Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Way to overdramatize much?

Not really. From where I'm standing, the only thing that really distinguishes Trump from Cristina Fernandez is that Fernandez liked to pretend that she was in fact left-wing, occasionally played the woman card to gaslight her opponents, and although she was prone to doing and saying stupid things now and then, she was not nearly as arrogantly clueless as Trump.

Maduro and Fernandez, much like Trump, were democratically elected, notoriously vindictive and thin-skinned, nationalistic and authoritarian in rhetoric (and quite hypocritical about it), and obscenely corrupt. Fernandez in particular, much like Trump, had terrible social media habits and liked to surround herself with fanatics. She seldom allowed herself to be questioned in public, which means press conferences were extremely rare, and if she had any dialogue with anyone during her speeches, it was with handpicked props, like members of her party pretending to be workers at a factory. And much like Trump, she was a wealthy person and hotel entrepeneur, living a life of luxury, while she derided the urban middle and upper classes as elitist... even though she herself showed quite a bit of elitism of her own (such as when she objected to being booed by students at Harvard by reminding them that they were students at Harvard, not at the University of La Matanza, which is a working class municipality).

Trump is every Latin American populist of the past two decades. And that should worry you immensely.

You're actually asking for a pretty mighty task, considering nobody was worried about it during the elections.

[Liriena]

Not really. From where I'm standing, the only thing that really distinguishes Trump from Cristina Fernandez is that Fernandez liked to pretend that she was in fact left-wing, occasionally played the woman card to gaslight her opponents, and although she was prone to doing and saying stupid things now and then, she was not nearly as arrogantly clueless as Trump.

Maduro and Fernandez, much like Trump, were democratically elected, notoriously vindictive and thin-skinned, nationalistic and authoritarian in rhetoric (and quite hypocritical about it), and obscenely corrupt. Fernandez in particular, much like Trump, had terrible social media habits and liked to surround herself with fanatics. She seldom allowed herself to be questioned in public, which means press conferences were extremely rare, and if she had any dialogue with anyone during her speeches, it was with handpicked props, like members of her party pretending to be workers at a factory. And much like Trump, she was a wealthy person and hotel entrepeneur, living a life of luxury, while she derided the urban middle and upper classes as elitist... even though she herself showed quite a bit of elitism of her own (such as when she objected to being booed by students at Harvard by reminding them that they were students at Harvard, not at the University of La Matanza, which is a working class municipality).

Trump is every Latin American populist of the past two decades. And that should worry you immensely.

You're actually asking for a pretty mighty task, considering nobody was worried about it during the elections.

I respectfully blame it on widespread ignorance of foreign affairs.

[Novus America]

May is different than will, and it would at most be relocating them to a different room in the complex. Not the end of the world or anything. And it would be more Hugo Chavez than Maduro, Maduro just is a pawn for the Venezuelan establishment. He has no ideas or thoughts of his own. And is not charismatic at all.

I see more of Maduro than Chavez in Trump, because Chavez, for all his glaring flaws, seemed at least somewhat shrewd at actually running the country.

Yeah, I see Berlusconi parallels the most. Been saying it since before the political intellectuals even saw those parallels.

Whatever. Italy isn't all that bad.

I think that's more a testament to the fortitude of Italy and its political system than Berlusconi's virtues as Prime Minister.

Maduro also has the Charisma of a sack of potatoes (as well as the intellect) and is just a puppet for the party and military elite.
Trump is not without a shrewdness even if a unconventional one.

Berlusconi is closest. Right wing populist. Western country.
Though Italy has a notoriously disfunctional political system. And is not known for fortitude.

[Minoa]

Chavez was to some extend lucky due to the high oil prices, although I didn't agree with his excessive takeovers of the media because for a good social democracy, one needs to allow open debate from all sides (apart from those that promote racial hatred, which is understandable since we’re all human beings).

[The Rich Port]

Chavez was to some extend lucky due to the high oil prices, although I didn't agree with his excessive takeovers of the media because for a good social democracy, one needs to allow open debate from all sides (apart from those that promote racial hatred, which is understandable since we’re all human beings).

... Did you just compare Hugo Chavez favorably to Donald Trump?

... Yeah, no, sounds about right. I'm just saying. Never thought about it that way before.

[Chestaan]

And neither is the US Egypt, Syria or Libya. Saying that the movements failed in those nations therefore something similar will happen in the US is only as legitimate as saying that revolutionary movements have succeeded in some countries throughout history, Tunisia recently, therefore the US will also have similar results.

My point is, protest, and civil disobedience is not a fruitless act as it has succeeded several times in achieving real change. Whether or not any particular act will work or not is highly dependent on individual circumstances. Look at the various civil rights movements throughout history that have broken the law. Would you tell Rosa Parks or Nelson Mandela that they should have tried to work through the system rather than engaging in direct action? And if in the course of this direct action they are attacked, do they not have a right to defend themselves? A man who is promising mass deportations, pushing Islamophobia and racist policies has just been elected without even winning the biggest share of the vote. That's a broken system.

Odds are not good my point is.
Also Rosa Parks (and others) raised attention to a problem, it only worked because people in congress were sympathetic and there was bipartisan opposition to government enforced segregation. Ultimately what was done was through congress and courts.

Deportation of illegal immigrants is not wrong according to most. It is merely enforcing the law. And every president has done it. It is not something new.
He used Islamophobia some, but he did not create it. He is a populist that used what appealed to people. Islam needs to fix its crisis or Islamophobia will not end. Though he toned that down anyways. What racist policies? He has been very short on actual policies, outside of trade.

You politically disagree with him and indeed the vast majority of the US population as you are a communist. You can vote and protest if you wish. But that will not control what the president and congress do, and have every right to do.

Maybe Rosa Parks had sympathisers in the political establishment, but those such as Gandhi and Mandela did not, and yet they still succeeded. It was the actions of the people that made the changes in the South's racist policies. In any case, don't you think that many politicians, and more importantly, the American people, oppose Trump in the same way they supported racial segregation in the south? The whole point of civil disobedience is to raise awareness and to inspire people to act and to not roll over and let injustices pass unchecked.

Doesn't he plan to ban Muslims from entering the country? Doesn't he plan to kick out refugees from certain nations? I'm pretty sure that refusing refugees is a breach of the UHDR, article 14 I think. Also, building a wall with Mexico, yet not on Canada's border, or in fact saying little to nothing about securing sea routes combined with his Mexican rapist comments suggests that it is motivated by a dislike for Mexicans.

And so what if he didn't create Islamophobia? How does that make things any less problematic? I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but Hitler didn't create anti-semitism and it still was a problem. Are what you saying is that it is the fault of Muslims that Islamophobia exists? Because if so that is ridiculous. ISIS doesn't even exist as a result of Islam or "the problems within Islam" as a primary motivating factor for fundamentalism is foreign aggression in the Middle East. You drop a bomb on someone's house they're more likely to become a radical if they survive. This is why there are smaller levels of fundamentalism outside the Middle East.

The fact that I'm a communist has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to talk economics then I would be more than happy to do it on another thread, but this is not the place. And I'm pretty sure most people agree with me on most of the points I have raised. People aren't comfortable with Islamobphobia, they aren't comfortable with Trump's inflamatory words. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to go out on to the streets to say that they are not going to take things lying down. And if you think protest has no effect you're wrong. A recent example is the protests in Ireland against the introduction of water charges. Parties from across the spectrum have come out opposed to the charges and the government is constantly backpedalling on the issue.

[Vassenor]

Piers Morgan doesn't understand why people have a problem with Trump lashing out at his critics.

...His Private Eye nickname gets more appropriate every day.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Exclusive: The Trump Administration May Evict the Press from the White House


Aaaaaand it's confirmed. You elected your very own Nicolás Maduro. Your very first Cristina Fernandez.

10/10
You're finally following our example, America.

man the next 4 years are going to be fun looking at america.

[Thermodolia]

Exclusive: The Trump Administration May Evict the Press from the White House


Aaaaaand it's confirmed. You elected your very own Nicolás Maduro. Your very first Cristina Fernandez.

10/10
You're finally following our example, America.

Nah the US hasn't invaded the Falkland Islands yet

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Exclusive: The Trump Administration May Evict the Press from the White House


Aaaaaand it's confirmed. You elected your very own Nicolás Maduro. Your very first Cristina Fernandez.

10/10
You're finally following our example, America.

Nah the US hasn't invaded the Falkland Islands yet

They would just build walls around them.

[Arlenton]

Is he doing what I think he's doing?

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103385178272401?pnref=story

[Lazarus Happy Insurance Corp]

Odds are not good my point is.
Also Rosa Parks (and others) raised attention to a problem, it only worked because people in congress were sympathetic and there was bipartisan opposition to government enforced segregation. Ultimately what was done was through congress and courts.

Deportation of illegal immigrants is not wrong according to most. It is merely enforcing the law. And every president has done it. It is not something new.
He used Islamophobia some, but he did not create it. He is a populist that used what appealed to people. Islam needs to fix its crisis or Islamophobia will not end. Though he toned that down anyways. What racist policies? He has been very short on actual policies, outside of trade.

You politically disagree with him and indeed the vast majority of the US population as you are a communist. You can vote and protest if you wish. But that will not control what the president and congress do, and have every right to do.

Maybe Rosa Parks had sympathisers in the political establishment, but those such as Gandhi and Mandela did not, and yet they still succeeded. It was the actions of the people that made the changes in the South's racist policies. In any case, don't you think that many politicians, and more importantly, the American people, oppose Trump in the same way they supported racial segregation in the south? The whole point of civil disobedience is to raise awareness and to inspire people to act and to not roll over and let injustices pass unchecked.

Doesn't he plan to ban Muslims from entering the country? Doesn't he plan to kick out refugees from certain nations? I'm pretty sure that refusing refugees is a breach of the UHDR, article 14 I think. Also, building a wall with Mexico, yet not on Canada's border, or in fact saying little to nothing about securing sea routes combined with his Mexican rapist comments suggests that it is motivated by a dislike for Mexicans.

And so what if he didn't create Islamophobia? How does that make things any less problematic? I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but Hitler didn't create anti-semitism and it still was a problem. Are what you saying is that it is the fault of Muslims that Islamophobia exists? Because if so that is ridiculous. ISIS doesn't even exist as a result of Islam or "the problems within Islam" as a primary motivating factor for fundamentalism is foreign aggression in the Middle East. You drop a bomb on someone's house they're more likely to become a radical if they survive. This is why there are smaller levels of fundamentalism outside the Middle East.

The fact that I'm a communist has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to talk economics then I would be more than happy to do it on another thread, but this is not the place. And I'm pretty sure most people agree with me on most of the points I have raised. People aren't comfortable with Islamobphobia, they aren't comfortable with Trump's inflamatory words. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to go out on to the streets to say that they are not going to take things lying down. And if you think protest has no effect you're wrong. A recent example is the protests in Ireland against the introduction of water charges. Parties from across the spectrum have come out opposed to the charges and the government is constantly backpedalling on the issue.

We thought we were going to change things through protest, too. So did some of our parents from the hippy days.

It turns out the powers that be just keep doing what they want anyway. Been protesting for years. Look at the Occupy thing. Very loud shout. Very cool people. Made very good points.

Few years later, Head of Exxon is in the presidential cabinet. They're not even hiding it anymore.

Protest. I respect and admire your courage. I even hope you win.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Is he doing what I think he's doing?

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103385178272401?pnref=story

..going around and meeting people?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Doesn't he plan to ban Muslims from entering the country? Doesn't he plan to kick out refugees from certain nations? I'm pretty sure that refusing refugees is a breach of the UHDR, article 14 I think.

To be fair, this is the guy who said we should kill family members of terrorists.

You know, killing non combatants and flipping off the geneva convention.

[Thermodolia]

Nah the US hasn't invaded the Falkland Islands yet

They would just build walls anti-Hispanic protection rampart around them.

Fixed

[Arlenton]

Is he doing what I think he's doing?

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103385178272401?pnref=story

..going around and meeting people?

For what reason would he want to do that?

[Thermodolia]

Is he doing what I think he's doing?

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103385178272401?pnref=story

What would that be? Because I really don't give a damn what he does

[Novus America]

Odds are not good my point is.
Also Rosa Parks (and others) raised attention to a problem, it only worked because people in congress were sympathetic and there was bipartisan opposition to government enforced segregation. Ultimately what was done was through congress and courts.

Deportation of illegal immigrants is not wrong according to most. It is merely enforcing the law. And every president has done it. It is not something new.
He used Islamophobia some, but he did not create it. He is a populist that used what appealed to people. Islam needs to fix its crisis or Islamophobia will not end. Though he toned that down anyways. What racist policies? He has been very short on actual policies, outside of trade.

You politically disagree with him and indeed the vast majority of the US population as you are a communist. You can vote and protest if you wish. But that will not control what the president and congress do, and have every right to do.

Maybe Rosa Parks had sympathisers in the political establishment, but those such as Gandhi and Mandela did not, and yet they still succeeded. It was the actions of the people that made the changes in the South's racist policies. In any case, don't you think that many politicians, and more importantly, the American people, oppose Trump in the same way they supported racial segregation in the south? The whole point of civil disobedience is to raise awareness and to inspire people to act and to not roll over and let injustices pass unchecked.

Doesn't he plan to ban Muslims from entering the country? Doesn't he plan to kick out refugees from certain nations? I'm pretty sure that refusing refugees is a breach of the UHDR, article 14 I think. Also, building a wall with Mexico, yet not on Canada's border, or in fact saying little to nothing about securing sea routes combined with his Mexican rapist comments suggests that it is motivated by a dislike for Mexicans.

And so what if he didn't create Islamophobia? How does that make things any less problematic? I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but Hitler didn't create anti-semitism and it still was a problem. Are what you saying is that it is the fault of Muslims that Islamophobia exists? Because if so that is ridiculous. ISIS doesn't even exist as a result of Islam or "the problems within Islam" as a primary motivating factor for fundamentalism is foreign aggression in the Middle East. You drop a bomb on someone's house they're more likely to become a radical if they survive. This is why there are smaller levels of fundamentalism outside the Middle East.

The fact that I'm a communist has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to talk economics then I would be more than happy to do it on another thread, but this is not the place. And I'm pretty sure most people agree with me on most of the points I have raised. People aren't comfortable with Islamobphobia, they aren't comfortable with Trump's inflamatory words. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to go out on to the streets to say that they are not going to take things lying down. And if you think protest has no effect you're wrong. A recent example is the protests in Ireland against the introduction of water charges. Parties from across the spectrum have come out opposed to the charges and the government is constantly backpedalling on the issue.

Umm Gahandi did have support in the establishement. Mandela and he were in completely different situations than today also.

At this point no he has no plan to ban all Muslims from entering. Also not kick out refugees which he never even said.
The Convention on Refugees only requires you protect those who reach your country, not seek them out. He will probably stop looking for more to fly in. Okay he can do that.

A wall on the Mexican border and not Canadian one is because Mexico and Canada are very different. Canada has a similar level of ecnomically development and lower crime than the US.

Unlike Mexico, Canada is not a major source of illegal immigration or contraband.

And it is not the fault of all Muslims Islamophobia exists, but it exists for a reason. Islam is in crisis and it is absurd to deny that, or say ISIS has not roots in Islam (though the problem is much larger than ISIS). The Catholics got a bad reputation after many Catholics they did bad things too back in the 1500s.

Sure I do not like his rhetoric either. But policy matters more. And we will have to wait to see what that is.
And the situation much more nuanced than you make it out to be.

And sure protest if you wish. As long as peacefully. Just it will not change the situation. Sure it can have use in certain cases. But will not be effective here.

The Republicans won, and will implement their policies as the have every right and power to do.
You have every right to protest. But it will not change their minds. They do not really care what you think. Most people will simply wait and see if the economy improves anyways, which is what they care about the most.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

..going around and meeting people?

For what reason would he want to do that?

Meeting new friends, exercise, fresh air, pokemon battles.

[Thermodolia]

Maybe Rosa Parks had sympathisers in the political establishment, but those such as Gandhi and Mandela did not, and yet they still succeeded. It was the actions of the people that made the changes in the South's racist policies. In any case, don't you think that many politicians, and more importantly, the American people, oppose Trump in the same way they supported racial segregation in the south? The whole point of civil disobedience is to raise awareness and to inspire people to act and to not roll over and let injustices pass unchecked.

Doesn't he plan to ban Muslims from entering the country? Doesn't he plan to kick out refugees from certain nations? I'm pretty sure that refusing refugees is a breach of the UHDR, article 14 I think. Also, building a wall with Mexico, yet not on Canada's border, or in fact saying little to nothing about securing sea routes combined with his Mexican rapist comments suggests that it is motivated by a dislike for Mexicans.

And so what if he didn't create Islamophobia? How does that make things any less problematic? I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but Hitler didn't create anti-semitism and it still was a problem. Are what you saying is that it is the fault of Muslims that Islamophobia exists? Because if so that is ridiculous. ISIS doesn't even exist as a result of Islam or "the problems within Islam" as a primary motivating factor for fundamentalism is foreign aggression in the Middle East. You drop a bomb on someone's house they're more likely to become a radical if they survive. This is why there are smaller levels of fundamentalism outside the Middle East.

The fact that I'm a communist has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to talk economics then I would be more than happy to do it on another thread, but this is not the place. And I'm pretty sure most people agree with me on most of the points I have raised. People aren't comfortable with Islamobphobia, they aren't comfortable with Trump's inflamatory words. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to go out on to the streets to say that they are not going to take things lying down. And if you think protest has no effect you're wrong. A recent example is the protests in Ireland against the introduction of water charges. Parties from across the spectrum have come out opposed to the charges and the government is constantly backpedalling on the issue.

Umm Gahandi did have support in the establishement. Mandela and he were in completely different situations.

At this point no he has no plan to ban all Muslims from entering. Also not kick out refugees.
The Convention on Refugees only requires you protect those who reach your country, not seek them out. He will probably stop looking for more to fly in. Okay.

A wall on the Mexican border and not Canadian one is because Mexico and Canada are very different. Canada has a similar level of ecnomically development and lower crime than the US.

Unlike Mexico, Canada is not a major source of illegal immigration or contraband.

And it is not the fault of all Muslims Islamophobia exists, but it exists for a reason. Islam is in crisis and it is absurd to deny that, or say ISIS has not roots in Islam (though the problem is much larger than ISIS). The Catholics got a bad reputation after many Catholics they did bad things too back in the 1500s.

Sure I do not like his rhetoric either. But policy matters more.
And sure protest if you wish. As long as peacefully. Just it will not change the situation. Sure it can have use in certain cases. But will not be effective here.

The Republicans won, and will implement their policies as the have every right and power to do.
You have every right to protest. But it will not change their minds. They do not really care what you think. Most people will simply wait and see if the ecnomy improves.

That wall won't stop illegal immigration at all, as most of them come in from the airports and overstay their visas.

[Balkenreich]

Umm Gahandi did have support in the establishement. Mandela and he were in completely different situations.

At this point no he has no plan to ban all Muslims from entering. Also not kick out refugees.
The Convention on Refugees only requires you protect those who reach your country, not seek them out. He will probably stop looking for more to fly in. Okay.

A wall on the Mexican border and not Canadian one is because Mexico and Canada are very different. Canada has a similar level of ecnomically development and lower crime than the US.

Unlike Mexico, Canada is not a major source of illegal immigration or contraband.

And it is not the fault of all Muslims Islamophobia exists, but it exists for a reason. Islam is in crisis and it is absurd to deny that, or say ISIS has not roots in Islam (though the problem is much larger than ISIS). The Catholics got a bad reputation after many Catholics they did bad things too back in the 1500s.

Sure I do not like his rhetoric either. But policy matters more.
And sure protest if you wish. As long as peacefully. Just it will not change the situation. Sure it can have use in certain cases. But will not be effective here.

The Republicans won, and will implement their policies as the have every right and power to do.
You have every right to protest. But it will not change their minds. They do not really care what you think. Most people will simply wait and see if the ecnomy improves.

That wall won't stop illegal immigration at all, as most of them come in from the airports and overstay their visas.

We could always build a catapult or two.

Frequent flier miles dont count for them.

[Thermodolia]

That wall won't stop illegal immigration at all, as most of them come in from the airports and overstay their visas.

We could always build a catapult or two.

Frequent flier miles dont count for them.

Ya know that could be turned into a reality tv show. Let's call it "Who wants to be in America?!" We can have the contestants voted out of America and sent flying by catapult

[Minoa]

Protest. I respect and admire your courage. I even hope you win.

And sure protest if you wish. As long as peacefully. Just it will not change the situation. Sure it can have use in certain cases. But will not be effective here.

Those who can fight the bad things about populism, please do: I count on you.

For me, I can't because of my disability and my inability to cope in such environments: this is why I have contemplated either emigration or suicide (apologies for being brutally honest).

[Novus America]

Umm Gahandi did have support in the establishement. Mandela and he were in completely different situations.

At this point no he has no plan to ban all Muslims from entering. Also not kick out refugees.
The Convention on Refugees only requires you protect those who reach your country, not seek them out. He will probably stop looking for more to fly in. Okay.

A wall on the Mexican border and not Canadian one is because Mexico and Canada are very different. Canada has a similar level of ecnomically development and lower crime than the US.

Unlike Mexico, Canada is not a major source of illegal immigration or contraband.

And it is not the fault of all Muslims Islamophobia exists, but it exists for a reason. Islam is in crisis and it is absurd to deny that, or say ISIS has not roots in Islam (though the problem is much larger than ISIS). The Catholics got a bad reputation after many Catholics they did bad things too back in the 1500s.

Sure I do not like his rhetoric either. But policy matters more.
And sure protest if you wish. As long as peacefully. Just it will not change the situation. Sure it can have use in certain cases. But will not be effective here.

The Republicans won, and will implement their policies as the have every right and power to do.
You have every right to protest. But it will not change their minds. They do not really care what you think. Most people will simply wait and see if the ecnomy improves.

That wall won't stop illegal immigration at all, as most of them come in from the airports and overstay their visas.

It will not stop all. But will stop some. But not really the point. Whether or not you think it is a good idea, walls and fences along the border will be expanded. And it is legitimate and perfectly legal to do so. Even if more for image than anything.

You have every right to propose and vote for different policies. And protest those you do not like. But it is the voting that actually changes things.

[The Rich Port]

It will not stop all. But will stop some. But not really the point. Whether or not you think it is a good idea, walksxand fences along the border will be expanded.

Whether it is, at all, a good idea.

Also, I doubt it. I think even Trump's cabinet and the almost-all-Republican senate is already sick of Trump's shit and will not be passing anything regarding his more ridiculous measures.