US 2024 Presidential Election

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,984
823
118
Feels like it should be super easy for someone to say "Hey, I got excited and just kind of flailed around a bit. I'm not a Nazi and I didn't mean to Heil Hitler"...
That would sound like an apology. And apologies are the opposite of "super easy" to people with an ego like Musk.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,401
1,828
118
Country
The Netherlands
Because only the President of the US deserves any protection! All hail the king!

Since the thumbnail preview didn't go through: President Trump revoked the security detail for Dr. Fauci, saying that he is "responsible for his own safety".

Well its no surprise. After all Trump never seemed to have forgiven Fauci for the fact that having to listen to the advice of an expert during a pandemic risked harming his demagogic credentials. It risk exposing the gift of the demagogue being the only political entity with legitimacy if he has to admit he needs advice from experts in unique times. As such Fauci just has to be victimized to protect his demagogic credentials.
 
Last edited:

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
13,158
9,760
118
Donald Trump in fiery call with Denmark’s prime minister over Greenland

Donald Trump insisted he was serious in his determination to take over Greenland in a fiery telephone call with Denmark’s prime minister, according to senior European officials.

The US president spoke to Mette Frederiksen, the Danish premier, for 45 minutes last week. The White House has not commented on the call but Frederiksen said she had emphasised that the vast Arctic island — an autonomous part of the kingdom of Denmark — was not for sale, while noting America’s “big interest” in it.

Five current and former senior European officials briefed on the call said the conversation had gone very badly.

They added that Trump had been aggressive and confrontational following the Danish prime minister’s comments that the island was not for sale, despite her offer of more co-operation on military bases and mineral exploitation.

“It was horrendous,” said one of the people. Another added: “He was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before, it was hard to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious, and potentially very dangerous.”

The details of the call are likely to deepen European concerns that Trump’s return to power will strain transatlantic ties more than ever, as the US president heaps pressure on allies to give up territory.

Trump has started his second term musing about potentially taking over Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even Canada.

Many European officials had hoped his comments about seeking control of Greenland for “national security” reasons were a negotiating ploy to gain more influence over the Nato territory. Russia and China are both also jostling for position in the Arctic.

But the call with Frederiksen has crushed such hopes, deepening the foreign policy crisis between the Nato allies.

“The intent was very clear. They want it. The Danes are now in crisis mode,” said one person briefed on the call. Another said: “The Danes are utterly freaked out by this.”

A former Danish official added: “It was a very tough conversation. He threatened specific measures against Denmark such as targeted tariffs.”

The Danish prime minister’s office said it did “not recognise the interpretation of the conversation given by anonymous sources”.

Greenland, home to just 57,000 people, is an entry point to new shipping routes gradually opening up through the Arctic; it also boasts abundant but hard to access minerals.

“President Trump has been clear that the safety and security of Greenland is important to the United States as China and Russia make significant investments throughout the Arctic region,” a White House National Security Council spokesperson said.

“The President is committed to not only protecting US interests in the Arctic but also working with Greenland to ensure mutual prosperity for both nations.”

Trump threatened in early January to impose duties on Denmark if it opposed him on Greenland. He also declined to rule out using military force to take control of the island.

“People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it but, if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security,” Trump said at a press conference days before taking office.

“I’m talking about protecting the free world,” he added. “You have China ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We’re not letting that happen.”

Múte Egede, Greenland’s prime minister, has repeatedly stressed that the island’s inhabitants want independence rather than US — or Danish — citizenship. But he has welcomed US business interest in mining and tourism.

Frederiksen held a meeting with chief executives of large Danish companies including Novo Nordisk and Carlsberg last week to discuss Trump’s threats, including potential tariffs against her country.

On the day of the Trump call, she told Denmark’s TV2: “There is no doubt that there is great interest in and around Greenland. Based on the conversation I had today, there is no reason to believe that it should be less than what we have heard in the public debate.”
 
Jun 11, 2023
3,161
2,308
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Hmm -


1737775305876.gif

A reply to some old Quora post I found -

JFK…

  1. Had recently ordered the printing of $2 billion worth of silver certificates, a direct challenge to the money creation monopoly of the Federal Reserve.
  2. Had fired the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, for insubordination.
  3. Had fired General Lyman Lemnitzer from his post as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to Lemnitzer’s proposal of Operation Northwoods.
  4. Had warned Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion that he intended to inspect the Israeli nuclear weapons development site at Dimona, regardless of Israeli opposition.
  5. Had threatened to end the petroleum industry’s depletion allowance tax breaks.
  6. Had sicc’ed his Attorney General brother Robert on the Chicago Mafia.
  7. Had threatened to issue executive orders to prohibit the US steel industry from putting price hikes through.
  8. Had announced his intention to disengage from Vietnam after the 1964 election.
Thus he had the top leaders of the Federal Reserve, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Jews, the Texas oilmen, the Giancana crime family, the steel tycoons, and the whole military-industrial complex, and probably a few jealous husbands as well, all thinking this would be a better world if there were no JFK in it. Oh, yes, and lest we forget, he had also started drafting up legislation which eventually passed as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so he had the southern white supremacists angrily against him as well. And then, last but not least, we should remember that his Vice-President, LBJ, was facing the threat of multiple indictments on an assortment of criminal charges ranging from business fraud to murder. Getting elevated to the Presidency would be an exceedingly convenient and most welcome development, since it would empower him to quash all those pesky investigations.

Edited December 28 2022: How did I learn all this? Okay, first I devoured Jim Marrs’ book Crossfire. Then I devoured the books by attorney Mark Lane. And then, appreciating the fact that these books are necessarily incomplete, because their authors’ theories evolved down through the years as new evidence occasionally surfaced, I listened to the many interviews which Jeff Rense (rense.com) did of Jim Marrs. By the time of his 2017 death, Marrs had gained a comprehensive idea of what really happened as accurate and conclusive as anyone short of God will ever have. Based on Lane and Marrs, the most likely reason I can think of, why the US government still will not release all of the CIA papers related to the JFK assassination, is that then-CIA-agent George H.W. Bush was an on-scene participant, and the treasonous monster brought his young son “Dubya” along with him to Dealey Plaza too, so that the “fortunate son” (nod to J. Fogerty) would indelibly learn the political life lessons from eyewitnessing “The Big Event.”

Those bloody Bushes. They already hate Trump anyways so this would be a jeb jab of sorts at them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,401
1,828
118
Country
The Netherlands

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,251
3,966
118
Does anyone recall Joe Rogan being a rat who endorsed Trump(and endorsed Putin quickly after) last December. Well apparently he's trying to backtrack in the hopes people forget what he did.
Why distance oneself from Trump after Trump has won? A lot of people seem to be doing the opposite,
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,536
3,658
118
Weird that Rogan so adamantly defended Elon's obviously overpracticed nazi salute on his show, gaslighting everyone else then. Article above doesn't mention it for some reason, is surprisingly light on details overall too, focusing on short sentence ripped from what seems to be the same airing? Am I missing something? Did they not watch the rest of the show? Al lil suspicious of intent there, comes off more like laundering. Cos he does that most the time, throwing out a vague faux-centrist offhand remark occasionally between bootlicking.fash jesus. Kind of his thing at this point. People already forgot his brief attempt to endorse RFK Jr during election then instantly pivoted after twitter trump/nazi accounts kept calling him gay? Would recommend vigilance around wishy washy words.
(Hes after the Shapiro section, about 12-15 mins in following Jean-Paul Sartre quote in vid I think)


Shapiro such an insidious kuntworm trying to claim he speaks for every Jewish person while constantly ignoring actual antisemites until they decide to go after Israel. Genocide enablers and apologists always do this, always claim they speak for whole populations cos they know their arguments can't stand up on good faith alone. It's so fucking evil, he looks so fucking evil saying it too like wtf
 
Last edited:

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,401
1,828
118
Country
The Netherlands
Why distance oneself from Trump after Trump has won? A lot of people seem to be doing the opposite,
Well Rogan's brand is him being very ''nice'' right? Making his guests feel comfortable and all that. Maybe that means latching himself too strongly on Trump might risk harming his fans who like him for exactly that reason.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,346
6,618
118
Its board thought long and hard about what would most benefit Israel, and decided that because Musk is an ally of Trump and Trump might allow Israel to dispossess the Palestinians of all Gaza and the West Bank (minus a couple of massive urban concentration camps), it would be preferable to say it wasn't a Nazi salute. I'm willing to bet there was some spicy debate and disagreement in the ADL team about that one.

The ADL's reward was Musk making a load of Nazi jokes, which unfortunately compelled them to come out of their shell and criticise him.

Why distance oneself from Trump after Trump has won? A lot of people seem to be doing the opposite,
It's chickenshit posturing.

Part of Rogan's appeal is to be "independent". Plus of course he has to bear in mind what happens if Trump is a shitshow, given that he endorsed Trump. So, he's eaten his cake by endorsing Trump, and now plans to also keep his cake by pretending any weird shit with Trump has got nothing to do with him, he bears no responsibility, and btw you totally want to tune in to Rogan next election time, too.

Life is great without having to take responsibility for anything, you have so few worries. That's Rogan's real schtick. The whole geniality and "I don't know anything" attitude as people pop onto his show and spout bullshit and abhorrence, it's all so that at the end, Rogan can just shrug and say people need to be allowed to have their say and he doesn't support them and it's up to listeners what they think. Then, if the Nazis win the election because Rogan gave them so much airtime, he shouldn't take any blame. (He's easygoing enough, he can work with them too.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,251
3,966
118
It's chickenshit posturing.

Part of Rogan's appeal is to be "independent". Plus of course he has to bear in mind what happens if Trump is a shitshow, given that he endorsed Trump. So, he's eaten his cake by endorsing Trump, and now plans to also keep his cake by pretending any weird shit with Trump has got nothing to do with him, he bears no responsibility, and btw you totally want to tune in to Rogan next election time, too.

Life is great without having to take responsibility for anything, you have so few worries. That's Rogan's real schtick. The whole geniality and "I don't know anything" attitude as people pop onto his show and spout bullshit and abhorrence, it's all so that at the end, Rogan can just shrug and say people need to be allowed to have their say and he doesn't support them and it's up to listeners what they think. Then, if the Nazis win the election because Rogan gave them so much airtime, he shouldn't take any blame. (He's easygoing enough, he can work with them too.)
Ah, he's claiming neutrality/being centrist? That makes sense.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,903
836
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Does anyone recall Joe Rogan being a rat who endorsed Trump(and endorsed Putin quickly after) last December. Well apparently he's trying to backtrack in the hopes people forget what he did.
What is it with you people and constantly being against so many people? Why would anyone think Joe Rogan is a republican? Just because he endorsed Trump over Kamala doesn't mean that he can't criticize Trump. Or maybe he will think that down the road that he made the wrong endorsement but I doubt it will be a day(s) into Trump's presidency. People are allowed to say their choices aren't perfect or admit they made the wrong choice later on as well. If Kamala had won, would The Daily Show not be able to make jokes about whatever weird shit that she might have done?


Well Rogan's brand is him being very ''nice'' right? Making his guests feel comfortable and all that. Maybe that means latching himself too strongly on Trump might risk harming his fans who like him for exactly that reason.
You think he cares about his listener/viewership numbers? He just finished a $200 million contract and now has a $250 million contract, he's set for life. Why wouldn't you be at least somewhat favorable to your guests? If you aren't favorable to guests, you won't get them or they won't come back. You act like this isn't a generally understood thing by basically everyone and Joe Rogan is the one person fooling people when literally every interviewer does this. It's like for the holidays when you have family over and you don't really see eye-to-eye with someone, you then talk to them about stuff that's agreeable to both of you. Or should you insist on arguing about stuff and ruining Christmas dinner? Why do you hold people you don't like to standards nobody can possibly reach and mock them for that?

Then, if the Nazis win the election because Rogan gave them so much airtime, he shouldn't take any blame. (He's easygoing enough, he can work with them too.)
There's no Nazis... Also, Kamala chose not to go on Rogan, was it up to him to make her go on the show?
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,401
1,828
118
Country
The Netherlands
What is it with you people and constantly being against so many people? Why would anyone think Joe Rogan is a republican? Just because he endorsed Trump over Kamala doesn't mean that he can't criticize Trump. Or maybe he will think that down the road that he made the wrong endorsement but I doubt it will be a day(s) into Trump's presidency. People are allowed to say their choices aren't perfect or admit they made the wrong choice later on as well. If Kamala had won, would The Daily Show not be able to make jokes about whatever weird shit that she might have done?
Harris winning and Trump winning are two entirely different things. Endorsing one simply does not have the same implications as endorsing the other. Lets be clear. If you have a platform and you have reach then its simply a moral and practical failing to endorse Trump.

Joe Rogan knew Trump did a coup, he knew he's shamelessly corrupt, he knows Trump's stances on Europe, he knows Trump mishandled the pandemic by choice rather than ineptitude, he knew Trump is at best on the farthest fringes of the far right.All in all Joe Rogan knew Trump is both incapable and unwilling to govern properly. If he took all that into account and still used his power to boost Trump then that simply reflects terribly on him, and part of the damage will indeed have to be on him. Doesn't have to be a particularly big part, but still. He shouldn't be allowed to distance himself from this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak