The Donald Trump thread

CynicalContrarian said:
SamuelBRoberts said:
Everybody's in a bad mood since "Wait and see" is no longer really a tenable argument after Trump failed during the shutdown.
So we're reduced to "Well, Trump may be useless, but he's better than Hillary!" or "What does it matter, the national debt will collapse the government in a few years anyway!" which aren't exactly inspiring.
What would you propose is the answer?
Or the way forward from here?
Other than the trolling, this thread is doing just fine.

I think the way forward is to continue discussing Trump and his successes or failures, here at the 2 year mark. It's one of the great political dramas of modern times and anybody who isn't having a fucking great time watching the battle, or discussing it, is perfectly free to not post any more.
 
MrLemon said:
I think the way forward is to continue discussing Trump and his successes or failures, here at the 2 year mark. It's one of the great political dramas of modern times and anybody who isn't having a fucking great time watching the battle, or discussing it, is perfectly free to not post any more.
Well, that's kind of the problem. Most of the smart people have stopped posting, and those of us that remain are just posting shorter and more frustrated messages.
And the new crowd of Trump supporters is... well, not going to mention any names, but they're not providing a ton of insight or value, and mostly just haranguing folks for not falling in line.
 
SamuelBRoberts said:
MrLemon said:
I think the way forward is to continue discussing Trump and his successes or failures, here at the 2 year mark. It's one of the great political dramas of modern times and anybody who isn't having a fucking great time watching the battle, or discussing it, is perfectly free to not post any more.
Well, that's kind of the problem. Most of the smart people have stopped posting, and those of us that remain are just posting shorter and more frustrated messages.
And the new crowd of Trump supporters is... well, not going to mention any names, but they're not providing a ton of insight or value, and mostly just haranguing folks for not falling in line.
I'm not going to waste time arguing, although what you posted is wrong. Sorry you don't like what other people are posting. Good luck.
 

Gmac

Peacock
Gold Member
SamuelBRoberts said:
Everybody's in a bad mood since "Wait and see" is no longer really a tenable argument after Trump failed during the shutdown.
So we're reduced to "Well, Trump may be useless, but he's better than Hillary!" or "What does it matter, the national debt will collapse the government in a few years anyway!" which aren't exactly inspiring.
You left out the page long list of accomplishments that many have provided. When people overlook so much it makes it impossible to take them seriously.

Lemon is absolutely right. This is a playground, and some of you have shown you're not growing up despite spending years here. I really wonder how some even function in the real world.
 
Leonard D Neubache said:
The will to power.
The will to power or the will to money?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm quite onboard with what you're saying here and with PattayaTapper in general.

I've made a lot of really dumb mistakes when I was young. If I had RVF Forum when I was 18, I would have been monumentally better off. Instead I had to unlearn 18 years of brainwashing at home and in school. I learned to complain about evil capitalists instead of becoming one. Took some years to let go of the belief that someone owed me something and would fix things.

I will say this though, Will to Power, is something entirely different than Will to Money.

A lot of leftists, career shrieking feminists, union types, low level political office types, have a great deal of Will to Power. Complaining (seemingly impotently) is their method of acquiring said power.

I think this should be obvious to everyone now.

Did you hear that story a few days ago about Google having to give men a raise, cause women were paid more for the same job? That's complaining manifesting into quite tangible results. Likewise with all the thousands and thousands of make believe jobs in male dominated industries staffed by feminists. Complaining turned into power.

The problem with Will to Money is that you're one #metoo away from complete ruin. It can get EVERYONE. I actually have a friend quite like that. "What's it to you, why do you care" he said about feminism, now he and all his banker pals are absolutely terrified about getting #metood.

Complaining and whining on a personal scale is counterproductive. Complaining and whining as part of an identity group = will to power.

Will to Power doesn't care about optics, only results. If complaining and whining works, then Will to Power, says go complain and whine. The Covington kids are about to be set up for life, millions of dollars in the bank. Conservatives used to let things like this slide, "take the higher road". They used to accept being slandered out of some chivalrous principle, which really has its origins in christian flaggelation. "Look at me carrying my burdens without response" type of thing.

When a leftist gets rich, do they live according to their principles or do they privately adopt right wing behaviors? We all know the answers to this. Leftists are very pragmatic people. Why can't right wing people be equally pragmatic? Why can't we whine and complain to achieve group power, while privately acting with personal responsibility and internal competition? It's really only a change in mindset, to achieve group power. The internal hierarchy will remain unchanged, cause I know this is what really bothers high achievers from adopting a group identity. They fear a group identity would lessen their social standing (Will to Money alone).

I want to make it very clear, that I have never and will never, suggest anyone on this forum think complaining is a substitute for personal action. I have never done that, but what I actually should have done earlier, what not to take the high road and try to compete as a libertarian, but use every connection, every network, every loophole, every fucked up dynamic, to achieve personal success. That includes complaining, whining, making a fuss as a group, on behalf of a group, against competing groups. Never as a personal victim.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
SamuelBRoberts said:
MrLemon said:
I think the way forward is to continue discussing Trump and his successes or failures, here at the 2 year mark. It's one of the great political dramas of modern times and anybody who isn't having a fucking great time watching the battle, or discussing it, is perfectly free to not post any more.
Well, that's kind of the problem. Most of the smart people have stopped posting, and those of us that remain are just posting shorter and more frustrated messages.
And the new crowd of Trump supporters is... well, not going to mention any names, but they're not providing a ton of insight or value, and mostly just haranguing folks for not falling in line.
Don't worry SamB, I am still here. Oh wait...
 

Sherman

Ostrich
Rand Paul blocks Trump's National Emergency Declaration based on his "libertarian" principles, even though he has voted in the past for Emergency declarations for Obama. Rand Paul believes in open borders. Sometimes I have a hard time deciding which of the terrible ideas of the 20th century will lead to slavery more quickly: Marxism or Libertarianism.

"Sen. Rand Paul Will Block President Trump's National Emergency Declaration"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rand-...esident-trumps-national-emergency-declaration
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
nomadbrah said:
Leonard D Neubache said:
The will to power.
The will to power or the will to money?
...
When you see an outcome occur in this day and age you need to take very careful notice of who allowed it to happen or who forced it to happen.

The useful idiots on the left might seem like they get a lot of concessions merely by complaining but most of us understand implicitly that the elites only use their complaints as a pretext to put in place measures that they want regardless. Sometimes it seems to backfire but not enough to really make a difference.

The will to power must carry the weight of consequences behind it.

Do we know the rumblings of the men down at Google? Not really. Google knows, I'm certain. They caved because the weight of the consequences crushed their will to power on that particular issue. If those young men demonstrated that they would do diddly squat if they were rebuffed then Google would have laughed at them. I can't say for sure but I'd bet their will to power involved more than just whining to HR.

Lawsuits are an example of the will to power, especially when they carry serious consequences for the defendants. Lawsuits are not "complaining". They are an act of aggression with real world consequences. Those young men in Kentucky are helping shift the tide from cucked conservatives whining about unfair treatment to pissed off traditionalists ready to engage in lawfare, even for its own sake.

Good! That's a great start!

There are other ways to exercise the will to power that don't even cost you lawyer fees but most of those options are not for discussion here.

The question is always "what do you truly want, who or what is standing in your way, what are your tools for dealing with it/them, what are the risks and are you willing to take your chances to follow through, no matter the outcome?"

What weight of consequence can you bring to bear against those who stand in your way? Because they are not going to concede to you out of the goodness of their hearts.

This is the same calculus when waging a revolution as it is driving in snow to buy fried chicken because you're hungry, and if you think it hinges on money alone then talk to the guy that invented the (((coincidence detector))).

The little guy can change the world in a serious way if he knows what he wants and goes after it like a pitbull.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Sherman said:
Rand Paul blocks Trump's National Emergency Declaration based on his "libertarian" principles, even though he has voted in the past for Emergency declarations for Obama. Rand Paul believes in open borders. Sometimes I have a hard time deciding which of the terrible ideas of the 20th century will lead to slavery more quickly: Marxism or Libertarianism.

"Sen. Rand Paul Will Block President Trump's National Emergency Declaration"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rand-...esident-trumps-national-emergency-declaration
Rand Paul is consistent so it isn't a surprise to anyone.

Maybe Trump will finally learn that he can't trust other Republicans like McConnell.
 

eradicator

Peacock
Gold Member
I actually get it, I dont like it but get it. If congress allows this then when a democrat gets elected and decides that climate change requires a national emergency to make good on their campaign promises, and require a 50 billion dollar project to complete their vision, well they have precedent.

Can’t Trump just veto this if it passes both the house and senate?
 

Deepdiver

Crow
Gold Member
PDVSA Declares Emergency On Tanker Fleet
By Irina Slav - Mar 07, 2019, 9:30 AM CST

News you will not read in the MSM... Can't Make this Up - German Company that was operating the Venezuelan state oil company's Tanker Fleet 10+ ships in Violation of Sanctions btw is abandoning the PDVSA ships in current ports due to unpaid bills and the Venezuelans can't seem to pull together 160+/- critical personnel (Tanker Ship Captains, Engineers and Navigators etc.) to return the ships to the Mother Country - this is bad news for Maduro means his fattened up party phat-rats are grabbing the last scraps of cheese they can and literally abandoning ship. These ships are the lifeblood of the Maduro Regime's cash flow.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/PDVSA-Declares-Emergency-On-Tanker-Fleet.html

Sooner this collapse of the Maduro regime occurs the sooner Venezuela competes with Columbia as the new South American Poosy Paradise - just saying their bishes must be starving in more ways than one.
 

Deepdiver

Crow
Gold Member
eradicator said:
I actually get it, I dont like it but get it. If congress allows this then when a democrat gets elected and decides that climate change requires a national emergency to make good on their campaign promises, and require a 50 billion dollar project to complete their vision, well they have precedent.

Can’t Trump just veto this if it passes both the house and senate?
YES
 

eradicator

Peacock
Gold Member
Then why are people even talking about it like it means anything? They would need a two thirds super majority in both the house and senate to over rule a presidential veto, and until they have that, it's not worth wasting our breath over. Someone(congress? Someone in one of the border states?) could potentially try suing and tying it up in the courts to stop the wall, but we can cross that bridge when we get there.

As of now, be happy. We are getting a wall, and it just got ten feet higher

 
Famed black-piller Lou Dobbs engages in dangerous accelerationist crime-think by voicing objections to Trump going back on his immigration promises.


Quick, somebody tell him that if you're mad at Trump for not living up to his campaign promises, it's because you hate jews and want to see the world burn!
 

budoslavic

Peacock
Gold Member

John Kelly differs with Trump on immigration, mum on security clearances

At Duke University, Trump's former chief of staff dodged questions about security clearances for Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

March 6, 2019, 9:57 PM EST
By Carol E. Lee

DURHAM, N.C. — Former White House chief of staff John Kelly said he disagreed with some Trump administration policies — particularly on immigration — but dodged questions Wednesday about the president reportedly intervening to secure top-secret security clearances for his daughter Ivanka Trump and son–in–law, Jared Kushner.

Kelly, in an appearance at Duke University, did not deny reports that President Donald Trump circumvented the usual process to grant the security clearances or that he later wrote a memo outlining his concerns about it. He simply said he believes any such conversations with the president would be privileged and that he’s not at liberty to discuss security clearances.

It was a notable contrast to Kelly’s aggressive pushback on news reports while in the White House about his actions and relationship with Trump. On Wednesday he even stressed several times the importance of a free press.

Relatively subdued and cautious, Kelly landed some gloved swipes on his former boss — at one point saying if Trump's former Democratic rival had won the presidency and asked him to serve, he would have worked for her.

“If Hillary Clinton had called me, I would have done it,” Kelly said.


The wide-ranging question-and-answer session before several hundred people marked the first time Kelly, who left the White House at the end of 2018 after a rocky tenure, has publicly addressed the president’s role in his family members’ security clearances.

A retired four-star general, Kelly initially served as Trump’s Homeland Security secretary. But it was the chief of staff job he took in July 2017 that he said was “the least enjoyable job I’ve ever had.”

“But it was he most important job I’ve ever had,” he said.

Kelly, though diplomatic, showed repeatedly where he disagreed with Trump on immigration issues.

On the administration’s handling of children at the southern border, he was critical, though he blamed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for catching the White House by surprise with the adoption of a “zero tolerance” policy.

Contrary to Trump’s comments that many immigrants coming to the U.S. border are criminals, Kelly added: “And by the way, they’re overwhelmingly not criminals. They’re people coming up here for economic purposes. I don’t blame them for that.”

He didn’t defend Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency to get funding for a border wall and said: “We don’t need a wall from sea to shining sea.”


Kelly also expressed disagreement with deploying U.S. troops, even National Guard troops, to the border, as Trump did last fall before the midterm elections.

“Generally speaking I would always look for another way to do it,” Kelly said.

Asked about Trump’s executive order establishing a travel ban just days after taking office — while Kelly was Homeland Security secretary — he said it was a mistake made by inexperienced White House staff who didn’t run the policy through the usual process-gathering process for input from relevant government agencies.

The White House staff “got a little bit maybe out in front of their skis,” he said.

Kelly also defended the cost of maintaining the NATO alliance, the merits of which Trump has repeatedly questioned. And he took credit for initially organizing a series of briefings that convinced Trump not to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Syria.

When Trump tapped Kelly as his chief of staff the White House had little internal structure and was largely seen as chaotic. Kelly didn’t seem eager for the job and spent his initial weeks trying to install process and order to the West Wing.

Despite reports by NBC News and others that Kelly saw himself as the “adult in the room,” he denied taking that view.

“In my view everyone in the room was an adult,” he said.

When he decided it was time to leave, saying the job exhausted him, he joked that the advice he gave to his successor, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, was: “Run for it.”
 
Top