All this was obvious long ago. No one took him seriously within the business community. He’s been good at leveraging debt and building an image. Now that it’s crumbled, his cult following is really all that’s left in terms of believing he’s been anything but a degenerate, sociopathic, narcissistic con man. The rest vote for him because they’ve been convinced Biden and democrats are worse, but who otherwise are rightly embarrassed by him.

Anyway — at this point if Trump wins it’ll be because most people stay home, thanks in part to Biden choosing to run again.

Either 7 more months of Trump or 4 years and 7 months of Trump. But either way, he’ll be history soon enough.

All this was obvious long ago. — Mikie

True. Long before he became a TV game show host he had a reputation in the NY area as a fraud and swindler. And, in his desperate failed attempt to be one of the "beautiful people" the target of laughter an ridicule. Of course, he then bad mouthed the people he wanted to accept him.

As to the election, I'm not placing any bets.

But in context it was blatantly clear that the bloodbath Trump was speaking about was a figurative one, an economic one. — NOS4A2

Any use of "bloodbath", whether literal or metaphorical, implies violent aggression. It's similar to his use of "fight" on Jan 6. You can downplay it as "figurative" all you want, but the implications are clear. And, there is consistency in his way of speaking like that. The 'enemy', is the American political system and the goal is to smash it down.

Either 7 more months of Trump or 4 years and 7 months of Trump. But either way, he’ll be history soon enough. — Mikie

Imagine this thread ending and passing into obscurity.

And if your young, imagine a time when talking to a new generation of Americans decades from now, when they sincerely ask you: "Trump? Who was Trump?"

A new hoax has arisen. This time our credulity implores us to believe Trump threatened the country with a bloodbath should he lose the election. Out of context a clever propagandist could spin it that upon Trump's loss his supporters will break out the ARs and start murdering political opponents. But in context it was blatantly clear that the bloodbath Trump was speaking about was a figurative one, an economic one. — NOS4A2

The real hoax is that we should believe what Trump says, in the first place.

Just like all the talk about building a wall. :snicker:

Or perhaps the US-Mexican border is only figuratively 458 miles long, not the over 1900 miles long.

And of course, as this is Trump, the 458 miles wasn't even a new wall:

The vast majority of the 458 miles were constructed in places where some kind of barrier already existed, but most of the preexisting structures were far less imposing than the new wall and included fencing and rudimentary technical barriers. The total figure also includes what the agency calls “secondary border wall” or sections of wall built behind preexisting barriers that ultimately remained in place.

(The big, beautiful wall, that Trump built.)

Any use of "bloodbath", whether literal or metaphorical, implies violent aggression. It's similar to his use of "fight" on Jan 6. You can downplay it as "figurative" all you want, but the implications are clear. And, there is consistency in his way of speaking like that. The 'enemy', is the American political system and the goal is to smash it down.

Then the implications are clear when other politicians, like Biden, use the exact same words.



It was so much of a hoax that Biden resumed doing just that, only it was far too late.

Too late? :chin:
For what too late? You have to speak Spanish now? (Oh, I forgot, you didn't live in the US or did you?)

And I think having a border fence isn't similar to build a big, beautiful, wall. Which Trump was incapable of doing in 4 years.

Besides, the last glimpse on how wonderful, secure and efficient these billion dollar high-tech walls are was seen last year on October 7th.

Biden ended the Trump’s national emergency and the border wall construction on his first day in office. Now he’s dealing with a crisis at the border. Now the crisis is the biggest problem facing America, according to public opinion, costing the tax-payer more than it would have cost to build the wall.

Then the implications are clear when other politicians, like Biden, use the exact same words. — NOS4A2

That's right. But of course the context is different, and that's what's important.

Another fine example of you doing nothing with words.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

That's right. But of course the context is different, and that's what's important.

Dupes actually believed Trump meant political violence, and fell for a very simple fallacy as proffered by those who would exploit their gullibility. That’s the important context.

And if your young, imagine a time when talking to a new generation of Americans decades from now, when they sincerely ask you: "Trump? Who was Trump?" — ssu

Can't wait...

Trump supporters calling out others as “dupes.” :rofl:

Biden ended the Trump’s national emergency and the border wall construction on his first day in office. Now he’s dealing with a crisis at the border. Now the crisis is the biggest problem facing America, according to public opinion, costing the tax-payer more than it would have cost to build the wall. — NOS4A2

Trump couldn't even get the wall built. That's how bad he is. And building just a wall which can be circumvented isn't an answer.

But who the fuck cares about actual solutions. "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!" is such a great slogan. Why have any discussion on immigration policy when you have such awesome policies like that?

What actual solutions do you have in mind? Didn’t Finland start building a big fence just recently? Why would they do that, I wonder? Why just 200km of fence, and why would it take so long to build?

Dupes actually believed Trump meant political violence, and fell for a very simple fallacy as proffered by those who would exploit their gullibility. That’s the important context. — NOS4A2

Yes, but here's the important question. When the "dupes" interpret in the way that they do, does Trump expect in advance that they will interpret that way, and say those words with that intention?

So for example, when Trump used "fight" twenty whatever times in his Jan 6 speech, did he expect that the dupes in the audience would believe that he meant political violence, and he was thereby exploiting their gullibility?

I don’t know how anyone could expect that. Really, only an idiot would think that when he says Jim Jordan is fighting in the house, for example, that he meant Jim was body-slamming Dems on the house floor. Or when he says Rudy is a fighter, Giuliani must be boxing cow carcasses in a walk-in freezer somewhere. Or when Republicans don’t fight, you have to primary the hell out of them? Yet his “fight like hell” remark was somehow literal, and found a home in the Jan 6th show trial as incitement to insurrection. What kind of idiot believes that? Just dupes.

What actual solutions do you have in mind? — NOS4A2

I think we've already had this discussion when it was current. Starting from the fact that if you make an impenetrable border, then you'll move people to come on dingies and whatever ships from the Gulf coast or the Pacific.

You have to have a far more multifaceted approach than a wall. Starting from things like coordination among officials, creating a policy that does has general support, not one which will create such opposition that you start talking about Sanctuary Cities. But for that you have to have actual leadership skills, not just be a good demagogue inventing fancy slogans like "builiding a wall and Mexico will pay for it".

Didn’t Finland start building a big fence just recently? — NOS4A2

To show argue my point, let's delve into this.

You have to start with the fundamentals. First, people don't immigrate to Finland from Russia or via Russia from Third World countries into Finland. It isn't either a viable natural way to come to the EU. There is no chronic shortage of work force in Finland as there is in for example in California, where even with one million unemployed, a worker shortage persists.

Second, the "migrant crisis" on the borders have been artificially created by Russia. Journalists have reported how officials have given assistance to the migrants and naturally the most obvious reason is that when the migrants have been interviewed, they have given a unison story of how the FSB has gone through construction sites in Moscow and told them that now there's an opportunity to go into the EU. Finland has seen this, the officials and politicians understand this, to talk about it isn't creating a political turmoil because the older pro-Kremlin politicians have been silenced or have changed their attitudes towards Russia.

The response wasn't only to "build a fence". The response of Finland was to shut down the border to everybody. Nobody comes over the border or goes to Russia, not Finns or Russians either. If you were a Russian living in Finland, you have to go to Russia through another country. Also you can't even apply for refugee status at the border. They simply won't let you in. The border was totally quiet, I've seen it with my own eyes. (Building a fence is a minor issue to simply closing the border, don't you think?)

Above all, the parties did this in agreement. The opposition wasn't against it. Hardly any opposition to the actions was noticeable in the media or in the political discourse. Also the EU understands the Finnish position. Finland hasn't been tagged out as a reckless country for closing their borders. The case of Russia using migrants and asylum seekers as a way of a hybrid attack was clear cut to everybody.

So actually, Finland is a perfect example of democracies having the ability to close their borders quickly and not create a huge political turmoil in the process. (The border is scheduled to open 14th of the next month and they'll look if Russia will continue it's hybrid attacks.)

And here's the real problem with Trump. Trump supporters all love that he irritates the other side with his rhetoric and actions. But in order to shut the border, you need a lot more leadership skills than a mere slogan and a stupid fixation on structures that even when working, is only a small detail in a far larger complex effort. Yes, you can argue that you have a border problem. But hardly anything is done to unite the people into looking at the problem. And then there comes the obvious question:

Is Trump the kind of guy that will talk to the opposition, get them to tow the rope together? Is he capable of persuading people beyond his base?

No.

The great demagogue has little if any leadership skills. And he won't compromise because it might look bad for his base. His four years prove that as his administration was far more chaotic than anything we had seen and his future administration will be so. Now he will have the Republican A-team right from the start, but Trump being Trump and as he has already been POTUS, I assume he will start to gather sycophants and yes-men around him. He will not, for example, go with the idea as previously to ask the military who are the best generals.

The great demagogue has little if any leadership skills. And he won't compromise because it might look bad for his base. His four years prove that as his administration was far more chaotic than anything we had seen and his future administration will be so. Now he will have the Republican A-team right from the start, but Trump being Trump and as he has already been POTUS, I assume he will start to gather sycophants and yes-men around him. He will not, for example, go with the idea as previously to ask the military who are the best generals. — ssu

Though I generally agree, I think the main difference between a second Trump administration and the first one will be a quest for vengeance.

As chaotic as it was, Trump's first presidency was mainly focused on "trying to be president" as defined by the establishment. From what I could tell, in Trump's mind he had "won" and earned the respect of his elite peers and could just "enjoy being president" while putting his own spin on a few things.

Did we lock her up? Did we drain the swamp?

We didn't even build the wall, as you note above.

Trump's problem in his first presidency was a lack of sycophants available as the Trump movement didn't really exist at the time, so there wasn't really a class of "Trump politicians and operators". Hence hiring a bunch of generals, as there wasn't really anyone else available. There's more such "Trump people" now that have held office or otherwise have experience.

What an administration of such people would do could be significantly more chaotic, especially when mixed with a quest to counter-attack.

Which, on that note, as much as democrats are celebrating Trump's recent legal losses, he can just take the L, have properties seized in New York and then still go onto to be president.

Like 2016, there's still plenty of powerful people that will have more to gain from a Trump presidency, whether from difference in policy or direct favouritism.

Since the Superpack is a legal thing, the "smart money" can go to those to mostly attack Biden, and what Trump raises from his base can keep him afloat. I.e. that Trump has taken a half billion dollar hit does not mean that a half billion dollars needs to be raised before any money is spent on campaigning.

As of today 21 March 24, Criminal Defendent / Insurrectionist / Russian Asset / Fraudster / Rapist / Defamer / Grifter / electoral Loser-1 is also a

$97 million judgment-debtor (2× defamation)
+
$465 million judgment-debtor (business fraud)
=
$562 million (so far) Debtor-1

Will "poorly educated" MAGA morons keep being suckers for this old semi-senile whiny fat man-baby's pathetic grift? Will Rupert, Elon, Peter, Harlon ... MBS or Vlad pony up the $465 million by Monday, 25 March 24 to stop New York State (judgment-creditor2) from seizing Debtor-1's (mostly owned by lenders & partners) real estate properties (I really hope NYS AG Letitia James seizes his plane(s) first!)? TBD. :smirk:

Like others, I can't understand why Trump is attracting support. Do the people supporting him really understand what he says he will do? Are they OK with him saying he will suspend the Constitution and free all of the convicted January 6th felons, who he calls 'freedom fighters?' Every time he speaks, it's a torrent of lies, disinformation, and threats. He doesn't come remotely near articulating ( :roll: ) actual policy, and never demonstrated any actual ability to get legislation done while in office. So what gives? Do people really not care, or does he just symbolise something they think they believe, without knowing what any of it really means? A large part of the country believes he ought to be in the Oval Office, and another (probably larger) part believes he ought to be in jail.

So the bottom line is, I still don't get it. This is not a game, or reality television - we have a semi-literate narcissist threatening to basically create a one-party state to satisfy his own ego. And people are buying it. There must have been considerably more than one born every minute.

Based on his own party's primary elections since January, the former president is being rejected by 1 in 5 hardcore voting Republicans several months out from the general election. Debtor-1's base of support has been ebbing away since he's chosen to polarize the electorate rather than reach out to more moderate and centrist voters. In other words, he's not "attracting support" and probably hasn't been since the criminal indictments dropped last year.

As for what his MAGA supporters are thinking? Obviously they are not. They are glanding, all spleen and bile, zombies radicalized vicariously by their Cult Leader's performative grievances and scapegoating wishlist. "The Donald" speaks for them like a perverse, howling avatar of pent-up confusions and insecurities and jealousies, his malignant narcissism giving them permission to openly hate, threaten and assassinate in the name of White Christian Nationalism's "god". True, most are not (actively) racist or sexist, they are just hypnotized by rightwing media's jackboot "score settling" fantasies – MAGA is about feeling powerful and not about being / remaining free, conspiring and not deliberating, nostalgia for an America that never was and not an American (& global) future with less poverty corruption injustice & violence.

2-3 out of 10 of my fellow citizens are nihilists who are PTSD'd by opiods, booze, OnlyFans porn, very poor education, disinforming social media silos, chronic loneliness, political disengagement, personal and political corruption, and everyday grinding banality. MAGA is a nationwide gang of disaffected dead-enders, mostly blue collar white men and Christian Taliban-type "evangelicals". I suspect a "bloodbath" is coming ... and will kick off when their bankrupt faux-billionaire Cult Leader is finally convicted of dozens of felonies in Manhattan this June/July (or he's jailed for contempt of some court along the way). MAGA is the most recent symptom of the rot deep in the bowels of "Pax Americana" manifest by rabid red-hatted hordes demanding to be lied to by FOX Noise, RT, OAN, NooseMax, etc and offering up their last freedoms to the next Reichstag bonfire.

Anyway, I'm betting on the 6 in 10 of us likely voters to stop the firestorm this fall. Beyond that, Wayfarer, who knows ... :mask:

There is another faction, those more aligned with the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Hillsdale College. They certainly are not uneducated. They are the "elites" that they and others love to blame.

They are not the MAGA faithful but, at least for now, back him and the plan to consolidate executive power. Whereas Trump and the Trumpsters are focused on him, they have their sights set on long term goals. Win or lose, when Trump is gone, they remain.

I think the main difference between a second Trump administration and the first one will be a quest for vengeance.

As chaotic as it was, Trump's first presidency was mainly focused on "trying to be president" as defined by the establishment. From what I could tell, in Trump's mind he had "won" and earned the respect of his elite peers and could just "enjoy being president" while putting his own spin on a few things.

Did we lock her up? Did we drain the swamp?

We didn't even build the wall, as you note above. — boethius

Actually I agree with this. It's a very apt way to put how Trump will see his second time: quest for vengeance. He will likely be far more determined, and where that determination leads us, Heavens know.

Like 2016, there's still plenty of powerful people that will have more to gain from a Trump presidency, whether from difference in policy or direct favouritism.

Since the Superpack is a legal thing, the "smart money" can go to those to mostly attack Biden, and what Trump raises from his base can keep him afloat. I.e. that Trump has taken a half billion dollar hit does not mean that a half billion dollars needs to be raised before any money is spent on campaigning. — boethius

This is true also.

And there are powerful interest groups that can put down hundreds of millions in loans (or investments), if and when it decides US foreign policy. Heck, the 2017 Shayrat cruise missile strike that Trump ordered, cost more than hundred million dollars.

There is another faction, those more aligned with the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Hillsdale College. They certainly are not uneducated. They are the "elites" that they and others love to blame. — Fooloso4

There's also the funders of those organizations (the elites' elite), and there's hundreds of billions of dollars on the line in terms of policy. If you can't bribe Biden (because he's already bribed by a competing company or industry), then Trump is the only alternative.

Plenty of billionaires and multimillionaires in the US and bribery is essentially legal, so Trump has plenty of "haggle space". Even if you don't think Trump will win, (if you're a billionaire) the chance that he might win easily justifies "investing" in Trump's campaign when there is so much money on the line.

This is in addition to the long term goals you mention which require backing Trump, keeping the base as vibrant as possible and then co-opting Trump's base later when Trump's less relevant or dead.

↪Wayfarer Based on his own party's primary elections since January, the former president is being rejected by 1 in 5 hardcore voting Republicans several months out from the general election. Debtor-1's base of support has been ebbing away since he's chosen to polarize the electorate rather than reach out to more moderate and centrist voters. In other words, he's not "attracting support" and probably hasn't been since the criminal indictments dropped last year. — 180 Proof

Do the polls actually show this? Seems Trump is gaining in popularity since the nomination (favourable rating) while also gaining in dislike (unfavourable rating); i.e. the undecided middle is starting to compress.

Favourable: 42.8%
Unfavourable: 52.6% — Donald Trump - Five Thirty Eight

Which obviously is more unfavourable than favourable, by a lot.

But Biden is even more ahead in disapproval compared to approval (40.0% approve and 54.6% disaprove).

In terms of projected votes, Trump vs. Biden are dead even in two of the listed polls, and Biden up 3% in one poll and Trump ahead by 7% in another poll.

Red states have far more electoral college power per vote than the Blue states, so dead even in the polls is a significant Trump advantage.

So I'm not sure Trump is losing in popularity at all since the time you mentioned, but maybe a longer data set would show that.

2-3 out of 10 of my fellow citizens are nihilists who are PTSD'd by opiods, booze, OnlyFans porn, very poor education, disinforming social media silos, chronic loneliness, political disengagement, personal and political corruption, and everyday grinding banality. — 180 Proof

Yes, but you have to ask yourself the question of who made things this way?

Joe Biden would be pretty high on the list of suspects.

At some point almost any change is seen as better than continuing the status quo, at least "you try" something else.

And there are powerful interest groups that can put down hundreds of millions in loans (or investments), if and when it decides US foreign policy. Heck, the 2017 Shayrat cruise missile strike that Trump ordered, cost more than hundred million dollars. — ssu

Yes, there's just too much money at stake and Biden can't satisfy all the money simultaneously.

Even if Biden satisfies the biggest money there's still plenty of second tier billionaires and corporations that will be left out and would need to go to Trump for whatever it is if they want a chance at making considerably more money.

And it's not just hundreds of millions, but hundreds of billions (Fortune 500) and trillions (banks) determined by different policy over a 4 year period (spread over various billionaires and multi-millionaires), in addition to the long-term momentum. So compared to this the 1 to 2 billion needed to "have a go" at the presidency is simply not that much money, and some of the tab is covered by normal people.

At some point almost any change is seen as better than continuing the status quo, at least "you try" something else. — boethius

And this is strange, since the economy is usually the top issue, and it's been humming along: stock market highs (most people have 401(k)'s, so they benefit from Wall Street doing well), record low unemployment, inflation back under control, 3+% GDP growth. But the majority of people hate this economy. Maybe because buying a house and renting have become so expensive. But it's hard to see what Trump would do to change that.

And this is strange, since the economy is usually the top issue, and it's been humming along: stock market highs (most people have 401(k)'s, so they benefit from Wall Street doing well), record low unemployment, inflation back under control, 3+% GDP growth. But the majority of people hate this economy. Maybe because buying a house and renting have become so expensive. But it's hard to see what Trump would do to change that. — RogueAI

Certainly agree it's hard to see what Trump would do.

However, the economic numbers are nearly entirely make-belief propaganda.

The official inflation is adjusted by simply substituting cheaper things for whatever increases in price.

I'm honestly not sure most people have 401(k)'s of any substantial worth, but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Most importantly, employment only matters if jobs are good and actually provide for a comfortable and secure life, ideally meaningful also. These kinds of jobs are now pretty rare. If you're reduced to wage slavery then you resent and hate having a job and absolutely hate the system that keeps you trapped.

Then there's issue like crime, which you're going to prioritize over a lot of other things, such as your 401(k) for example doesn't mean as much if you think you maybe robbed and / or shot any day, and if not you then your children, and what matters here is perception and not actual chances of being robbed and / or shot.

What is not perception based is health. Again, no point in having wealth if you don't have the health to enjoy it and Americans are incredibly unhealthy. People do realize it's "the system" of corporate grifting and corruption that is making them sick and then dealing with the American health insurance is a nightmare. Worse than being sick yourself is your kids being sick.

There's also the decay of public spaces and infrastructure which people internalize as a low hum of constant anxiety.

Then there's the social media and the already mentioned porn, and so on.

Now, Trump's supporters may not understand what ails them in any coherent or systemic sense, much less how it could be actually fixed, but they do understand that the establishment has been lying to them.

Which is the foundational appeal of Trump; he's willing to say anything that will play well to his supporters, and so he'll say obvious truths that the establishment has just been gaslighting Americans about for literally decades.

For example:

President Trump blasted former President George W. Bush on Saturday over the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, calling it “the single worst decision ever made.”

Speaking at a closed-door event with Republican donors in Florida, Trump mocked Bush’s intellect and compared his decision to invade Iraq to “throwing a big fat brick into a hornet’s nest.”

“Here we are, like the dummies of the world, because we had bad politicians running our country for a long time,” Trump said, according to CNN, which obtained a recording of the president’s remarks.

“That was Bush. Another real genius. That was Bush,” Trump joked. “That turned out to be wonderful intelligence. Great intelligence agency there.” — Trump hits Bush: Invading Iraq ‘the single worst decision ever made’ - The Hill

Which you may expect republicans don't want to hear, but that's not the case.

Of course, it's not what the Republican establishment that made those decisions wants to hear, but Republicans are over represented in the army and the Iraq war was a total disaster on US military communities, not just Iraqis, and obviously it was a not just a disaster in terms of death and destruction and trauma, but the US doesn't even have the oil! So wasn't some sort of strategic "worth it" move to get the oil or oppose communism or something.

It was a terrible mistake and Trump is willing to call a spade a spade, something people who suffer from a mistake want to hear: maybe people are held accountable a bit at least in being called out in pubilc, maybe something is learned so it doesn't happen again.

Again, totally agree that Trump has no coherent plan to make things better, but it's not a mystery why he has so much support (enough to win the presidency once and also this recent primary).

"National polls" are not predictive since US presidential elections are not "national elections". Also, polling only becomes somewhat meaningful, or predictive, in the Fall 6-8 weeks before election day indicating electoral trends only in swing states and only of likely voters. The results from the presidential primaries are indicative of party unity or disunity behind the nominee. About 20-25% of actual voters in state Republican primaries did not vote for Loser-1 even after he's become the only candidate left in the race. This indicates he's losing support of (most of) those actual GOP voters. Compared to 2020, Loser-1 is underperforming both with voters and donations to his campaign, which is consistent with the trend with women in particular voting against the MAGA-GOP since SCOTUS trashed women's reproductive rights in 2022. Given these indisputable circumstances, do you really believe Loser-1's electoral prospects are going to improve in the coming months? If so, I think that's ahistorical wishful thinking ... but who knows, right? I'm not a betting man but I haven't lost since 2017 betting against the Cult Leader & his MAGA-GOP circus of flying monkeys. :sweat:

I'm not as concerned with Trump winning the election as I am with him losing the vote count. He has been busy keeping his MAGA base stirred up, and if he loses he might incite them to disrupt procedures at the Capital and overturn the presidency by force of arms, not simply wandering the Halls of Congress.

Perhaps not. I wish he would calm his rhetoric.