NationStates

Warriors of Truth wrote:Donald John Trump

Still legally the President of the United States.

Trump isn't your populist hero, he's a fraud.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Warriors of Truth wrote:Donald John Trump

Still legally the President of the United States.

Trump isn't your populist hero, he's a fraud.

You're not going to convince this guy, he's either pulling our legs or just deep down that rabbithole.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Warriors of Truth wrote:Donald John Trump

Still legally the President of the United States.

Trump isn't your populist hero, he's a fraud.

A fraud you may call him, but he's no more a fraud than many other presidents.

Yeerosland wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
You're not going to convince this guy, he's either pulling our legs or just deep down that rabbithole.

Like Pooh Bear. He ate too much of Rabbit's food and couldn't get back out the hole.

In the story, Piglet has to stay on the outside of the hole and keep Pooh company until he loses weight. But Piglet also has to stand guard so no-one succumbs to Pooh's complaints that he's hungry!

(It's been a while, I might have mangled the story somewhat)

Wasn't it Christopher Robin who stood guard?

503 wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Trump isn't your populist hero, he's a fraud.

A fraud you may call him, but he's no more a fraud than many other presidents.

You could only really say that if you had no idea about how many MLM's he has pulled off and gotten away with.

Yeerosland wrote:

503 wrote:
A fraud you may call him, but he's no more a fraud than many other presidents.

My definition of a "fraud" is someone who pretends to have skills or knowledge they don't really have. Trump qualifies.

Obama at least knew the constitution, interpretations and precedents. Trump skipped to the Bill of Rights. Nobody needs to know that stuff about electoral process, and anyway the White House surely has lawyers for that stuff ...

I agree Hussein Obama was a knowledgeable person about the constitution, that is why he wanted to destroy it. Much of the "democrat" platform is not compatible with the constitution, namely freedom of expression, of religion, and property.

Donald Trump is a tragic hero, he has the courage to fight but lacks the allies to fight the deep state that stole his office (Legally he is still President), and he never could acquire the kind of elite knowledge Hussein Obama has because he had to be a businessman, and learn about business. If the deep state wouldn't sabotage him, he could lead the US and all of the west into a new golden age.

Yeerosland wrote:

Warriors of Truth wrote:Donald John Trump

Still legally the President of the United States.

By some definition of '"legal"' that doesn't involve the Constitution, state or federal law, State governments, Electors, the Electoral College, appellant Courts including SCOTUS, or the whole US Congress?

I'll give you legal terms: IF mr. Trump really was elected a second time, last year, then mr. Trump will be ineligible to be elected in 2024. The wording of the 22nd Amendment is quite clear:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. [etc]

So perhaps you have some explanation for how mr. Trump can "legally" be the President, without having been legally elected last year?

They stole the election from him, so that article does not apply because the Biden Junta is illegally still occupying his office. If the armed forces did their duty and removed the usurpers, Trump would not serve beyond 2024 unless there was an ammendment.

Which could happen if the armed forces did their duty, most "democrats" were part of the coup, and would be removed from office.

Yeerosland wrote:-snip-

Nothing you say will ever convince a conspiracy theorist. Wiser to give up trying.

The main difference between Trump and the previous US Presidents is that when other Presidents were caught flat-out lying about basic verifiable facts, they were usually quite embarrassed about it and often tried to make strange and esoteric arguments to the press about how their words didn’t actually mean what they patently meant.

Trump, rather less so. His stance is that if what he said doesn’t agree with basic verifiable facts then the facts must be wrong.

His campaign and presidency created a social atmosphere in which it is considered quite normal for differences in opinions to extend to basic verifiable facts. Consider the stance that some posters, of which the most prominent is the Greater Miami States, has repeatedly expressed: the liberals have their basic liberal “facts”, so the conservatives will have their basic conservative “facts”, and this is a desirable state of affairs and how a pluralist democracy is supposed to work.

Trump’s run in high politics have eroded the citizenry’s desire to have a single set of agreed-upon basic verifiable reality. The impact of this will likely last decades, far longer than any of his actual policies, and is in fact what I would consider to be his true legacy.

I have argued against Washington with the claim that Washington wasn’t the greatest President that the US had ever had. For Trump, I will make the argument that any list of contenders that includes him is flawed.

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:The main difference between Trump and the previous US Presidents is that when other Presidents were caught flat-out lying about basic verifiable facts, they were usually quite embarrassed about it and often tried to make strange and esoteric arguments to the press about how their words didn’t actually mean what they patently meant.

Trump, rather less so. His stance is that if what he said doesn’t agree with basic verifiable facts then the facts must be wrong.

His campaign and presidency created a social atmosphere in which it is considered quite normal for differences in opinions to extend to basic verifiable facts. Consider the stance that some posters, of which the most prominent is the Greater Miami States, has repeatedly expressed: the liberals have their basic liberal “facts”, so the conservatives will have their basic conservative “facts”, and this is a desirable state of affairs and how a pluralist democracy is supposed to work.

Trump’s run in high politics have eroded the citizenry’s desire to have a single set of agreed-upon basic verifiable reality. The impact of this will likely last decades, far longer than any of his actual policies, and is in fact what I would consider to be his true legacy.

I have argued against Washington with the claim that Washington wasn’t the greatest President that the US had ever had. For Trump, I will make the argument that any list of contenders that includes him is flawed.

Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. He's incapable of being embarrassed or otherwise feeling bad about his actions. What concerns me is how many Americans seem to identify with the man or look up to him as a role model for how a person should behave. And misinformation, willful rejection of reality, well that's perhaps the most destructive impact of Trump and what places him as a contender for the worst president. But as others have pointed out, his impact hasn't been fully realized, and it will take decades to see his imprint take full effect.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Pulling the US out of a depression is a big feat. I'd hardly say he's overrated.

Libertarians and ultra-free marketers view FDR as a commie, that's why.

FDR is overrated because he put hundreds of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps without due process.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Sundiata wrote:A classless, moneyless, and stateless society, the end goal of socialism. I'm using what I know of the Marxian understanding to define it.

And why do you oppose such a hypothetical society?

I believe that the classes have their place. The state too.

Punished UMN wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Libertarians and ultra-free marketers view FDR as a commie, that's why.

FDR is overrated because he put hundreds of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps without due process.

So did many of the leaders you admire.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:FDR is overrated because he put hundreds of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps without due process.

So did many of the leaders you admire.

Like? Or are you still on that paranoid streak thinking that I unironically like Xi Jinping? And even if it was true, so what? "If you can support concentration camps, there's nothing wrong with me supporting them"?

Punished UMN wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Libertarians and ultra-free marketers view FDR as a commie, that's why.

FDR is overrated because he put hundreds of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps without due process.

I think that given the time period, it is important to take note of the difference between "internment camp" and "concentration camp."

Punished UMN wrote:thinking that I unironically like Xi Jinping?

Wrong. Guess again.

Catsfern wrote:my vote goes for good ol Teddy Roosevelt

Yea, Lincoln and Reagan also.
No for Franklin"SOCIALIST" Roosevelt!

Meretica wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:FDR is overrated because he put hundreds of thousands of American citizens in concentration camps without due process.

I think that given the time period, it is important to take note of the difference between "internment camp" and "concentration camp."

The term "concentration camp" existed before the Holocaust. Also most of the killing in the Holocaust was not done at concentration camps but at extermination centers. There was a significant difference, the former were meant primarily for the extraction of labor and deaths at them were primarily due to overwork and medical neglect rather than direct intervention by the murderers; however, the latter (while they often had concentration camps attached to them for prisoners who were deemed economically suitable) were camps which were designed solely for the extermination of human beings, such as Auschwitz. It was these camps that were equipped with gas chambers and enormous crematoria. Of course, large numbers of people died at both, but the distinction is actually important. I digress though, the point is that internment camps and concentration camps aren't that different in terms of the definition of the terms, especially when you are interning people in them without due process.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:thinking that I unironically like Xi Jinping?

Wrong. Guess again.

Then I got nothing, I'm very sorry I don't keep a card catalogue of what your assumptions about my political beliefs are.

Cailona wrote:

Catsfern wrote:my vote goes for good ol Teddy Roosevelt

Yea, Lincoln and Reagan also.
No for Franklin"SOCIALIST" Roosevelt!

i can't tell if this is satire or not and that worries me

Punished UMN wrote:

Meretica wrote:I think that given the time, it is important to take note of the difference between "internment camp" and "concentration camp."

The term "concentration camp" existed before the Holocaust. Also, most of the killing in the Holocaust was not done at concentration camps but extermination centers. There was a significant difference, the former was meant primarily for the extraction of labor, and deaths at them were primarily due to overwork and medical neglect rather than direct intervention by the murderers; however, the latter (while they often had concentration camps attached to them for prisoners who were deemed economically suitable) were camps which were designed solely for the extermination of human beings, such as Auschwitz. It was these camps that were equipped with gas chambers and enormous crematoria. Of course, large numbers of people died at both, but the distinction is important. I digress though, the point is that internment camps and concentration camps aren't that different in terms of the definition of the terms, especially when you are interning people in them without due process.

Nonetheless, colloquially, "concentration camp" is more widely associated with the Holocaust whereas "internment camp" is not, regardless of the dictionary definition.

Punished UMN wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Wrong. Guess again.

Then I got nothing, I'm very sorry I don't keep a card catalogue of what your assumptions about my political beliefs are.

Chances are that whatever post you saw and assumed meant I supported a particular government was simply being descriptive rather than expressing support for something. It's in my sig and I think I've been pretty clear for the last few years here that I'm a anarchist and absolute pacifist who rejects the ideas of the state, coercion, majoritarian rule, and, by extension, prisons of any type.

TRUMPTRUEPOTUS!

ah
there's my answer

Cailona wrote:TRUMPTRUEPOTUS!

based schizo flag, 10/10, can you put it on redbubble so I can put one on a flagpole?