|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 01 2025 22:43 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2025 22:22 Gorsameth wrote:On December 01 2025 21:11 KT_Elwood wrote:Why is killing/removing Maduro in Venezuela bad? + Show Spoiler +I mean of course the manpower and material would be needed in ukraine, Trump again is breaking promises, and only does this to make $$$.. but Maduro seems like an asshole. A Country with "free" gasoline.. that's...outragious!
Given the power imbalance.... this will be over quick and than it's US nation-building again - as was to be expected because Trump said he wasn't going to do it. Spiking Oil-Prices would be beneficial to the friends of the golden toilet around the globe and hide the ongoing recession - created by Trump-Tariffs. Take out the specific person and try again. Superpower doesn't like country, starts unprovoked war and removes their leadership. When has this ever in the history of mankind lead to an improvement in anyone's situation?
The only equivalent to this would be: Putin dead.
|
On December 01 2025 16:27 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2025 08:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 01 2025 08:00 Legan wrote: and drill for any offshore oil. Some people will complain, but many will remain silent to avoid having trouble with their own issues. Trump and Co. will hold anything against anyone who dares to complain. The whole thing will be forgotten in no time. Only people who are considered anti-USA will remember it and bring it up later as an example of the USA acting aggressively. the oil requires a lot of refining. a metric tonne of infrastructure will have to be put in place to make that possible. Trump will be long gone by the time that becomes possible. The political will to flagrantly break international law will dissipate after Trump's tenure is over. . The oil is likely more of a bonus for Trump than the war's real goal. He will get his bribes for handing the oil over to companies much earlier. He will probably also use them to claim that the war was profitable for the USA, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, which will probably do well with his base. Even if the will to break international law dissipates, which I doubt, the wrongdoings will not be acted upon.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the pilots that have (allegedly) murdered Venezuelans be scapegoated and pointed to as "better than nothing" or some variation (sorta like Abu Ghraib ) .
I wonder what Democrat supporters actually expect?
Imagine I could wave a wand and influence millions of people to vote for Democrats that otherwise wouldn't, as a consequence, they win. What would Democrats give them regarding holding these criminals accountable?
I'm sure there's no shortage of excuses for why they can't be expected to do much, but no amount of excuses will actually reduce the minimum level of accountability required to maintain this "civilization" as we know it.
|
On December 02 2025 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2025 16:27 Legan wrote:On December 01 2025 08:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 01 2025 08:00 Legan wrote: and drill for any offshore oil. Some people will complain, but many will remain silent to avoid having trouble with their own issues. Trump and Co. will hold anything against anyone who dares to complain. The whole thing will be forgotten in no time. Only people who are considered anti-USA will remember it and bring it up later as an example of the USA acting aggressively. the oil requires a lot of refining. a metric tonne of infrastructure will have to be put in place to make that possible. Trump will be long gone by the time that becomes possible. The political will to flagrantly break international law will dissipate after Trump's tenure is over. . The oil is likely more of a bonus for Trump than the war's real goal. He will get his bribes for handing the oil over to companies much earlier. He will probably also use them to claim that the war was profitable for the USA, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, which will probably do well with his base. Even if the will to break international law dissipates, which I doubt, the wrongdoings will not be acted upon. I wouldn't be surprised to see the pilots that have (allegedly) murdered Venezuelans be scapegoated and pointed to as "better than nothing" or some variation (sorta like Abu Ghraib ) . I wonder what Democrat supporters actually expect? Imagine I could wave a wand and influence millions of people to vote for Democrats that otherwise wouldn't, as a consequence, they win. What would Democrats give them regarding holding these criminals accountable? I'm sure there's no shortage of excuses for why they can't be expected to do much, but no amount of excuses will actually reduce the minimum level of accountability required to maintain this "civilization" as we know it.
Civilizations are organized around densely populated settlements, divided into more or less rigid hierarchical social classes of division of labour, often with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over the rest of nature, including over other human beings.[7] Civilizations are characterized by elaborate agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, currency, taxation, regulation, and specialization of labour.[5][6][8]
From wiki. Based on the definition we are trending towards more civilization as democracy is a lesser version of this part of the definition. So I understand your quotes, if Democrats get elected we once again move further away from civilization due to lower control over other human beings.
Your overall point though that they will not be held accountable is most likely true. Hard to prove one way or another if those were drug ships or not. Most people bombing in Vietnam didn't get much legal repercussion from it, don't see why that would change here.
|
On December 01 2025 23:15 Legan wrote:
I think the main scepticism about eliminating Maduro is that there is no trust in Trump and others. Trump won't care about Venezuelans, and any new government will have to prioritise pleasing Trump over their own people. This gives Trump and his friends quite a few options. Military junta, puppet, Milei-like libertarian, or Board for Peace all seem like options they could go for. These are unlikely to stop the campaign against narcoterrorists, and I doubt they care if strikes blow up innocent people who are being forced to work for cartels. How long this would last is also questionable.
Outside of Venezuela, there is a chance that a similar strategy will be implemented against other South American countries, and the campaign against narcoterrorists can be expanded. Trump has already attacked at least Honduras and Brazil over their current leadership.
Maybe not so many will get killed in chaos or by the USA, but fear and control will allow wealth to be funnelled to Trump and those willing to support him. I second the skeptical attitude on doing this to Maduro in view of using this strategy for other nations. Congress needs to force a vote on a declaration of war or belligerent act, and a vote on impeachment following. Not that either has a high likelihood of success, but to get congressmen and senators on record for the next election and for the historical record. This power resides in Congress. If they're unwilling to exert it forcefully, then they ought to be made to record their votes of infamy.
|
The issue with accountability with the latest strike is not even if DOD has had these strikes vetted, if they had proper evidence, if they had any proof that there are any drugs or anything illicit on the boat, the issue is that it's a fucking war crime to execute people, even enemy combatants.
I mean, in a normal country these kind of questions would be very important and the government couldn't just ignore them, but that's besides the point.
The issue is that what is being reported is that:
1. United states DOD (I refuse to call it department of war because I am not a 12 year old boy) did a strike on an "enemy combatant", they designated them as Narcoterrorist so let's say this part was/is legitimate, even if it was done with no due process etc.
2. The people who performed the strike determined that there were survivors of the strike, of which they informed their superiors
3. Their superiors then gave them an order that is completely and blatantly illegal, to execute people who have been rendered not a threat by the first strike, this is a war crime by any and all definitions, and an illegal order
4. These orders were followed and the war crime was committed
There is no interpretation of this where a war crime wasn't committed.
Similarly to this, even if Republicans in congress vote for an intervention in Venezuela (which they won't because their majority is weak and there is enough Rand Paul's around to not pass this vote) it would still be an illegal intervention, there is absolutely no evidence of the Maduro regime being suppliers to drugs to USA, and even if there was, how is taht a justification to invade, the pretext is bullshit and you can't just go around and invade countries.
For fuck sake, as shit as Russian pretext for attacking Ukraine was at least they put in 8 years of bullshit in with supporting the "DPR and LPR militias" with weapons and little green men, this is just insane.
|
Autopen user Donald Trump is (again) complaining about how Joe Biden used an autopen.
On Truth Social: ""Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect," Trump wrote."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/28/trump-says-joe-biden-autopen-actions-are-terminated/87514381007/
Fortunately, Trump announcing this on social media doesn't actually mean anything legally, even if he uses the word "hereby". There also doesn't seem to be evidence of "92%", not that that's the most important part.
Unfortunately, "Mr. Trump has already rolled back dozens of Biden's executive orders. The president rescinded nearly 70 of Biden's executive orders shortly after he was sworn in on Jan. 20 for his second term and another 19 on March 14, according to the White House." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cancels-biden-orders-signed-autopen/
Also, Trump doesn't understand what perjury is:
"“Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury,” Trump continued in his Friday Truth Social post. Perjury is the crime of lying under oath; Biden has not publicly testified under oath about the autopen." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-cancelling-biden-executive-orders-signed-autopen-rcna246373
|
You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly.
"If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet.
|
On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet.
I did not miss the word "if". Trump (and you) missed the words "under oath". Quite mind-bogglingly. (I even underlined "under oath" twice.)
Trump lying all the time isn't perjury. Trump lying under oath would be perjury.
|
On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet.
Lmao what?
a) The use of executive orders with autopen already implicates that Biden has said it him.
b) He has said it was involved already?
c) "if he says he was" is not the same words as "if, under oath, he says he was"
d) how would you even get him to a trial for saying he authorized his own executive orders?
I understand you want to defend Trump but come on.
|
The cost of prosecuting people and defending suits will be massive if Democrats get back into power, which will be a weird cost to inflict on the country, as individual LEOs and soldiers will not be able to pay back the amount of compensation demanded from the government. This process will obviously be unpopular, leading people to avoid it and disregard its impact on individual victims.
|
On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet.
You appear to have missed that "says he was" does not equal "says he was under oath".
You don't need to defend Trump every time he says something stupid.
|
On December 02 2025 04:13 Legan wrote:
The cost of prosecuting people and defending suits will be massive if Democrats get back into power, which will be a weird cost to inflict on the country, as individual LEOs and soldiers will not be able to pay back the amount of compensation demanded from the government. This process will obviously be unpopular, leading people to avoid it and disregard its impact on individual victims.
Uhm, what in american political history makes you think anyone will actually be presecuted and serving time for all this?
The american way is to pardon them and if they want to remain public figures, they also have to cry on Oprah but thats optional.
|
On December 02 2025 03:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. Lmao what? a) The use of executive orders with autopen already implicates that Biden has said it him. b) He has said it was involved already? c) "if he says he was" is not the same words as "if, under oath, he says he was" d) how would you even get him to a trial for saying he authorized his own executive orders? I understand you want to defend Trump but come on. On December 02 2025 16:58 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. You appear to have missed that "says he was" does not equal "says he was under oath". You don't need to defend Trump every time he says something stupid.
oBlade incorrectly correcting people will never cease to amaze me, and the Andy Dufresne quote he uses at the bottom of his posts makes this even more hilarious.
Edit: But when oBlade doubles down (like in the post below this one), it's super cringeworthy.
|
On December 02 2025 16:58 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. You appear to have missed that "says he was" does not equal "says he was under oath". You don't need to defend Trump every time he says something stupid.
That's what the "perjury" part means already, too. When people say "killing is murder" they aren't talking about war, and self-defense. People understand the exceptions. When people say the sky is blue it doesn't mean sunsets don't exist. People understand these things by context due to the expedience of language, unless they are otherwise motivated. The context here is that the DOJ, under the ultimate authority of Trump, the elected president, is investigating the autopen at the request/recommendation of the oversight committee in Congress. These are things we can know about by picking up newspapers. Both Congress and the DOJ have subpoena power and regularly compel testimony under oath. If Biden misrepresented facts in that environment, he would be eligible for perjury charges. The same way Clinton, not in a criminal context, was impeached for perjury. Obviously Trump is not talking about, for example, Biden being brought up on charges for potentially inaccurate off-hand remarks during one of his many pending media engagements, which we could easily misrepresent the situation (tweet) as, if we had no knowledge of the oversight committee's conclusions, or were sly enough to expect our audience had no knowledge of same.
|
Moving from messing with Venezuela to messing with Honduras:
"U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that it appeared that Honduras is "trying to change the results of their Presidential Election," alleging that the country's election commission prematurely stopped counting votes. "If they do there will be hell to pay! The people of Honduras voted in overwhelming numbers on November 30th," Trump said on his Truth Social platform. Honduran presidential candidates Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla were practically tied in the latest vote count on Monday, with both holding just under 40% of the vote in a tight race beset by problems with the results website. Trump has backed Asfura, the conservative National Party candidate, over Nasralla, the leading Liberal Party candidate." https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-raises-doubts-about-honduras-presidential-vote-count-2025-12-02/
"Trump, who in the run-up to the vote had threatened to cut off aid to Honduras if National Party candidate Asfura were not elected, responded with a post on his Truth Social platform that claimed the CNE had “abruptly stopped counting” the votes. ... Trump made a big impact in the campaign with his vocal endorsement of Asfura, the former mayor of the capital, Tegucigalpa, saying the US could work with him to counter drug trafficking." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/trump-cries-foul-over-technical-tie-in-honduras-presidential-race
"Trump endorsed right-wing candidate Asfura this week, saying on Truth Social they could work together “to combat the narco-communists and provide the necessary aid to the Honduran people.” Trump added that Asfura “stands up for democracy and fights against Maduro,” the Venezuelan president who is facing a months-long pressure campaign from the US. On Friday, Trump made another post, saying he would pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez of the conservative National Party, who is serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US after being convicted of drug trafficking. Soto says opposition candidates have been signaling their ideological ties to Washington, while the ruling party has been committed to maintaining a transactional relationship with the US." https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/americas/honduras-trump-election-candidates-latam-intl
Trump certainly knows how to meddle in elections, both foreign and domestic.
|
On December 02 2025 18:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 03:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. Lmao what? a) The use of executive orders with autopen already implicates that Biden has said it him. b) He has said it was involved already? c) "if he says he was" is not the same words as "if, under oath, he says he was" d) how would you even get him to a trial for saying he authorized his own executive orders? I understand you want to defend Trump but come on. Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 16:58 MJG wrote:On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. You appear to have missed that "says he was" does not equal "says he was under oath". You don't need to defend Trump every time he says something stupid. oBlade incorrectly correcting people will never cease to amaze me, and the Andy Dufresne quote he uses at the bottom of his posts makes this even more hilarious. Edit: But when oBlade doubles down (like in the post below this one), it's super cringeworthy.
Remember: a primary goal of fascist rhetoric isn't to prove others wrong by rational means, it's to prove their own personal worthiness as a member of the 'in group' by going to whatever extremes necessary to justify irrationality.
|
On December 02 2025 23:23 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2025 18:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 02 2025 03:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. Lmao what? a) The use of executive orders with autopen already implicates that Biden has said it him. b) He has said it was involved already? c) "if he says he was" is not the same words as "if, under oath, he says he was" d) how would you even get him to a trial for saying he authorized his own executive orders? I understand you want to defend Trump but come on. On December 02 2025 16:58 MJG wrote:On December 02 2025 03:53 oBlade wrote:You missed the word "if." Quite mind-bogglingly. "If you cross the DMZ, we will shoot you." is not rebutted by "but I haven't crossed the DMZ" nor is it evidence of the speaker therefore not understanding what a DMZ is since you haven't crossed it. The original statement in fact contains the fact that you haven't crossed it yet. Saying Biden will charged with perjury if he does something that he hasn't done yet, doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know what "perjury" means. The word "if" specifically means he hasn't done the thing that would cause him to be charged yet. You appear to have missed that "says he was" does not equal "says he was under oath". You don't need to defend Trump every time he says something stupid. oBlade incorrectly correcting people will never cease to amaze me, and the Andy Dufresne quote he uses at the bottom of his posts makes this even more hilarious. Edit: But when oBlade doubles down (like in the post below this one), it's super cringeworthy. Remember, the primary goal of fascist rhetoric isn't to prove others wrong by rational means, it's to prove their own personal worthiness as a member of the 'in group' by going to whatever extremes necessary to justify irrationality.
Agreed, though it's just weird to do on the TL forum. It's not like Trump is checking out this page to see who he should recruit for his next Cabinet position, so there's no reason to be so brazenly waving the MAGA flag. oBlade isn't impressing anyone, since we're not actually a Republican/conservative in-group.
|
On December 02 2025 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Moving from messing with Venezuela to messing with Honduras: "U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that it appeared that Honduras is "trying to change the results of their Presidential Election," alleging that the country's election commission prematurely stopped counting votes. "If they do there will be hell to pay! The people of Honduras voted in overwhelming numbers on November 30th," Trump said on his Truth Social platform. Honduran presidential candidates Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla were practically tied in the latest vote count on Monday, with both holding just under 40% of the vote in a tight race beset by problems with the results website. Trump has backed Asfura, the conservative National Party candidate, over Nasralla, the leading Liberal Party candidate." https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-raises-doubts-about-honduras-presidential-vote-count-2025-12-02/ " Trump, who in the run-up to the vote had threatened to cut off aid to Honduras if National Party candidate Asfura were not elected, responded with a post on his Truth Social platform that claimed the CNE had “abruptly stopped counting” the votes. ... Trump made a big impact in the campaign with his vocal endorsement of Asfura, the former mayor of the capital, Tegucigalpa, saying the US could work with him to counter drug trafficking." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/2/trump-cries-foul-over-technical-tie-in-honduras-presidential-race " Trump endorsed right-wing candidate Asfura this week, saying on Truth Social they could work together “to combat the narco-communists and provide the necessary aid to the Honduran people.” Trump added that Asfura “stands up for democracy and fights against Maduro,” the Venezuelan president who is facing a months-long pressure campaign from the US. On Friday, Trump made another post, saying he would pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez of the conservative National Party, who is serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US after being convicted of drug trafficking. Soto says opposition candidates have been signaling their ideological ties to Washington, while the ruling party has been committed to maintaining a transactional relationship with the US." https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/28/americas/honduras-trump-election-candidates-latam-intl Trump certainly knows how to meddle in elections, both foreign and domestic.
At this point, i suffer from Trump exhaustion syndrome. Can this attention whore not fucking shut up for even one minute and not get his uninformed face involved in fucking everything he hears about?
Maybe fly him to a golf bordello full of gold-plated pornstars or whatever just so he is busy.
And it is always so absurdly blatant. Rightwing guy must be good, anyone else must be bad and cheating.
|
His own disciples seem to be getting tired of it too, judging by the crashing polls and nonstop reports of low morale in virtually every government agency.
|
On December 03 2025 01:29 LightSpectra wrote:
His own disciples seem to be getting tired of it too, judging by the crashing polls and nonstop reports of low morale in virtually every government agency.
I didn't realize this was the case, but the evidence does seem to support it:
"Enten cited a recent Gallup poll that saw Trump’s net approval rating sink to -24 percent from -1 percent in January. “We’re talking about a drop of over 20 points in the wrong direction for the president of the United States,” the analyst said. The only president who was less popular than Trump at this point in his second term? Richard Nixon, who had an approval rating of -36 points just a few months before he resigned from office. “Anywhere you look this is the second-worst for a president of either party in their second term dating all the way back since the 1940s,” Enten said."
https://newrepublic.com/post/203799/donald-trump-popular-poll-richard-nixon
"President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has fallen five percentage points to 36%, the lowest of his second term, while disapproval has risen to 60%. ... Both Republicans’ and independents’ ratings of Trump have worsened significantly since last month. Republicans’ approval has fallen seven points to 84%, while independents’ has slipped eight points to 25%. Republicans’ rating is the lowest of Trump’s second term, while independents’ is the worst in either term. Trump’s prior low point among independents, 29%, was last recorded in July and, prior to that, was only seen once before, in August 2017. Meanwhile, Democrats’ rating of the president remains mired in the low single digits (3%)."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/699221/trump-approval-rating-drops-new-second-term-low.aspx
"316 days into Donald Trump's term: The president's net approval rating is -19%, down 0.6 points since last week. 38% approve, 57% disapprove, 4% not sure. Once the honeymoon is over, presidents tend to lose popularity quickly. But no recent president has fallen so low so quickly as Donald Trump. At the start of his second term public opinion was nearly evenly divided between those who approved of the president and those who did not. Things have since changed—his net approval is now lower than at any point in his first term. Rather than rebounding after the end of America’s longest ever government shutdown, Mr Trump’s popularity has continued to sink.
Americans are particularly dissatisfied with Mr Trump’s handling of inflation and the economy, two issues which were key to his re-election last November. Young and non-white voters, many of whom abandoned Democrats because of concerns about the cost of living, are now souring on Mr Trump faster than other groups. It was those voters who fuelled Democratic victories in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey—an ominous sign for Republicans before next year’s midterm elections."
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.swr.de/kultur/musik/1759404664574%2Chitler-tod-kapitulation-100~_v-16x9@2dL_-6c42aff4e68b43c7868c3240d3ebfa29867457da.jpg)
