US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4887

On April 02 2025 04:42 WombaT wrote:
No warning for Jimmy’s errant fucking nonsense then?

Cool, I personally love people being able to accuse me of anti-Semitism with zero plausible reason to do so and zero repercussions whatsoever.

Fucking love it. Come on:

On April 02 2025 06:01 Vivax wrote:


Apparently he interpreted your post as money being the only reason (for Jews) to leave Toronto and saw it as based on a stereotype he believed you held.

I believe that leaving a place just for monetary reasons is perfectly valid as a reason no matter what you are.

He didn‘t call you an antisemite either but he mentioned the stereotype as a nuisance and maybe thought that you were applying it. He might be more sensitive on the issue.

On April 02 2025 06:07 WombaT wrote:

Nah he said I was indulging in anti-Semitic tropes despite having not done so and he can fuck off with that charge

On April 02 2025 07:51 Vivax wrote:


He‘s lowkey a Trump apologist posting in here so he might as well just be ragebaiting with that accusation.
I don‘t think anyone else would assume what he did about you based upon what you wrote.
Last but not least you can fake your religion online. I don‘t think he does fwiw. Too old as an account for that.

Some Americans are considering leaving the US, mostly among the more educated ones. He‘s saying Canadians are better off there and are moving there.

Sure, both can be true. But he‘s already chosen the narrative he supports.

This is my mafia game addiction shining through isn‘t it ?

On April 02 2025 05:10 Billyboy wrote:

This is low key one of the most frighten things about the political movement you support oBlade. You openly admit that you value loyalty to Trump over competency and fairness. You are more or less openly calling for a dictatorship for you side.

This is why people not within your movement can not begin to understand you. There is not a single dictatorship that is better for the people. Unless you are a high ranking member of the Trump group, why would any logical sensible person want this of their justice system and military?

On April 02 2025 11:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


We know he's out of line and not justified in saying what he said.

Try not to let his nonsense live rent-free in your head; it's a poor reflection of him, not of you

On April 02 2025 14:02 oBlade wrote:

Says here "loyalist" is anyone who doesn't spend their whole life resigning, mutinying, disobeying, maliciously complying, and obstructing their chief. It's a pejorative. When Trump fires people who have openly fought him, and his agenda, and supported things antithetical to those he supports, this is called "normal" not "dictatorship" and those who remain are not "loyalists" but "normal." Competence is relative. For example, if you are building a house, you could hire Bob's Contracting, with a 70% competence rate, or Joe's Demolitions, with a 100% competence rate. While the latter is more competent in the abstract, for the specific goal they could potentially be contrary to the entire enterprise of house-building.

You (basically) need to do what the president decides. This has nothing to do with dictatorship. That is called leadership. And you have to do it for a couple of reasons I thought would be obvious. 1) They were elected and you weren't. 2) See 1. 3) If they're right, and you're wrong, and you obstruct things that people want to the degree that the person is blamed for it not happening even though it was your fault for sabotaging/ruining things, and that gets political gains/victories for the opposition, then you are demonstrably a political operative so being fired from the beginning was correct.

Any suggestion the military should not be loyal to the elected civilian president in a constitutional republic is orders of magnitude more frightening than the idea they should be. That means any deranged fuck like Milley who thinks their job is to do things behind the commander-in-chief's back needs to be shown the door (or window) in a profoundly expedited way.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

On April 02 2025 14:02 oBlade wrote:

Says here "loyalist" is anyone who doesn't spend their whole life resigning, mutinying, disobeying, maliciously complying, and obstructing their chief. It's a pejorative. When Trump fires people who have openly fought him, and his agenda, and supported things antithetical to those he supports, this is called "normal" not "dictatorship" and those who remain are not "loyalists" but "normal." Competence is relative. For example, if you are building a house, you could hire Bob's Contracting, with a 70% competence rate, or Joe's Demolitions, with a 100% competence rate. While the latter is more competent in the abstract, for the specific goal they could potentially be contrary to the entire enterprise of house-building.

You (basically) need to do what the president decides. This has nothing to do with dictatorship. That is called leadership. And you have to do it for a couple of reasons I thought would be obvious. 1) They were elected and you weren't. 2) See 1. 3) If they're right, and you're wrong, and you obstruct things that people want to the degree that the person is blamed for it not happening even though it was your fault for sabotaging/ruining things, and that gets political gains/victories for the opposition, then you are demonstrably a political operative so being fired from the beginning was correct.

Any suggestion the military should not be loyal to the elected civilian president in a constitutional republic is orders of magnitude more frightening than the idea they should be. That means any deranged fuck like Milley who thinks their job is to do things behind the commander-in-chief's back needs to be shown the door (or window) in a profoundly expedited way.

On April 02 2025 14:02 oBlade wrote:

Says here "loyalist" is anyone who doesn't spend their whole life resigning, mutinying, disobeying, maliciously complying, and obstructing their chief. It's a pejorative. When Trump fires people who have openly fought him, and his agenda, and supported things antithetical to those he supports, this is called "normal" not "dictatorship" and those who remain are not "loyalists" but "normal." Competence is relative. For example, if you are building a house, you could hire Bob's Contracting, with a 70% competence rate, or Joe's Demolitions, with a 100% competence rate. While the latter is more competent in the abstract, for the specific goal they could potentially be contrary to the entire enterprise of house-building.

You (basically) need to do what the president decides. This has nothing to do with dictatorship. That is called leadership. And you have to do it for a couple of reasons I thought would be obvious. 1) They were elected and you weren't. 2) See 1. 3) If they're right, and you're wrong, and you obstruct things that people want to the degree that the person is blamed for it not happening even though it was your fault for sabotaging/ruining things, and that gets political gains/victories for the opposition, then you are demonstrably a political operative so being fired from the beginning was correct.

Any suggestion the military should not be loyal to the elected civilian president in a constitutional republic is orders of magnitude more frightening than the idea they should be. That means any deranged fuck like Milley who thinks their job is to do things behind the commander-in-chief's back needs to be shown the door (or window) in a profoundly expedited way.

On April 02 2025 15:45 RenSC2 wrote:
The president's orders do not supersede what has been written into law. Trump has repeatedly told his subordinates to do things that are illegal and that's why multiple judges have tried to put a stop to it while many government workers are disobeying his illegal orders in various ways. That's what they're legally supposed to do.

The president is not supposed to be a dictator. The president's job is to execute law. That's it. He does not write law. He does not get to decide what laws to ignore. If he does, he is violating the Constitution and should be impeached. A non-partisan congress would impeach him for his actions, but we're in a country where one of the two major parties acts like a cult and shields Dear Leader from the consequences of his actions.

On April 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
A small swing-state victory this week: Wisconsin chose a liberal Supreme Court justice over MAGA and Musk's money.

"Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel for a State Supreme Court seat ... A liberal candidate for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court overcame $25 million in spending from Elon Musk and defeated her conservative opponent on Tuesday ... With turnout extraordinarily high for a spring election in an off year, Judge Susan Crawford handily beat Judge Brad Schimel, who ran on his loyalty to President Trump and was aided by Mr. Musk, the president’s billionaire policy aide. With turnout extraordinarily high for a spring election in an off year, Judge Susan Crawford handily beat Judge Brad Schimel, who ran on his loyalty to President Trump and was aided by Mr. Musk, the president’s billionaire policy aide. ... Mr. Musk also offered Wisconsinites $100 each to sign a petition in opposition to “activist judges”. By Tuesday, his super PAC was offering voters $50 to post a picture of a Wisconsin resident outside a polling place. ... The victory for Judge Crawford, 60, who won a 10-year term, maintains a 4-to-3 majority for liberals on the court, which in coming months is poised to deliver key decisions on abortion and labor rights."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/01/us/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-crawford-schimel.html

On April 02 2025 14:02 oBlade wrote:

Says here "loyalist" is anyone who doesn't spend their whole life resigning, mutinying, disobeying, maliciously complying, and obstructing their chief. It's a pejorative. When Trump fires people who have openly fought him, and his agenda, and supported things antithetical to those he supports, this is called "normal" not "dictatorship" and those who remain are not "loyalists" but "normal." Competence is relative. For example, if you are building a house, you could hire Bob's Contracting, with a 70% competence rate, or Joe's Demolitions, with a 100% competence rate. While the latter is more competent in the abstract, for the specific goal they could potentially be contrary to the entire enterprise of house-building.

You (basically) need to do what the president decides. This has nothing to do with dictatorship. That is called leadership. And you have to do it for a couple of reasons I thought would be obvious. 1) They were elected and you weren't. 2) See 1. 3) If they're right, and you're wrong, and you obstruct things that people want to the degree that the person is blamed for it not happening even though it was your fault for sabotaging/ruining things, and that gets political gains/victories for the opposition, then you are demonstrably a political operative so being fired from the beginning was correct.

Any suggestion the military should not be loyal to the elected civilian president in a constitutional republic is orders of magnitude more frightening than the idea they should be. That means any deranged fuck like Milley who thinks their job is to do things behind the commander-in-chief's back needs to be shown the door (or window) in a profoundly expedited way.