to 'punish' them. That is your term and your frame work, which I disagree with. I find that logic to be anti democratic and even too pessimistic of the system you claim to support.

That you want to pretend the system works differently than it does is the problem.
You've just admitted your entire argument is "Reality is too depressing, I will pretend something else instead."

I get that it's irrelevant.
You can't vote, so holding onto this delusional idea of voting doesn't actually affect much in the Presidential election.

But I'm just going to keep telling you that "I really want things to work this other way and so I will just pretend that they do and hopefully things will work out" is a terrible way to approach politics.
(Again - you aren't alone in taking this "head in the sand" approach.)

Ah yes, back to scolding me for not having taken your courses or bowing to your framework of how you think democracy works.
Back to scolding me for honouring Never Again.

I realize that reality makes you mad.
Since you can't actually vote, I have no reason to coddle you.

Why would you think I'm uncomfortable?

Because you keep saying things like "it's too pessimistic".
That's a lot of self-soothing.

I'll vote NDP here next election. In my riding they may win.

Good.
Funny that when it actually involves your own vote in your own riding in your own system, you pay attention to the reality of what the system produces.

To return to your odd framework, I won't 'reward' aid to genocide.
You will.

See.
You have gone right back to thinking about this in terms of "reward".

For you, how does supporting the slightly less genocidal choice result in not just a series of ever more genocidal extremists?
How do you not do anything but aid the system to get slightly worse by supporting slightly less evil?

Because less evil is always better than more evil.
Since you are proposing putting more evil in charge, you aren't really have any position to level accusations at anyone, are you?

 

[squeezer]

Even I assume Butler was joking.

You would think so but you never really not with Butt.

 

[Frankfooter]

That you want to pretend the system works differently than it does is the problem.
You've just admitted your entire argument is "Reality is too depressing, I will pretend something else instead."

This is you saying you don't accept my reasons for my views.
Ok

I get that it's irrelevant.
You can't vote, so holding onto this delusional idea of voting doesn't actually affect much in the Presidential election.

Ok, still on that same line.

But I'm just going to keep telling you that "I really want things to work this other way and so I will just pretend that they do and hopefully things will work out" is a terrible way to approach politics.
(Again - you aren't alone in taking this "head in the sand" approach.)

Ok, more of the same.

I realize that reality makes you mad.
Since you can't actually vote, I have no reason to coddle you.

I'm not mad.

Because you keep saying things like "it's too pessimistic".
That's a lot of self-soothing.

Really?

Good.
Funny that when it actually involves your own vote in your own riding in your own system, you pay attention to the reality of what the system produces.

No, I'll vote that way regardless of how the outcome looks.
I vote for the party I back.

See.
You have gone right back to thinking about this in terms of "reward".

No, I made reference to your views to see if you understood.

Because less evil is always better than more evil.
Since you are proposing putting more evil in charge, you aren't really have any position to level accusations at anyone, are you?

Genocide now - very fucking evil
Possible genocide later with democratic fuckery - likely also evil but later

Its still 'never again'.

I don't accept that voting for genocide is pragmatic, I think its enabling genocide.
You use the exact same justification that MAGA use when you confront them with backing a corrupt, racist, lying POS.
They will argue all politicians are all evil so you back who the one who is less evil or will at least do what you want (or even not do what you don't want done). You now argue that because both choices back aiding genocide then you need to choose the genocidal one that will at least do .......

What you are doing is enabling the corruption and decline of democracy by voting for someone you have admitted is likely aiding genocide. This is a really stupid electoral choice, it should be totally unimaginable, a shakespeare 'no one would believe' type situation where you choose between two ancient white men both backing aiding genocide. But it is what it is. A moral choice as problematic as Oppenheimer. Your total certainty that your choice is the best is your personal choice. But right now he's pissed off most youth in the US, the same kids who would be spending the summer knocking on doors for the dems and rallying their votes are now watching him back calling out the riot police on them for protesting genocide in a foreign country.

If you're happy with looking back and saying 'well, I only voted for a little genocide but it was pragmantic', that's your choice.
My choice is easier, vote NDP and work against the liberals even as we see the tiniest movement from them.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788977247048647080

 

[Valcazar]

No, I'll vote that way regardless of how the outcome looks.
I vote for the party I back.

I know.
This is counter productive in a first past the post system, but you are determined not to understand that.

You use the exact same justification that MAGA use when you confront them with backing a corrupt, racist, lying POS.
They will argue all politicians are all evil so you back who the one who is less evil or will at least do what you want (or even not do what you don't want done).

I haven't once argued this.
That you can't tell the difference isn't great.

You now argue that because both choices back aiding genocide then you need to choose the genocidal one that will at least do .......

Finish your sentence.

What you are doing is enabling the corruption and decline of democracy by voting for someone you have admitted is likely aiding genocide. This is a really stupid electoral choice, it should be totally unimaginable, a shakespeare 'no one would believe' type situation where you choose between two ancient white men both backing aiding genocide. But it is what it is. A moral choice as problematic as Oppenheimer. Your total certainty that your choice is the best is your personal choice. But right now he's pissed off most youth in the US, the same kids who would be spending the summer knocking on doors for the dems and rallying their votes are now watching him back calling out the riot police on them for protesting genocide in a foreign country.

Right.
You believe your vote should show what kind of a moral person you are.
What it accomplishes or how it affects the world is beside the point to you.
As long as you get to pretend you washed your hands of it.
That isn't how voting works, but the reality upsets you too much, so you continue to pretend.

If you're happy with looking back and saying 'well, I only voted for a little genocide but it was pragmantic', that's your choice.
My choice is easier, vote NDP and work against the liberals even as we see the tiniest movement from them.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788977247048647080

What?
The situation in Canada is different and so you have different choices?
What a shockingly complete agreement with my position.

 

[Frankfooter]

I know.
This is counter productive in a first past the post system, but you are determined not to understand that.

Which is why the US system seems unable to change.

I haven't once argued this.
That you can't tell the difference isn't great.

That you can't see the similarities is sad.
Left wingers here have argued for years that we wouldn't have voted for rump because we'd turf someone out for corruption.
Here you are arguing that the corruption/genocide doesn't matter because all choices are corrupt so vote for the corruption that works for you.
Its your own favourite definition of conservatism.

Right.
You believe your vote should show what kind of a moral person you are.
What it accomplishes or how it affects the world is beside the point to you.
As long as you get to pretend you washed your hands of it.
That isn't how voting works, but the reality upsets you too much, so you continue to pretend.

Your thinking is very within the box and very binary. Very reductive.
So there is a genocide, a country that has destroyed every university in Gaza.
Across the US, students chose to protest towards implementing BDS and change.
That is a democratic choice, an active participation in the system and a choice geared towards making the system respond better.

Your position is that the only thing that matters is your binary choice, ignoring 3rd party, ignoring spoiled votes and ignoring trying to change the system.
Just vote for Biden, the system is screwed, rump is more evil, so don't fix it, just keep it going on the slightly less evil path.

 

[Valcazar]

Which is why the US system seems unable to change.

The US electoral system isn't going to change by this.
Unless you are calling for the violent overthrow of the government now?

The US electoral system changing is a long, hard, fight that has been going on for generations and made very slow progress.
Even getting to the simple next stage of a popular vote for President is going to be incredibly difficult.

There are even moves already to repeal the 17th amendment and stop having direct election of Senators.

It's an ongoing struggle.

That you can't see the similarities is sad.
Left wingers here have argued for years that we wouldn't have voted for rump because we'd turf someone out for corruption.
Here you are arguing that the corruption/genocide doesn't matter because all choices are corrupt so vote for the corruption that works for you.
Its your own favourite definition of conservatism.

Nice try.
I do applaud the effort.
The difference is, of course, that the whole issue of "turfing him out for corruption" involves what the other option is.
That you seem to have never even understood what the argument was against Trump and what the GOP was doing is actually somewhat surprising.

Your thinking is very within the box and very binary. Very reductive.
So there is a genocide, a country that has destroyed every university in Gaza.
Across the US, students chose to protest towards implementing BDS and change.
That is a democratic choice, an active participation in the system and a choice geared towards making the system respond better.

One I fully support.
Participation in the system beyond voting is incredibly important and the idea that the only thing that matters is your vote is pernicious and a huge problem in civil participation both in the US and Canada.

Your position is that the only thing that matters is your binary choice, ignoring 3rd party, ignoring spoiled votes and ignoring trying to change the system.

Obviously and completely wrong.
Also, third party votes and spoiled votes don't change the system.
You should be trying to change the system.
That involves understanding it and not doing things that don't change the system and work against your goals.

Just vote for Biden, the system is screwed, rump is more evil, so don't fix it, just keep it going on the slightly less evil path.

Nothing you are proposing will "fix" it though.
That's what I've been trying to explain to you.
"We should have the worse evil and make sure things are worse" isn't a good tactic.
It's a fucking terrible one.

 

[Frankfooter]

The US electoral system isn't going to change by this.
Unless you are calling for the violent overthrow of the government now?

The US electoral system changing is a long, hard, fight that has been going on for generations and made very slow progress.
Even getting to the simple next stage of a popular vote for President is going to be incredibly difficult.

There are even moves already to repeal the 17th amendment and stop having direct election of Senators.

It's an ongoing struggle.

Seems like a long term losing struggle, though.
Its seems to be getting worse.

Nice try.
I do applaud the effort.
The difference is, of course, that the whole issue of "turfing him out for corruption" involves what the other option is.
That you seem to have never even understood what the argument was against Trump and what the GOP was doing is actually somewhat surprising.

You would have argued Al Franken shouldn't have resigned because his opponent was worse?
Or that you should vote Menendez instead of having him resign because his opponent was worse?
(ignoring the fact that politicians now don't resign at all for affairs)

You're just confirming my claim, that you claim to have morals but they are superseded by politics.

One I fully support.
Participation in the system beyond voting is incredibly important and the idea that the only thing that matters is your vote is pernicious and a huge problem in civil participation both in the US and Canada.

great

Obviously and completely wrong.
Also, third party votes and spoiled votes don't change the system.
You should be trying to change the system.
That involves understanding it and not doing things that don't change the system and work against your goals.

How is stating you should just vote for Biden working towards change?
All that does is enable the status quo.

Nothing you are proposing will "fix" it though.
That's what I've been trying to explain to you.
"We should have the worse evil and make sure things are worse" isn't a good tactic.
It's a fucking terrible one.

What you won't accept is that some people view aiding genocide right now to be the worst evil compared to what might happen in the future.
What is happening right now is real, the future? We don't know for sure.

 

[Valcazar]

Seems like a long term losing struggle, though.
Its seems to be getting worse.

Welcome to democracy, where things are long term struggles.

You would have argued Al Franken shouldn't have resigned because his opponent was worse?

Al Franken was replaced by a Democratic senator.
She was as good, maybe better, than he was.

There was never the case of "He is running against a Republican who is more rapey so what do we do?" involved.

Or that you should vote Menendez instead of having him resign because his opponent was worse?
(ignoring the fact that politicians now don't resign at all for affairs)

Menendez did resign.
He may run as an independent.
I encourage no one to vote for him.

You're just confirming my claim, that you claim to have morals but they are superseded by politics.

I see your understanding of morality is also narrow.

How is stating you should just vote for Biden working towards change?
All that does is enable the status quo.

When the other option is make the status quo worse, it is a simple choice.
Why would I want to make the change I want harder?
Why would I want to make things go actively in a worse direction so I have to waste time making up lost ground?

What you won't accept is that some people view aiding genocide right now to be the worst evil compared to what might happen in the future.

I do accept that.
The problem is that isn't an argument you are making, since you have repeatedly insisted that the vote will have no effect on the genocide at all, since it will have stopped before the election.

What is happening right now is real, the future? We don't know for sure.

That's a terribly short sighted view, now isn't it?