Unless they are a certain kind of person, such as someone who is a more successful leech.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Donald Trump, at yesterday's Florida rally: "We land on top of it and we took over the ship. We took over the cargo, took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business. We’re like pirates. We’re sort of like pirates. But we’re not playing games".
Now that's strange, @tstorm823! How exactly is it a "profitable business", seeing as you've explained they have no wish to actually take the oil? You said before the "profit" was referring to a protectionism fee from third parties, but here he is directly referring to the seizure of oil on an Iranian tanker leading to profit!
Now that's strange, @tstorm823! How exactly is it a "profitable business", seeing as you've explained they have no wish to actually take the oil? You said before the "profit" was referring to a protectionism fee from third parties, but here he is directly referring to the seizure of oil on an Iranian tanker leading to profit!
You seem confused. Has anyone suggested that Trump, or more importantly the world, is not interested in Iran's oil? Or was the dispute that you thought Trump describing militarily capturing their oil infrastructure was expressing a plan to send ships to Iran to physically take the oil from their lands against their will for his own profit?
You argued that when he talked about "taking the oil", he was not talking about taking it for profit. I argued he was.
Are you trying to suggest you never argued that, now?
Lol ok, sure. Its not just that subsequent statements, such as yesterday's, have made it utterly unambiguous that he is, in fact, seizing oil for profit.
But aren't you making a very unsafe assumption there that Donald Trump knew it was unfeasible?
That just takes us back to the inevitable "Republicans are evil and want to make the world terrible, but they're just too stupid and incompetent to pull it off". When there is a rational explanation for someone's behavior, it's not always the reason, but it is the one most worth believing is the reason, particularly when the alternative requires some rather extreme assumptions.
whether its all Republicans I could not say but is it not a fairly reasonable assumption to make about specifically Trump and his inner circle?
Lets take the president as the chief example. He is a con artist, a corrupt businessman, a convicted felon, a demagogue and if we are extremely charitable and say his attempts to overturn the election was not a coup then it was at least unethical and anti democratic to the extreme.
If you take Trump's past then is him being ''evil and wanting to make the world terrible'' not a more rational idea than Trump somehow being a well meaning guy who just by sheer coincidence happened to accidentally accumulate those scandals and outright crimes? And if he wants to take the American system and make it more akin to Putin's Russia then how is that not a deliberate act of trying to make the world worse?
And the people surrounding him? You got the drunk crusader wanabe Hegseth, Europhobic and Thiel erand boy JD Vance, and Elon frigin Musk. Its not some tragic misunderstanding that they routinely endorse the worst causes imaginable or in Thiel's case is an open hater of democracy.
Have you considered that there is a second political party that has an obvious motive, not even an ulterior motive, a primary motive to get people to think more highly of them relative to their opposition?
If we presume politicians are willing to lie to succeed in politics to get ahead of their opponents, not singling any out in particular, then it is a safe assumption that whatever claims one politician or party makes about their competition will be worse than they are in reality. So if you believe everything a politician says about their opponents, you are all but guaranteed to believe lies. My question for you then, is there anything you've ever been told bad about Trump or those connected to them that you didn't believe?
We're not talking about "Republicans" though, are we? We're talking very specifically about Donald Trump. So, if we want to be rational, we can consider the case that Donald Trump is possibly ignorant about a lot of the things he talks about, and examine the evidence.
Donald Trump has a history of claiming things which are ludicrous, unfeasible, illegal, etc. Whilst much of this is his Herculean propensity for bullshit, plenty of instances suggest he may genuinely have a poor understanding of what he is talking about.
He has frequently made seemingly serious claims about presidential (or in terms of election certification, vice-presidential) powers that no-one outside his own fringe lawyers recognises. He announced on TV that maybe Covid could be treated by injecting disinfectant or somehow shining a UV light inside people's bodies. I draw your attention to this little gem, which strongly suggests Trump doesn't understand the negotiations process. This is within a context of wider stories that he often does not attend briefings, or does not seem interested in them. And we can also consider the quality of information he is receiving, because he often seems to surround himself with dubiously competent advisors.
I don't think all Republicans are evil. Some are just stupid.
There must be something seriously wrong with those still supporting this administration.
Sure, i could pretend to think otherwise out of politeness, but, honestly, why bother?
There must be something seriously wrong with those still supporting this administration.
Sure, i could pretend to think otherwise out of politeness, but, honestly, why bother?
I think you confuse "support" with "worship". Someone need not be perfect or even good for people to support them and want them to succeed.
To borrow a little bit from Coolio;
She' been griftin' and scammin' so long that even her mama thinks that her mind is gone.
Yes, I did...
Per the news story, it was closed because of immigrants and not because of the storm.
Students at James Madison High School in Brooklyn were informed Tuesday that classes would be conducted virtually on Wednesday because of the school's use as a “temporary overnight respite center."
“To ensure a smooth transition for families temporarily sheltering overnight in the building, our school building will be closed on Wednesday, January 10 and school will be in session remotely for all students,” Principal Jodie Cohen said in a statement to families.
The decision was decried by some parents who held a rally at the school Wednesday morning. One woman who said she is the mother of two students at the school called the situation “unacceptable.”
NYC decision to move migrants from tent shelter to a school amid storm draws fire
Nearly 2,000 asylum-seekers were bused to a Brooklyn high school to ride out the storm, drawing complaints from some parents, politicians and immigration advocates.
You're still not getting to the meat and potatoes, there was a massive immigration surge that the public didn't want that happened. That is THE RELEVANT FACT. If you want to argue that the way immigrants were getting in, they would've got in no matter the administration, that is something you can argue if you have anything to prove that. However, saying Biden kept all these other policies the same or increased enforcement doesn't matter if he was lax on the one policy that allowed the immigration surge. When you have the biggest immigration surge in US history and people do not want that, you will have an equal and opposite reaction.
So 60 years then... (probably longer but they didn't poll longer than that). Poor wording from me but the main point is that basically 80% of the population either was fine with current immigration and wanted less and only 20% wanted more immigration. With that data on what the public wants, why would any political party run on wanting more immigration when 80% of the population doesn't want that? This is why democrats lose because they keep running on stuff that 80% of the population doesn't want.
OMG, you have such a slanted view on pretty much everything. If someone is fleeing war, they just don't get to decide what country to go to because if they did like every immigrant fleeing war would choose one of the say five best countries to go to. Those countries just can't take in every person fleeing war or a really bad country. And doesn't any country have the right to choose to take in people or not? I just can't choose to go to another country and live there, it's on them to accept me in. Should say Sweden be forced to take in American "refugees" that think they are living under fascism?