What are we to make of the comment of JD Vance that Britain is, or could become, (under a Labour government) an Islamic state?
Laughter seems the only appropriate response (and I think he said Islamist not Islamic. Especially the idea that the UK will be the first with nuclear weapons, given that Pakistan is RIGHT THERE. Hard to tell if he's a liar, stupid, or a bullshitter.
What are we to make of the comment of JD Vance that Britain is, or could become, (under a Labour government) an Islamic state?
Laughter seems the only appropriate response (and I think he said Islamist not Islamic. Especially the idea that the UK will be the first with nuclear weapons, given that Pakistan is RIGHT THERE. Hard to tell if he's a liar, stupid, or a bullshitter.
When someone runs for president on a major party ticket, they usually try to speak very clearly and precisely. Since candidates are human, naturally they mess this up from time to time. Sometimes it's obvious what was meant and no correction is necessary. Other times the candidate or their comms team issues a correction saying that they mis-spoke and what they meant to say was X. One of the many aggravating things about the Trump candidacy is the way the supposedly neutral and objective press will rush in to serve as Trump's comms team, making excuses for him and conjecturing what he "really" meant by the latest appalling but verbally clear statement.
Now no one here is (to the best of my knowledge) a member of the press or otherwise bound by journalistic ethics, so we're all free to shill for Trump if we want to. What's aggravating about @stetson's post is how lazy he is at it. I mean, there's a link to a video less than thirty seconds long where he could see for himself Trump making this statement, but rather than check it out directly he'd rather "agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec". Admittedly he has no obligation to spend/waste twenty-seven seconds of his time to see if this assertion is actually true, but what gets me is his apparent assumption that no one else here would bother to check for themselves either so the alleged word of some anonymous internet friend-of-a-friend rando is good enough to convince the rubes.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. "Making excuses" implies that Trump might have done something morally wrong in this instance, and I'm trying to defend him from the accusation.
"Making excuses" here means making the claim that Trump didn't really say what we have very clear video of him very clearly saying.
But I could probably be convinced that he actually meant to say he wasn't Christian. It would neither improve nor worsen my opinion of Trump's morality.
The usual assumption is that political candidates mean what they say. In some cases, as mentioned above, their comms team will be dispatched to explain that they mis-spoke, and to clarify what the candidate really meant to say. To the best of my knowledge neither Trump nor his comms team has felt the need to clarify or correct his statement. On the other hand maybe they decided that they don't need to because so many people will volunteer to do their jobs for them. What baffles me is why so many people want to play freelance comms team for Donald Trump.
And presumably, there are going to be mountains of right wing trash talk towards Harris. It tends to occur in right wing media, odd, isn't it?
The left wing press, of course, are scrupulously fair and honest when it comes to opinion pieces about Trump.
Odd argument.
The truth is that the media, left wing or otherwise, bends over backwards to be fair to Trump. Partly due to the usual false balance nonsense. Mostly, in the US, because Trump is a good story that males them money. He has never been given fair treatment. Fair would be a helluva lot less generous and a helluva lot less kind than the media treatment he has, and continues to receive.
I mean, there's a link to a video less than thirty seconds long where he could see for himself Trump making this statement, . . . .
Thanks for providing the second link. I’ll admit I watched the CNN video four to five times, and I still wasn’t sure what he was saying, whether it was “I’m not a Christian” or “I’m a Christian.” My hearing ain’t what it used to be—I’m a frequent user of closed captioning. But whether the audio was better in this second video, or whether the angle helped me see his mouth and gave me the benefit of a little lip reading, I could clearly understand “I’m not a Christian” in the second video.
So Donald Trump addressed the Believer's Summit at Turning Point Action last night. He rambled on for over an hour, and towards the end he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections, presumably with himself as dictator for life.
This I’ll push back against a bit. As far as I could find, he never actually said he’d end American elections. He said “you will never have to vote again.” That he wants to end elections is certainly a reasonable interpretation of his promise that “you won’t have to vote again,” given many previous statements and actions. It’s perhaps the most reasonable interpretation.
But what he said could also be interpreted as “we’ll fix all the problems so well that you on’t feel like you’ve got to vote to keep America great, and you can skip it if you want to.” Maybe not as reasonable an interpretation, but one that may be strengthened a bit by his comments on the right to vote just beforehand.
What he said—“In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.”—is quite egregious enough, and definitely ought to be getting grilled about it. But I’m not sure what’s gained by saying “he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections” when he didn’t actually say that.
When someone runs for president on a major party ticket, they usually try to speak very clearly and precisely. Since candidates are human, naturally they mess this up from time to time. Sometimes it's obvious what was meant and no correction is necessary. Other times the candidate or their comms team issues a correction saying that they mis-spoke and what they meant to say was X. One of the many aggravating things about the Trump candidacy is the way the supposedly neutral and objective press will rush in to serve as Trump's comms team, making excuses for him and conjecturing what he "really" meant by the latest appalling but verbally clear statement.
Now no one here is (to the best of my knowledge) a member of the press or otherwise bound by journalistic ethics, so we're all free to shill for Trump if we want to. What's aggravating about @stetson's post is how lazy he is at it. I mean, there's a link to a video less than thirty seconds long where he could see for himself Trump making this statement, but rather than check it out directly he'd rather "agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec". Admittedly he has no obligation to spend/waste twenty-seven seconds of his time to see if this assertion is actually true, but what gets me is his apparent assumption that no one else here would bother to check for themselves either so the alleged word of some anonymous internet friend-of-a-friend rando is good enough to convince the rubes.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. "Making excuses" implies that Trump might have done something morally wrong in this instance, and I'm trying to defend him from the accusation.
"Making excuses" here means making the claim that Trump didn't really say what we have very clear video of him very clearly saying.
But I could probably be convinced that he actually meant to say he wasn't Christian. It would neither improve nor worsen my opinion of Trump's morality.
The usual assumption is that political candidates mean what they say. In some cases, as mentioned above, their comms team will be dispatched to explain that they mis-spoke, and to clarify what the candidate really meant to say. To the best of my knowledge neither Trump nor his comms team has felt the need to clarify or correct his statement. On the other hand maybe they decided that they don't need to because so many people will volunteer to do their jobs for them. What baffles me is why so many people want to play freelance comms team for Donald Trump.
It what way do you think I'm playing defence for Donald Trump? Are you thinking there might otherwise be a large exodus of conservative Christians abandoning Trump because he said "I'm not a Christian"?
And FWIW, yes, I did see the video itself before I made my post. "Slurring his words" might have been the wrong phrase, and I apologize. My own guess is he was speaking quickly, and threw in a word that didn't belong.
During the debate, Trump said, enumerating the alleged foreign-policy failures of Joe Biden, that "He didn't stop Israel." I don't assume that meant Trump is now anti-Israel and wanted Biden to rein Israel in. Rather, I think he meant to say something like "He didn't stop Israel from getting attacked" and his brain chopped off a few words in the delivery.
When someone runs for president on a major party ticket, they usually try to speak very clearly and precisely. Since candidates are human, naturally they mess this up from time to time. Sometimes it's obvious what was meant and no correction is necessary. Other times the candidate or their comms team issues a correction saying that they mis-spoke and what they meant to say was X. One of the many aggravating things about the Trump candidacy is the way the supposedly neutral and objective press will rush in to serve as Trump's comms team, making excuses for him and conjecturing what he "really" meant by the latest appalling but verbally clear statement.
Now no one here is (to the best of my knowledge) a member of the press or otherwise bound by journalistic ethics, so we're all free to shill for Trump if we want to. What's aggravating about @stetson's post is how lazy he is at it. I mean, there's a link to a video less than thirty seconds long where he could see for himself Trump making this statement, but rather than check it out directly he'd rather "agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec". Admittedly he has no obligation to spend/waste twenty-seven seconds of his time to see if this assertion is actually true, but what gets me is his apparent assumption that no one else here would bother to check for themselves either so the alleged word of some anonymous internet friend-of-a-friend rando is good enough to convince the rubes.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. "Making excuses" implies that Trump might have done something morally wrong in this instance, and I'm trying to defend him from the accusation.
"Making excuses" here means making the claim that Trump didn't really say what we have very clear video of him very clearly saying.
But I could probably be convinced that he actually meant to say he wasn't Christian. It would neither improve nor worsen my opinion of Trump's morality.
The usual assumption is that political candidates mean what they say. In some cases, as mentioned above, their comms team will be dispatched to explain that they mis-spoke, and to clarify what the candidate really meant to say. To the best of my knowledge neither Trump nor his comms team has felt the need to clarify or correct his statement. On the other hand maybe they decided that they don't need to because so many people will volunteer to do their jobs for them. What baffles me is why so many people want to play freelance comms team for Donald Trump.
Spot on.
Neither Trump nor his team make clarifying on correcting statements. That would pin them down to a specific meaning.
When challenged in future, then they will give a 'clarification.' Which means that both versions now exist for people who want to believe either version to point to. Trump apologists then get to 'fact check' his critics by pointing to whichever version suits their purposes in that moment. Whilst the ones he was speaking to, also get to hear the original version without him ever actually recanting it.
It's just bullshitting, over and over.
Anyway. Ahem. I don't think he meant he was going to end democracy here.
I think it's really clear that he has such an aim. He has previously tried to overthrow democracy and I have no doubt he will try again if the opportunity presents itself.
However, he is rarely precise in what he says and understanding his intent means wading through a word salad but I actually think he meant vote is this critical election and the next won't be vital.
However, however, whilst I do think that's what he meant, he is so far past the point of deserving the benefit of the doubt, that it's ridiculous. Moreover, he's made his intentions clear. If he did mean that he'll cancel future elections,* it's not actually news to anyone who's been paying attention.
AFZ
*He won't cancel future elections, that's too hard. He might rig them though.
What are we to make of the comment of JD Vance that Britain is, or could become, (under a Labour government) an Islamic state?
I think it's of a piece with the idea of 'no go areas' in the UK (often mentioned in the context of 'sharia law') that's common currency among the far right in the UK, but which ends up being mainstreamed in some US circles (and probably emphasized as you move further right).
A number of times I've had otherwise eminently sensible US acquaintances tell me that some area of the UK that I travelled through only weeks before was a 'no go area'.
fromLC
What am I supposed to do with a candidate who openly calls immigrants (like my husband) "animals,"
Well, if you’re interested in fairness, and context, he wasn’t talking about your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, he was referring to MS-13 gang members who are yearning to make beaucoup bucks selling drugs, creating addicts and mayhem for myself and my fellow citizens (& legal resident aliens, of course).
Granted, Trump says what he believes, without stopping to consider how it can & will be taken out of context, but if I just want a leader who looks good on the world stage, I’ll vote for Gavin Newsome or Kamala Harris….
from Lambchopped I'm not ashamed of what I am, or what my family is. But I am afraid for them. And I DO take several sources of news to confirm what I'm hearing, and I do double-check things, and I know who to do research. I have a doctorate, for gosh sake. They teach you that stuff.
Yeah they do. It’d be healthier if you got outside & talked to people, if u don’t mind my saying so.
And right now I'm very scared. Because Jesus said if you want to know the nature of a tree, you look at the fruit: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
And what kind of fruit is assassination?
Do you see why, if my family is ordered into the camps, I'm going with them?
Oh my.
I’ll say it again, people can do more harm to themselves, than others could do in the same situation. To me, you sound overwrought and more dramatic than the situation calls for. I think you are being manipulated by desperate experts.
Also, thank you for your apology. It’s clear to me you are quite sincere, and I wish I could assuage your fear.
Your reality, as I have acknowledged, is different from mine, but if you think my reality is one of being protected from the real world with all its evil and dangers, you are very much mistaken.
Thinking about it some more, it occurs to me that a likely explanation for Trump's disavowal of Christianity might be that Trump doesn't identify as a Christian, and is accustomed to telling that to people in his private circles, so when he got going on stage with the "You Christians this and that" stuff, it just sorta triggered his brain to throw in one of its usual phrases on the topic.
IOW the statement was intended to be understood as true, but he hadn't made a premeditated decision to reveal it publically.
Anyway, if the statement was meant to be true, it would be a rather historic moment, since to my knowledge, no POTUS has ever publically disavowed Christianity.
Anyway, if the statement was meant to be true, it would be a rather historic moment, since to my knowledge, no POTUS has ever publically disavowed Christianity.
Weren't there are number of Deist Founding Fathers including Jefferson?
Anyway, if the statement was meant to be true, it would be a rather historic moment, since to my knowledge, no POTUS has ever publically disavowed Christianity.
Weren't there are number of Deist Founding Fathers including Jefferson?
I was gonna say that Jefferson still formally identified as Christian(even Unitarians were regarded as such in those days, and there's some argument he was actually Episcopalian), but then there's that whole non-supernatural Bible he edited. Though I think that book was officially for evangelizing indigenous people, because he assumed non-Christians would be skeptical about miracles from the get-go.
There also used to be some question about Lincoln's Christianity, or lack thereof. Suffice it to say, though, that no president prior to possibly Trump is recorded as making a public and explicit disavowal of Christianity.
Hi @Moyessa. I’ve just tidied up the quoting in your most recent post as discussions can get very confused otherwise.
FYI to start a quote you need to use
[quote]
and to end it you need to use
[/quote]
Don’t put anything else inside the [ ] as it screws up the system. (An exception is if you use the Quote button as it begins with code which adds the name of the poster and a link to the post being quoted.)
And right now I'm very scared. Because Jesus said if you want to know the nature of a tree, you look at the fruit: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
And what kind of fruit is assassination?
How is the “fruit” of a would-be assassin relevant to Trump’s “fruit”? I mean, other than as whataboutism?
Going to the speech where Trump appears to announce he will fix any future elections should he be elected into the office again, I wonder if he may have the 2020 election in mind where he claimed all sorts of irregularities, and he plans on fixes those types of alleged problems---which were all dismissed by the several courts he presented them in.
To Moyessa's statement that she cannot stand the deceptions of the Democratic Party, has she forgotten the deceptions of Trump and his organization? He has lost several fraud cases. His organization cannot even do business in the state of New York anymore. Then there were the thousands of dollars he collected under the name of Trump University. Then there was the time he announced he would raise funds for an unspecified veterans' organization which ended up going into his campaign funds. He was fined $2 mil for that slip (see attached judgement). I know I can cite more.
Forgive me, I vaguely remember some of the details of the Steele Dossier. Seems like Trump was forced to appoint a special investigator (Mueller) who verified the facts stated in the document. He then turned his conclusions and recommendations to Attorney General Jeff Sessons who refused to prosecute. Correct me if I am wrong, but just because the Attorney General refused to prosecute, does not mean the Dossier is invalid.
In the end, regarding the Hunter Laptop. The emails it contained were used to prove tax evasion and illegal gun ownership. The incident happened before Biden announced he was running for president. Hunter was willing to plead guilty to the charges, but that fell apart. He went to trial and was found guilty. Biden has said he is not going to pardon his son, I have no reason to doubt what he said.
But, if we want to talk about the many convictions of the former aides of Trump., we will find a very long list.
I have a question for you: Which day was worse for our country - Jan 6 or July 13?
I think the response will distill my understanding.
I regard Jan 6th as worse for society because it was an organized attack on a democratic government, with arguable support from the then-POTUS and his allies.
Personally, I was a bit more spooked by July 13th, solely because the death of the audience member seemed more random to me than the deaths of either the police officers or the protestor at 1/6(*).
(*) A cop knows what they signed up for, and Ashli Babbitt could surely have foreseen there was a chance her actions that day would lead to unfortunate consequences.
I have a question for you: Which day was worse for our country - Jan 6 or July 13?
I think the response will distill my understanding.
Are you addressing me? I am not clear.
Your question reminds me of an old joke:
“Comparing a cat to a dog is like comparing a fluffy pillow to a barking alarm clock. Sure, they both have fur, but good luck cuddling with that snooze button!”
I have a question for you: Which day was worse for our country - Jan 6 or July 13?
I think the response will distill my understanding.
Are you addressing me? I am not clear.
Your question reminds me of an old joke:
“Comparing a cat to a dog is like comparing a fluffy pillow to a barking alarm clock. Sure, they both have fur, but good luck cuddling with that snooze button!”
You think my question is invalid? Or what? Joke doesn’t compute for me.
I have a question for you: Which day was worse for our country - Jan 6 or July 13?
I think the response will distill my understanding.
Are you addressing me? I am not clear.
Your question reminds me of an old joke:
“Comparing a cat to a dog is like comparing a fluffy pillow to a barking alarm clock. Sure, they both have fur, but good luck cuddling with that snooze button!”
You think my question is invalid? Or what? Joke doesn’t compute for me.
I think your question is a means of avoiding talking about Trump and what he has said and done. It comes across as trying to change the subject. As I said before, it’s whataboutism.
But since you asked, January 6 was unquestionably worse for the country. That is not to say that July 13 wasn’t terrible. It was, and it could have been worse.
But January 6 was an attempt by a sitting president who’d lost an election to hold on to power. It was a large group of Americans attacking the United States Capitol and attempting an insurrection. July 13 was, so far as we know, one person acting alone.
Republicans in Congress recognized the gravity of January 6 at the time, but scrambled afterwards to backtrack and act like it was no big deal. But it was.
Why do you think asking about the assassination attempt on Trump is an appropriate way to answer questions about Trump? And if you think July 13 was worse, so what? How does that make January 6 not bad?
While speaking of Laken Riley—a 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia allegedly murdered by a Venezuelan immigrant in the country illegally—Trump said some immigrants were sub-human.
“The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans, they’re animals,’” said Trump, president from 2017 to 2021.
I have a question for you: Which day was worse for our country - Jan 6 or July 13?
I think the response will distill my understanding.
Are you addressing me? I am not clear.
Your question reminds me of an old joke:
“Comparing a cat to a dog is like comparing a fluffy pillow to a barking alarm clock. Sure, they both have fur, but good luck cuddling with that snooze button!”
You think my question is invalid? Or what? Joke doesn’t compute for me.
You presented a false equivalency. I refuse to get involved in that either/or trap.
One of the reasons I stayed away from the Ship for a while was that I got so tired of non-Americans talking confidently about the US and getting it wrong. If you're not steeped in American culture, you probably don't have the context it takes to interpret a statement like this one of Clinton's and the reaction to it.
Well, it is a U.K.- based community.
However. The US is so powerful that what happens politically and financially over there affects us over here. We cannot vote in the US, fair enough. However, if the outcome of the election affects us in the way it does why should we not have an opinion? If we don’t understand the subject properly you are free to correct us. The actions of the US government have far reaching consequences outside of the US. Some US shipmates seem not to be aware of this.
I definitely am. I consider Trump to be a danger not only to the US, but to the world. Just NATO alone, not to mention everything else. And emboldening dictators and would-be dictators and … a lot.
Please note that this thread is now operating under Epiphanies rules. Please pay particular attention to the guidelines about lived experience (4) and quality of sources (5). Purgatory guidelines continue to apply and in particular, in the context of a high temperature thread, you should avoid the kind of argument which heads toward attacking the person rather than addressing their arguments.
I'm not ashamed of what I am, or what my family is. But I am afraid for them. And I DO take several sources of news to confirm what I'm hearing, and I do double-check things, and I know who to do research. I have a doctorate, for gosh sake. They teach you that stuff.
Yeah they do. It’d be healthier if you got outside & talked to people, if u don’t mind my saying so.
Wouldn't it be easier to listen to what Trump says, given that he always says what he believes? That would be a much easier way to gauge Trump's intentions than going out and talking to people who are not Donald Trump
Do you see why, if my family is ordered into the camps, I'm going with them?
Oh my.
I’ll say it again, people can do more harm to themselves, than others could do in the same situation. To me, you sound overwrought and more dramatic than the situation calls for. I think you are being manipulated by desperate experts.
Who exactly are "experts" in this case? It seems like you mean anyone who can count and make logical inferences. For instance, Donald Trump has repeatedly declared his intention to deport twenty million people from the U.S. As noted here and elsewhere, there are not that many immigrants with insufficient paperwork in the U.S. Since Donald Trump always says what he believes, he must sincerely intend to deport millions of legal U.S. residents and/or current American citizens.
During his time in office Donald Trump established denaturalization panels, seeking to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens like @Lamb Chopped's husband. These cases often focused on paperwork inconsistencies, like a mis-spelled name being proof of immigration fraud.
Donald Trump is also on record that he intends to end birthright citizenship. He sincerely believes that this is both something he should do and something he can do if re-elected*, if we accept your claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes. This means any children @Lamb Chopped had with her husband are also at risk of loss of citizenship and deportation.
Sir, the Posse Comitatus Act says that you can't deploy the U.S. military against civilians. Would you override that?
Trump: Well, these aren’t civilians. These are people that aren't legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country. An invasion like probably no country has ever seen before.
If we accept @Moyessa's claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes, it's pretty clear he doesn't believe potential deportees are entitled to access the civilian legal system.
Please note that this thread is now operating under Epiphanies rules. Please pay particular attention to the guidelines about lived experience (4) and quality of sources (5). Purgatory guidelines continue to apply and in particular, in the context of a high temperature thread, you should avoid the kind of argument which heads toward attacking the person rather than addressing their arguments.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
If this thread is now operating under Epiphanies guidelines, does that mean we are now allowed to discuss the political relevance of
We see this thread as about the contest itself. Noting a candidate's position on an issue and how that effects the contest is in bounds.
If you wanted to have a detailed discussion of the rights and wrongs of contraception, or pregnancy termination etc - that would need to go to Epiphanies as normal. The same goes for other subjects normally covered in Epiphanies.
Essentially, at the point at which a tangent on an Epiphanies topic becomes worthy or it's own thread - that should go to the normal forum.
This is a bit of an experiment, with the aim of avoiding splitting the thread into a million pieces.
I confess to being bemused by the statement that "Trump says what he believes" when contrasted by the amazingly well documented history that Trump routinely and regularly lies.
I confess to being bemused by the statement that "Trump says what he believes" when contrasted by the amazingly well documented history that Trump routinely and regularly lies.
Saying what you believe is not the same as speaking the truth. Remember, Donald Trump is a profoundly ignorant man who believes that magnets don't work if they're under water and that electricity doesn't work at night. These are both fairly obviously false, yet Donald Trump seems to believe them.
I confess to being bemused by the statement that "Trump says what he believes" when contrasted by the amazingly well documented history that Trump routinely and regularly lies.
Saying what you believe is not the same as speaking the truth. Remember, Donald Trump is a profoundly ignorant man who believes that magnets don't work if they're under water and that electricity doesn't work at night. These are both fairly obviously false, yet Donald Trump seems to believe them.
…. I keep getting surprised by him when I think it’s not possible to be anymore…
I’ve genuinely wondered for a little while now if it is possible that, in his state of mind, he doesn’t think of things as objectively true or false, but as useful or not to him. That his reason has been that far damaged by his cavalier attitude toward truth, meaning, and logic to that extent.
If we accept @Moyessa's claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes, it's pretty clear he doesn't believe potential deportees are entitled to access the civilian legal system
@Crœsos
Donald Trump is a ‘motormouth’ and it doesn’t take much convincing to believe that but what actually happened when he was in power seemed to me neither extreme or draconian. (I know what happened when he lost the election and like everything else about him it seemed exaggerated by his enemies and the media..just sayin.)
I am not an American but I have some American rellies and I also met some Americans in NZ between 2016 and 2020 who were deeply troubled during his presidency. However, did he actually pose a constitutional threat? And/Or, did he tap into a populist groundswell of discontent with the traditional leadership of both sides? I have heard some commentators say so. (Victor Davis Hanson?)
I do wonder if there is any non-partisan viewpoint that can view the political landscape apart from the hatred and fear of this guy.
I am not really totally sure what @Moyessa is mainly concerned about either but it seems to me she believes who you vote for in a democracy is your business alone and with that I totally agree. It seems that demanding reasons ‘just so I can understand’ is a kind of gaslighting. There are reasons why people tend to avoid ‘religion and politics’ if they want to stay friends.
If you want your vote to be your business alone you don't wade into political discussions and tell people about who you will or won't vote for. Once you do that questions about your reasons are fair game.
If we accept @Moyessa's claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes, it's pretty clear he doesn't believe potential deportees are entitled to access the civilian legal system
@Crœsos
Donald Trump is a ‘motormouth’ and it doesn’t take much convincing to believe that but what actually happened when he was in power seemed to me neither extreme or draconian. (I know what happened when he lost the election and like everything else about him it seemed exaggerated by his enemies and the media..just sayin.)
I am not an American but I have some American rellies and I also met some Americans in NZ between 2016 and 2020 who were deeply troubled during his presidency. However, did he actually pose a constitutional threat? And/Or, did he tap into a populist groundswell of discontent with the traditional leadership of both sides? I have heard some commentators say so. (Victor Davis Hanson?)
I do wonder if there is any non-partisan viewpoint that can view the political landscape apart from the hatred and fear of this guy.
I am not really totally sure what @Moyessa is mainly concerned about either but it seems to me she believes who you vote for in a democracy is your business alone and with that I totally agree. It seems that demanding reasons ‘just so I can understand’ is a kind of gaslighting. There are reasons why people tend to avoid ‘religion and politics’ if they want to stay friends.
In response to Holder's speech, Hanson wrote a column, "Facing Facts about Race," in which he offered his own version of "the Talk," the need to inform his children to be careful of young black men when venturing into the inner city, who Hanson argued were statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than young men of other races, and so it was understandable for the police to focus on them.
Um, ick. He supports racial profiling?
He’s also a Trump supporter enough to have written a book called The Case for Trump in 2019, so he’s already a fan.
If we accept @Moyessa's claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes, it's pretty clear he doesn't believe potential deportees are entitled to access the civilian legal system
@Crœsos
Donald Trump is a ‘motormouth’ and it doesn’t take much convincing to believe that but what actually happened when he was in power seemed to me neither extreme or draconian. (I know what happened when he lost the election and like everything else about him it seemed exaggerated by his enemies and the media, just sayin.)
are reasons why people tend to avoid ‘religion and politics’ if they want to stay friends.
In some ways, Trump did very little. Partly though laziness and partly through incompetence.
However, his Supreme Court Appointments will (probably) affect the USA for decades.
The separation of children at the border (some of whom have not been reunited) is truly horrific. Although, of course it is not a threat to US citizens. I mention it because of what he's said about rounding up immigrants and a perverse (mis-)understanding of what legitimate citizenship actually is.
Hence it is reasonable to assume that a future Trump presidency poses significant risks. This is especially true when you look at the people who are angling to do things in his administration.
He has tested the constitutional guard rails and found them very flexible. The SC has further suggested that he has a very high degree of freedom.
And of course, the events of January 6th are instructive.
A certain analysis of Trump's actions as president could conclude that the effects were limited. I think this is not a fair analysis, even if it is strictly factual. Either way, the question is what to expect from a second term and as I have noted, there are very strong reasons to believe that going forward, things would be both extreme and draconian.
Just to add to the picture and getting very close to a different board, Trump has outlawed abortion in large chunks of the USA. What I mean is that he was able to pack the Court and overturn Roe v Wade. In some of the states the resulting laws (which were previously struck down as unconstitutional) are extremely restrictive. I have very complex views on this topic but in some states, the laws are both very strict and very poorly written. What I mean is, there are countless cases of women having delayed treatment for an ectopic pregnancy because the admitting physicians fear prosecution. I think that counts as extreme.
Comments
Laughter seems the only appropriate response (and I think he said Islamist not Islamic. Especially the idea that the UK will be the first with nuclear weapons, given that Pakistan is RIGHT THERE. Hard to tell if he's a liar, stupid, or a bullshitter.
This. Absolutely.
Now no one here is (to the best of my knowledge) a member of the press or otherwise bound by journalistic ethics, so we're all free to shill for Trump if we want to. What's aggravating about @stetson's post is how lazy he is at it. I mean, there's a link to a video less than thirty seconds long where he could see for himself Trump making this statement, but rather than check it out directly he'd rather "agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec". Admittedly he has no obligation to spend/waste twenty-seven seconds of his time to see if this assertion is actually true, but what gets me is his apparent assumption that no one else here would bother to check for themselves either so the alleged word of some anonymous internet friend-of-a-friend rando is good enough to convince the rubes.
"Making excuses" here means making the claim that Trump didn't really say what we have very clear video of him very clearly saying.
The usual assumption is that political candidates mean what they say. In some cases, as mentioned above, their comms team will be dispatched to explain that they mis-spoke, and to clarify what the candidate really meant to say. To the best of my knowledge neither Trump nor his comms team has felt the need to clarify or correct his statement. On the other hand maybe they decided that they don't need to because so many people will volunteer to do their jobs for them. What baffles me is why so many people want to play freelance comms team for Donald Trump.
Odd argument.
The truth is that the media, left wing or otherwise, bends over backwards to be fair to Trump. Partly due to the usual false balance nonsense. Mostly, in the US, because Trump is a good story that males them money. He has never been given fair treatment. Fair would be a helluva lot less generous and a helluva lot less kind than the media treatment he has, and continues to receive.
This I’ll push back against a bit. As far as I could find, he never actually said he’d end American elections. He said “you will never have to vote again.” That he wants to end elections is certainly a reasonable interpretation of his promise that “you won’t have to vote again,” given many previous statements and actions. It’s perhaps the most reasonable interpretation.
But what he said could also be interpreted as “we’ll fix all the problems so well that you on’t feel like you’ve got to vote to keep America great, and you can skip it if you want to.” Maybe not as reasonable an interpretation, but one that may be strengthened a bit by his comments on the right to vote just beforehand.
What he said—“In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.”—is quite egregious enough, and definitely ought to be getting grilled about it. But I’m not sure what’s gained by saying “he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections” when he didn’t actually say that.
It what way do you think I'm playing defence for Donald Trump? Are you thinking there might otherwise be a large exodus of conservative Christians abandoning Trump because he said "I'm not a Christian"?
And FWIW, yes, I did see the video itself before I made my post. "Slurring his words" might have been the wrong phrase, and I apologize. My own guess is he was speaking quickly, and threw in a word that didn't belong.
During the debate, Trump said, enumerating the alleged foreign-policy failures of Joe Biden, that "He didn't stop Israel." I don't assume that meant Trump is now anti-Israel and wanted Biden to rein Israel in. Rather, I think he meant to say something like "He didn't stop Israel from getting attacked" and his brain chopped off a few words in the delivery.
Spot on.
Neither Trump nor his team make clarifying on correcting statements. That would pin them down to a specific meaning.
When challenged in future, then they will give a 'clarification.' Which means that both versions now exist for people who want to believe either version to point to. Trump apologists then get to 'fact check' his critics by pointing to whichever version suits their purposes in that moment. Whilst the ones he was speaking to, also get to hear the original version without him ever actually recanting it.
It's just bullshitting, over and over.
Anyway. Ahem. I don't think he meant he was going to end democracy here.
I think it's really clear that he has such an aim. He has previously tried to overthrow democracy and I have no doubt he will try again if the opportunity presents itself.
However, he is rarely precise in what he says and understanding his intent means wading through a word salad but I actually think he meant vote is this critical election and the next won't be vital.
However, however, whilst I do think that's what he meant, he is so far past the point of deserving the benefit of the doubt, that it's ridiculous. Moreover, he's made his intentions clear. If he did mean that he'll cancel future elections,* it's not actually news to anyone who's been paying attention.
AFZ
*He won't cancel future elections, that's too hard. He might rig them though.
I think it's of a piece with the idea of 'no go areas' in the UK (often mentioned in the context of 'sharia law') that's common currency among the far right in the UK, but which ends up being mainstreamed in some US circles (and probably emphasized as you move further right).
A number of times I've had otherwise eminently sensible US acquaintances tell me that some area of the UK that I travelled through only weeks before was a 'no go area'.
Well, if you’re interested in fairness, and context, he wasn’t talking about your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, he was referring to MS-13 gang members who are yearning to make beaucoup bucks selling drugs, creating addicts and mayhem for myself and my fellow citizens (& legal resident aliens, of course).
Granted, Trump says what he believes, without stopping to consider how it can & will be taken out of context, but if I just want a leader who looks good on the world stage, I’ll vote for Gavin Newsome or Kamala Harris….
Yeah they do. It’d be healthier if you got outside & talked to people, if u don’t mind my saying so.
And what kind of fruit is assassination?
Oh my.
I’ll say it again, people can do more harm to themselves, than others could do in the same situation. To me, you sound overwrought and more dramatic than the situation calls for. I think you are being manipulated by desperate experts.
Also, thank you for your apology. It’s clear to me you are quite sincere, and I wish I could assuage your fear.
Your reality, as I have acknowledged, is different from mine, but if you think my reality is one of being protected from the real world with all its evil and dangers, you are very much mistaken.
IOW the statement was intended to be understood as true, but he hadn't made a premeditated decision to reveal it publically.
Anyway, if the statement was meant to be true, it would be a rather historic moment, since to my knowledge, no POTUS has ever publically disavowed Christianity.
Weren't there are number of Deist Founding Fathers including Jefferson?
I was gonna say that Jefferson still formally identified as Christian(even Unitarians were regarded as such in those days, and there's some argument he was actually Episcopalian), but then there's that whole non-supernatural Bible he edited. Though I think that book was officially for evangelizing indigenous people, because he assumed non-Christians would be skeptical about miracles from the get-go.
There also used to be some question about Lincoln's Christianity, or lack thereof. Suffice it to say, though, that no president prior to possibly Trump is recorded as making a public and explicit disavowal of Christianity.
FYI to start a quote you need to use and to end it you need to use Don’t put anything else inside the [ ] as it screws up the system. (An exception is if you use the Quote button as it begins with code which adds the name of the poster and a link to the post being quoted.)
If you want to practise there is a dedicated 2024 Coding Practice Thread in Styx.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Please refer me to your source if this is not a rhetorical question.
To Moyessa's statement that she cannot stand the deceptions of the Democratic Party, has she forgotten the deceptions of Trump and his organization? He has lost several fraud cases. His organization cannot even do business in the state of New York anymore. Then there were the thousands of dollars he collected under the name of Trump University. Then there was the time he announced he would raise funds for an unspecified veterans' organization which ended up going into his campaign funds. He was fined $2 mil for that slip (see attached judgement). I know I can cite more.
Forgive me, I vaguely remember some of the details of the Steele Dossier. Seems like Trump was forced to appoint a special investigator (Mueller) who verified the facts stated in the document. He then turned his conclusions and recommendations to Attorney General Jeff Sessons who refused to prosecute. Correct me if I am wrong, but just because the Attorney General refused to prosecute, does not mean the Dossier is invalid.
In the end, regarding the Hunter Laptop. The emails it contained were used to prove tax evasion and illegal gun ownership. The incident happened before Biden announced he was running for president. Hunter was willing to plead guilty to the charges, but that fell apart. He went to trial and was found guilty. Biden has said he is not going to pardon his son, I have no reason to doubt what he said.
But, if we want to talk about the many convictions of the former aides of Trump., we will find a very long list.
I think the response will distill my understanding.
I regard Jan 6th as worse for society because it was an organized attack on a democratic government, with arguable support from the then-POTUS and his allies.
Personally, I was a bit more spooked by July 13th, solely because the death of the audience member seemed more random to me than the deaths of either the police officers or the protestor at 1/6(*).
(*) A cop knows what they signed up for, and Ashli Babbitt could surely have foreseen there was a chance her actions that day would lead to unfortunate consequences.
Are you addressing me? I am not clear.
Your question reminds me of an old joke:
“Comparing a cat to a dog is like comparing a fluffy pillow to a barking alarm clock. Sure, they both have fur, but good luck cuddling with that snooze button!”
Click the link in @Doublethink's post - it's the source.
You think my question is invalid? Or what? Joke doesn’t compute for me.
The link brings you to Reuters, who published a story on a campaign speech Trump gave in Wisconsin where he used that language. Reuters is the source.
But since you asked, January 6 was unquestionably worse for the country. That is not to say that July 13 wasn’t terrible. It was, and it could have been worse.
But January 6 was an attempt by a sitting president who’d lost an election to hold on to power. It was a large group of Americans attacking the United States Capitol and attempting an insurrection. July 13 was, so far as we know, one person acting alone.
Republicans in Congress recognized the gravity of January 6 at the time, but scrambled afterwards to backtrack and act like it was no big deal. But it was.
Why do you think asking about the assassination attempt on Trump is an appropriate way to answer questions about Trump? And if you think July 13 was worse, so what? How does that make January 6 not bad?
It’s right there in the article at the link: Pretty clear to me.
You presented a false equivalency. I refuse to get involved in that either/or trap.
Back in July 2023 we had some discussion on Project 2025. Here is its link. I have asked if we can resurrect the thread.
Another discussion you might want to look at, is the documentary: Bad Faith.
More Americans should study this.
I definitely am. I consider Trump to be a danger not only to the US, but to the world. Just NATO alone, not to mention everything else. And emboldening dictators and would-be dictators and … a lot.
Amen. Praying. 🕯
BroJames, Purgatory Host
This seems a dubious thing to assume of someone with multiple fraud convictions, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument.
Wouldn't it be easier to listen to what Trump says, given that he always says what he believes? That would be a much easier way to gauge Trump's intentions than going out and talking to people who are not Donald Trump
Who exactly are "experts" in this case? It seems like you mean anyone who can count and make logical inferences. For instance, Donald Trump has repeatedly declared his intention to deport twenty million people from the U.S. As noted here and elsewhere, there are not that many immigrants with insufficient paperwork in the U.S. Since Donald Trump always says what he believes, he must sincerely intend to deport millions of legal U.S. residents and/or current American citizens.
During his time in office Donald Trump established denaturalization panels, seeking to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens like @Lamb Chopped's husband. These cases often focused on paperwork inconsistencies, like a mis-spelled name being proof of immigration fraud.
Donald Trump is also on record that he intends to end birthright citizenship. He sincerely believes that this is both something he should do and something he can do if re-elected*, if we accept your claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes. This means any children @Lamb Chopped had with her husband are also at risk of loss of citizenship and deportation.
Trump is also pretty clear that deportees aren't entitled to much in the way of due process.
If we accept @Moyessa's claim that Donald Trump always says what he believes, it's pretty clear he doesn't believe potential deportees are entitled to access the civilian legal system.
So given all this, plus Trump's clearly stated hostility to the idea of non-white immigration, why shouldn't @Lamb Chopped be worried? After all, Donald Trump always says what he believes.
If this thread is now operating under Epiphanies guidelines, does that mean we are now allowed to discuss the political relevance of
If you wanted to have a detailed discussion of the rights and wrongs of contraception, or pregnancy termination etc - that would need to go to Epiphanies as normal. The same goes for other subjects normally covered in Epiphanies.
Essentially, at the point at which a tangent on an Epiphanies topic becomes worthy or it's own thread - that should go to the normal forum.
This is a bit of an experiment, with the aim of avoiding splitting the thread into a million pieces.
Any further questions to Styx please.
Doublethink, Admin
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Great minds think alike !
[/tangent]
Saying what you believe is not the same as speaking the truth. Remember, Donald Trump is a profoundly ignorant man who believes that magnets don't work if they're under water and that electricity doesn't work at night. These are both fairly obviously false, yet Donald Trump seems to believe them.
…. I keep getting surprised by him when I think it’s not possible to be anymore…
So he will say anything, say he 'believes' anything if it works in his self interest.
@Crœsos
Donald Trump is a ‘motormouth’ and it doesn’t take much convincing to believe that but what actually happened when he was in power seemed to me neither extreme or draconian. (I know what happened when he lost the election and like everything else about him it seemed exaggerated by his enemies and the media..just sayin.)
I am not an American but I have some American rellies and I also met some Americans in NZ between 2016 and 2020 who were deeply troubled during his presidency. However, did he actually pose a constitutional threat? And/Or, did he tap into a populist groundswell of discontent with the traditional leadership of both sides? I have heard some commentators say so. (Victor Davis Hanson?)
I do wonder if there is any non-partisan viewpoint that can view the political landscape apart from the hatred and fear of this guy.
I am not really totally sure what @Moyessa is mainly concerned about either but it seems to me she believes who you vote for in a democracy is your business alone and with that I totally agree. It seems that demanding reasons ‘just so I can understand’ is a kind of gaslighting. There are reasons why people tend to avoid ‘religion and politics’ if they want to stay friends.
Victor Davis Hanson? This guy?
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson
Um, ick. He supports racial profiling?
He’s also a Trump supporter enough to have written a book called The Case for Trump in 2019, so he’s already a fan.
In some ways, Trump did very little. Partly though laziness and partly through incompetence.
However, his Supreme Court Appointments will (probably) affect the USA for decades.
The separation of children at the border (some of whom have not been reunited) is truly horrific. Although, of course it is not a threat to US citizens. I mention it because of what he's said about rounding up immigrants and a perverse (mis-)understanding of what legitimate citizenship actually is.
Hence it is reasonable to assume that a future Trump presidency poses significant risks. This is especially true when you look at the people who are angling to do things in his administration.
He has tested the constitutional guard rails and found them very flexible. The SC has further suggested that he has a very high degree of freedom.
And of course, the events of January 6th are instructive.
A certain analysis of Trump's actions as president could conclude that the effects were limited. I think this is not a fair analysis, even if it is strictly factual. Either way, the question is what to expect from a second term and as I have noted, there are very strong reasons to believe that going forward, things would be both extreme and draconian.
Just to add to the picture and getting very close to a different board, Trump has outlawed abortion in large chunks of the USA. What I mean is that he was able to pack the Court and overturn Roe v Wade. In some of the states the resulting laws (which were previously struck down as unconstitutional) are extremely restrictive. I have very complex views on this topic but in some states, the laws are both very strict and very poorly written. What I mean is, there are countless cases of women having delayed treatment for an ectopic pregnancy because the admitting physicians fear prosecution. I think that counts as extreme.
AFZ