Trannies for Trump

[giovanni_hotel]

I can' take anyone seriously who lacks the ability to look at Trump critically.

Ivanka and Jared have earned approximately $82 million while serving in Trump's administration. How is this even possible when their primary job now is serving the American people as a public servant??

[filghy2]

Interesting....here's one pro Trump one.
https://twitter.com/jasmine_jewels?lang=en

I see she also thinks that skin cancer is not caused by too much sun exposure, which is actually good for you and helps prevent cancer. I think she's spent too much time in the sun without a hat.

But it's good to see you keeping up your perfect record of posting for only one side, Mr Independent.

[Nick Danger]

So, why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? Why not just establish a dictatorship so your hero can be leader for life and have his way in everything, just like the dictators he admires so much? Maybe Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping could then make a deal to divide up the rest of the world, like Hitler and Stalin did. Isn't that the logical implication of everything you've argued in this thread?

I like you more and more, Flighty. Now you're getting to the heart of the matter.

I choose to answer your first question - why bother with democracy and the rule of law at all? First, checks and balances. For all my talk about Trump being above the law, he actually isn't. If he did something truly dreadful, something absolutely unacceptable and unforgivable, like, I dunno, killing Barbra Streisand and skull-fucking her on Facebook Live, or sacrificing newborn babies to the Sun God on the White House lawn, he would be impeachable and removable. He'll never be able to pass a piece of legislation stating that all Americans must worship him as a god. He'll never be able to stack the Supreme Court with an invincible conservative majority...oops, sorry, maybe got that last one wrong. But in any case, democracy and the rule of law ensure that Trump has limitations. Good for you.

Second, term limits. You hate Trump. You would like to see him run out of office. That's not going to happen BUT...your life isn't over. Trump will not always be President in your lifetime. He's got you for 8 years. But no more. The ephemeral nature of the U.S. Presidency keeps hope alive for the masses, no matter which side you're on. Also, because every term comes to an end and new elections are always pending, no President can go too far without damaging either himself or his party in the next election.

Third, democracy empowers the people. Not to the extent they believe it does, but it does create the illusion of choice, even if that choice is only between two people. Frankly, most people aren't intelligent enough to be allowed to vote, but they can anyway, and that's what makes being American an empowering experience. No matter where you are on the economic (or intellectual) spectrum, you still get one vote, just like the gazillionaire uptown.

I can' take anyone seriously who lacks the ability to look at Trump critically.

Ivanka and Jared have earned approximately $82 million while serving in Trump's administration. How is this even possible when their primary job now is serving the American people as a public servant??

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business, he once cheated a great uncle of mine out of tens of thousands of dollars on a plumbing contract - my uncle just couldn't afford to fight him in court, and my uncle was rich af. Trump is also mobbed up, you can't be in Manhattan real estate and not get a little mafia on you; also, to be totally forthcoming, if he did business with my great uncle, he's fucking mobbed up.

Knowing all this about the man, what I have to say is...I want that guy as President of my fucking country.

But you know, man, I get what you're saying. After all, consider how "critically" the Democratic voting base looked at Hillary Clinton - a woman who is suspected of complicity in more than 30 murders, a one-term senator and one-term Secretary of State who spent most of her time as a diplomat advocating war in the Middle East. She's totally unqualified to be President of the United States, but the Democrats (you) put her out there anyway, because...honestly, I still don't understand that, was it because she's a woman and you were hoping for the novelty vote? Not sure.

Anyway, Giovanni, the problem is not that people are not critical of Donald Trump. We know exactly what he's about, he's lived his whole life on national television. The thing is, a lot of people happen to feel that some of his worst qualities are fantastic qualities for a President.

The problem is that liberals aren't critical enough of their own thinking. All liberals really care about is that everyone be nice, right? Let's make everyone equal, give handouts to the poor, regulate the English language so that no one can ever be offended (yeah that's not Orwellian at all), safe spaces at college, destroy the rape culture, participation trophies for the losers, 10,845 possible genders and damn science. After all, we're all one big happy family.

Except of course that's a giant load of horseshit.

America's got problems. Earth is a tough planet. We need problem solvers in power, not slack-jawed idealists.

Look in the mirror, Giovanni, and ask yourself how critical you've been of your own ideas. They all seem right and proper on the surface, right? And that's as deep as you've looked.

Far as Ivanka making $82 million or whatever, good for her. Proves that capitalism works, and it works even better when your father is the fucking President.

[filghy2]

Well how 'bout this, Giovanni - I'm much more critical of Donald Trump than you'll ever be. I've been following his antics for decades, I know he's a near-pathological liar, a cheat, an egomaniac, a bully, and an insatiable pussy-hound. He's impulsive, it's an absolute miracle he hasn't been charged with a crime in his lifetime. And he's absolutely sociopathic when it comes to business. Knowing all this about the man, what I have to say is...I want that guy as President of my fucking country.

Your posts are quite entertaining in a surreal way, though disconnected from logic or reality. Most right-wingers on this forum are unimaginative dolts who can barely put two sentences together and scurry back into their holes after a couple of posts. I have learnt not to treat this as a serious debate, but rather as a game in which I prod you to see what fantastic arguments you'll come back with.

I think you might be almost as near-pathological as Trump. Your posts are like a case study in cognitive dissonance. One side of your brain sees Trump as he really is. The other side can only see Trump as heroic leader. So you have to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to reconcile the two sides.

Does it not occur to you that a man who consistently cheated others in business would not hesitate to stiff his supporters if it suited him. I'm not just talking about future possibilities. What happened to the tax package that was not going to favour the rich or blow out the deficit? What happened to the promise to deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost than Obamacare? What happened to the massive infrastructure program? What happened to draining the swamp?

Also, do you really think an impulsive egomaniac who never studies issues and won't listen to advice is the best person to deal with any crisis that might come up, which is probably the most important function of the President?

And the best you can come up with on Hillary is a crackpot conspiracy theory and that she was hawkish? The Clinton's are one of the most investigated couples in US history. Ken Starr spend 3 years trying to find something. Don't you think that if she'd had 30 people murdered they might have found some evidence by now? And aren't you in favour of the US throwing it's military weight around? Isn't your guy doing his best to start another Middle Eastern war?

Here's another example of cognitive dissonance. You keep telling us how well capitalism works and how we don't understand it. When a man like Trump prospers despite consistently cheating his investors, suppliers and customers is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Do you think Ivanka would be making $82m if she wasn't DJT's daughter? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Contrary to your claim that liberals never examine their ideas, I have actually come full circle in my life so far. Like most people, I started out favouring the left in my youth. Then after studying lots of economics I moved towards the right after being convinced of the benefits of the free market and lower taxes. More recently, I've moved back towards the left as I looked at the evidence and concluded that unregulated capitalism did not actually deliver the benefits it was supposed to.

[Stavros]

To return to the core issue of the thread: in 2016 I posted the news that a well-known performer and occasional contributor to this site -TS BabeWonder- was in the audience at the Democrat Convention and that Channel 4 News in the UK had filmed her responding to questions about the campaign -clearly an articulate Democrat, where Jasmine Jewels is clearly a Republican. If it is the case that people vote in their own interests, or what they think is best for the country, it raises the obvious question: how do you determine what is best?

Quite often it does not involve any analysis of policy, but is based on the impression made by a candidate and what he or she says, but it is difficult if not impossible to then explain how two people who I assume face a similar if not precisely the same issues with regard to prejudice against transexuals, can choose opposite sides in a political campaign where neither has the best option, but where, in terms of public policy, the Republicans are clearly hostile to most if not all of the issues related to being Transgendered in the USA. But then it is clearly not in the interests of the USA to vote for someone who believes in the same concept of self-reliance as the Chairman of the Workers Party of Korea, not least as both the USA and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for all their bombastic rhetoric, are dependent for their economic survival on international trade.

We have been going through a long period of selfishness in politics, perhaps the ultimate point has been reached with a President who is open about using his office to make money for himself and his family, and who made a point of eyeing the real estate potential of North Korea as if dollar signs were revolving in his eyes as he said it. Perhaps the truth is there are selfish reasons we don't know about that motivates Jasmine Jewels, who still lives in a free society where she can choose whom to vote for. I am just a bit nervous about someone who wants the FBI to be staffed by 'real Americans' as that phrase comes loaded with assumptions, most of which are offensive in the extreme.

[BostonBad]

Selfish people elected Obama. They want to be greedy and generous with other people's shit.

The Don isn't perfect and needs to open his eyesand his mind.

I wish he could be put on a small island an acre in size for a month or two with 100 transwomwn like Yasmin and Nina Lawless. Crates of Viagra pills could be air dropped. After a month or two of that he would value the trans cause more.

[Nick Danger]

Your posts are quite entertaining in a surreal way, though disconnected from logic or reality. Most right-wingers on this forum are unimaginative dolts who can barely put two sentences together and scurry back into their holes after a couple of posts. I have learnt not to treat this as a serious debate, but rather as a game in which I prod you to see what fantastic arguments you'll come back with.

I think you might be almost as near-pathological as Trump. Your posts are like a case study in cognitive dissonance. One side of your brain sees Trump as he really is. The other side can only see Trump as heroic leader. So you have to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions to reconcile the two sides.

Does it not occur to you that a man who consistently cheated others in business would not hesitate to stiff his supporters if it suited him. I'm not just talking about future possibilities. What happened to the tax package that was not going to favour the rich or blow out the deficit? What happened to the promise to deliver better health insurance coverage at lower cost than Obamacare? What happened to the massive infrastructure program? What happened to draining the swamp?

Also, do you really think an impulsive egomaniac who never studies issues and won't listen to advice is the best person to deal with any crisis that might come up, which is probably the most important function of the President?

And the best you can come up with on Hillary is a crackpot conspiracy theory and that she was hawkish? The Clinton's are one of the most investigated couples in US history. Ken Starr spend 3 years trying to find something. Don't you think that if she'd had 30 people murdered they might have found some evidence by now? And aren't you in favour of the US throwing it's military weight around? Isn't your guy doing his best to start another Middle Eastern war?

Here's another example of cognitive dissonance. You keep telling us how well capitalism works and how we don't understand it. When a man like Trump prospers despite consistently cheating his investors, suppliers and customers is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Do you think Ivanka would be making $82m if she wasn't DJT's daughter? Is that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Contrary to your claim that liberals never examine their ideas, I have actually come full circle in my life so far. Like most people, I started out favouring the left in my youth. Then after studying lots of economics I moved towards the right after being convinced of the benefits of the free market and lower taxes. More recently, I've moved back towards the left as I looked at the evidence and concluded that unregulated capitalism did not actually deliver the benefits it was supposed to.

Excellent post, Flighty. I have rarely wanted to reply to a post point-by-point more than I want to reply to this one. Unfortunately I have very little time on my hands this morning, I'm busy as hell today.

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Ty Cobb was reputedly on of the world's biggest assholes, of historical magnitude. He was racist, homophobic, sexist, violent, ill-tempered, misanthropic, greedy, impulsive, and mean as hell. He was also arguably the greatest baseball player of all time.

So in spite of his loathsome personality, if you were a Detroit Tigers fan, you wanted Cobb on that field. Not only that, but if there were two outs in the bottom of the 9th and you were down by one run, you wanted him in the batter's box. Any talk of a Ty Cobb trade deal would have you in front of the stadium with a protest sign.

In 1936 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with the highest voting percentage of all time, a record which stood until 1992. Elected, you understand, by the people who knew him best.

Point being, sometimes a man fits a job perfectly. Sometimes his terrible qualities as a human being make him that much better at that job - Cobb's spikes-first slide was the most feared in baseball.

Much like Trump's sociopathic unpredictability and hardball negotiating savvy makes him the most feared President in history. And I want him on that field, because I'm a USA fan.

I'll leave it at that because I've got to hit the shower. I respect your opinions, Flighty, and you'll have your day when the Democrats return to power in 2024.

[Stavros]

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Your post illustrates the problem at the heart of US politics: it is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the USA has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the States, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the Civil War, is the extent to which Race has shaped American politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in Congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the Republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: the GOP, the TEA party faction, and the Lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that America is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' White, Christian and Male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the Blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The US economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the US economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on US imports, the US imposes tariffs on Canadian goods too, but both trade in the US dollar to the benefit of the USA so to argue the US is being stiffed by Canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an Administration backed by Repubicans that is taking rights away from Americans, not extending them, from banning Transgendered Americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the Supreme Court to allow Ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from Americans.

The US is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a Republican or Confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of Americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive ransacks the wallets of Americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the White House.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

[goatman]

your post illustrates the problem at the heart of us politics: It is not only not a game of winners and losers, the separation of powers was designed precisely to offer a diverse population a different form of politics. It was designed to create negotiation and compromise on the assumption that the broad spectrum of public opinion would shape policy rather than the interests of one man or one identifiable group -be it business, lawyers, farmers, sport, religion and so on. It can be argued that for most of its existence, the usa has survived because the participants in its democracy agreed to the rules and while they did fight and win their cause on some issues, the system itself, replicated across the states, acts to prevent dictatorship or autocratic rule -or it used to.

What has been revealed through various compromises since the end of the civil war, is the extent to which race has shaped american politics, and the extent to which the civil rights laws of the 1960s broke the back of a working consensus in congress to polarise the parties and introduce conflict at an ideological level that was only sporadic before. Crucial to the republican crisis -it is now in effect, three parties in one, divided against itself: The gop, the tea party faction, and the lunatics- is a rejection not just of liberal democracy, but of the idea that america is itself a 'melting pot'. As they watch their societies change a rearguard action is being mounted to 'protect and preserve' white, christian and male rule over all. All this blather about 'draining the swamp' is code for 'get the blacks and the liberals out of our government'.

America was not broken, it was growing, but it walked tall with a face of many colours and creeds. The us economy is strong because it is diverse and flexible -yes, more than 7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization and overseas production since the 1980s, but in the same period the us economy added 33 million jobs. Canada does impose steep tariffs on us imports, the us imposes tariffs on canadian goods too, but both trade in the us dollar to the benefit of the usa so to argue the us is being stiffed by canada is saloon bar economics you would expect from a saloon bar lush.

Yet again, consider the simple fact that this is an administration backed by repubicans that is taking rights away from americans, not extending them, from banning transgendered americas from serving their country in the military, to the bizarre decision by the supreme court to allow ohio to 'purge' its electoral register of lazy voters, crucially taking away the right to vote from americans.

The us is not in a trade war, not yet anyway, but this looks to me increasingly like a civil war in which a republican or confederate movement is determined to marginalise millions of americans from the right they have to be equal citizens, as if they were slaves in all but name. Meanwhile, the chief executive ransacks the wallets of americans to make himself and his family as rich as they get off the gravy train that starts and ends in the white house.

This isn't baseball, it is organized crime.

this.

[giovanni_hotel]

Excellent post, Flighty. I have rarely wanted to reply to a post point-by-point more than I want to reply to this one. Unfortunately I have very little time on my hands this morning, I'm busy as hell today.

Nonetheless I will take time to bring to your attention a man by the name of Tyrus Raymond Cobb, AKA The Georgia Peach.

Ty Cobb was reputedly on of the world's biggest assholes, of historical magnitude. He was racist, homophobic, sexist, violent, ill-tempered, misanthropic, greedy, impulsive, and mean as hell. He was also arguably the greatest baseball player of all time.

So in spite of his loathsome personality, if you were a Detroit Tigers fan, you wanted Cobb on that field. Not only that, but if there were two outs in the bottom of the 9th and you were down by one run, you wanted him in the batter's box. Any talk of a Ty Cobb trade deal would have you in front of the stadium with a protest sign.

In 1936 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with the highest voting percentage of all time, a record which stood until 1992. Elected, you understand, by the people who knew him best.

Point being, sometimes a man fits a job perfectly. Sometimes his terrible qualities as a human being make him that much better at that job - Cobb's spikes-first slide was the most feared in baseball.

Much like Trump's sociopathic unpredictability and hardball negotiating savvy makes him the most feared President in history. And I want him on that field, because I'm a USA fan.

I'll leave it at that because I've got to hit the shower. I respect your opinions, Flighty, and you'll have your day when the Democrats return to power in 2024.

Ty Cobb was never considered a cheater, or someone who utilized and unfair advantage to rig the game's final results. He didn't gamble against his own team, or throw games to profit his benefactors.
Cobb played by the rules. He didn't invent his own because he felt he could get away with it.

No offense, but this is a stupid analogy.