Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[sadoldgit]

I know that this is tough for Trump apologists to handle but here we go…

In July 2023, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word. In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll’s accusation of “rape” is “substantially true”.

As for the lower burden of proof, you still have to prove it in court. Would you argue that OJ Simpson did not really kill two people just because the verdict was made with a lower burden of proof?

 

Edited November 7 by sadoldgit

[pingpong]

Seems like semantics, I don't think anyone is suggesting trump is not a rapist and a paedophile?

I've not heard anyone on either side suggest otherwise, it's just about whether you think that disqualifies him from leading the country, and that is clearly stated by the election result - it's not relevant.

[Weston Super Saint]

28 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I know that this is tough for Trump apologists to handle but here we go…

In July 2023, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word. In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll’s accusation of “rape” is “substantially true”.

As for the lower burden of proof, you still have to prove it in court. Would you argue that OJ Simpson did not really kill two people just because the verdict was made with a lower burden of proof?

 

So he was convicted then?

If so, link?

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Seems like semantics, I don't think anyone is suggesting trump is not a rapist and a paedophile?

I've not heard anyone on either side suggest otherwise, it's just about whether you think that disqualifies him from leading the country, and that is clearly stated by the election result - it's not relevant.

And that is for 'Mericans to decide, not mongboarders.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, pingpong said:

Seems like semantics, I don't think anyone is suggesting trump is not a rapist and a paedophile?

I've not heard anyone on either side suggest otherwise, it's just about whether you think that disqualifies him from leading the country, and that is clearly stated by the election result - it's not relevant.

Perhaps it should be relevant that someone convicted of rape/seriously sexually assaulting another person should automatically be barred from standing for high office?

Semantics? The issue here is that in New York, the definition of rape is penile penetration whereas elsewhere it includes digital penetration. They were unable to determine whether it was penile or digital penetration, but although he was not found guilty of rape technically, as the Judge clarified, he did in fact rape Carroll, so calling him a rapist is accurate. There are many other outstanding charges against him which, if found guilty for (if he ever stands trial for them) should probably also preclude him from standing for, let alone actually being sworn in, as President.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And that is for 'Mericans to decide, not mongboarders.

We can still have a point of view though, yes? Especially as American policies have such an effect on us on this side of the pond.

Edited November 7 by sadoldgit

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps it should be relevant that someone convicted of rape/seriously sexually assaulting another person should automatically be barred from standing for high office?

Semantics? The issue here is that in New York, the definition of rape is penile penetration whereas elsewhere it includes digital penetration. They were unable to determine whether it was penile or digital penetration, but although he was not found guilty of rape technically, as the Judge clarified, he did in fact rape Carroll, so calling him a rapist is accurate. There are many other outstanding charges against him which, if found guilty for (if he ever stands trial for them) should probably also preclude him from standing for, let alone actually being sworn in, as President.

so you admit you lied before when you said he was a convicted rapist. Congratulations. 

[rallyboy]

Massive progress in the US this week.

The losers have accepted the result with dignity and not encouraged every dumb fuck in the area to riot.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

I’m currently in Florida on holiday, and it is baffling overhearing people in queues talk about him like he’s some kind of hero.

I know Florida is hard Republican territory but it’s honestly incredible how thick as shit some people are.

Such a severe lack of education in parts of the US.

Do you think attitudes like yours make it more or less likely that there will be repeats of these types of results in the future? The reason I ask is because in my view the attitude you're displaying here is very likely to have had at least some impact in a portion of the American public voting Republican. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

We can still have a point of view though, yes? Especially as American policies have such an effect on us on this side of the pond.

Name one policy that has 'such an effect on us'.

[FarehamSaintJames]

[Gloucester Saint]

Project 2025 is a very chilling strategy, from the Heritage Foundation, a certain former poster’s favourite cut and paste source. It’s a hard right policy Kleenex list (other tissue brands are available).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

My sense is however that Trump doesn’t care that much for it and more hassle than it is worth.

JD Vance definitely does though and was seemingly involved in the drafting. Given he’s only in his early 40s, the Democrats need to build around Sharpiro as a front runner early to build around, and build up funds quickly for the mid-terms and then squeeze Vance for 2028. 

Edited November 7 by Gloucester Saint

[trousers]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Do you think attitudes like yours make it more or less likely that there will be repeats of these types of results in the future? The reason I ask is because in my view the attitude you're displaying here is very likely to have had at least some impact in a portion of the American public voting Republican. 

Hey! That's my "routine". Kindly get your own...!

[Sheaf Saint]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

So many people on the left denegrate those who don't vote for them as thick, evil or dangerous. This is to a much greater degree than someone on the right would do the same to someone on the left. 

Indeed.

They just use childish terms like Loony Lefties, Libtards, Snowflakes and Woke Brigade instead.

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Lol

[whelk]

I hate this progressive wokeness causing people to get upset when you call thick cunts thick cunts

[whelk]

33 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Nightmare trying to remember that acronym

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Indeed.

They just use childish terms like Loony Lefties, Libtards, Snowflakes and Woke Brigade instead.

Like I said, not really at the same level as literally Hitler, racist, sexist etc etc. You're hardly likely to run the risk of losing your job or having your life destroyed because someone falsely accuses you of being a snowflake or part of the woke brigade. 

Edited November 7 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

I hate this progressive wokeness causing people to get upset when you call thick cunts thick cunts

Living in a free country means you can pretty much call people what you like. I just wouldn't go around acting shocked when those people being labelled tell the political side labelling them to fuck off at the ballot box. 

[Gloucester Saint]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Like I said, not really at the same level as literally Hitler, racist, exist etc etc. You're hardly likely to run the risk of losing your job or having your life destroyed because someone falsely accuses you of being a snowflake or part of the woke brigade. 

To be fair to Sheaf, under what the Heritage Foundation have drawn up with Project 2025, you absolutely would, a climate scientist would be a criminal.

From the evidence visible, Trump isn’t fussed by it and thinks it’s way too much hassle/load of bollocks but he’s 78 and there’s a whole movement behind him who do believe in it, horrific as it is. Hence the Democrats only have a brief window to mope into their Brooklyn Pilsner because the mid-terms and 2028 need to be planned for now. They need that precision they had in their tactics under Obama back.

Edited November 7 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Living in a free country means you can pretty much call people what you like. I just wouldn't go around acting shocked when those people being labelled tell the political side labelling them to fuck off at the ballot box. 

I think you and Trousers see this too simply. Aligns to the narrative he loves to pedal - they don’t respect you or your opinion. I mean many of us feel like that with politicians. My issue is that Trump and  Farage are very much the elite and love to dupe the disillusioned that they are different and have got their backs eg Trumps bs promises to rebuild US coal industry etc. The bloke is clearly a charlatan akin to a cult leader who squirrels money from his flock. Let’s see how pleased they are with what the economy and tariffs have done for the average working man in the rust belt come 2028.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

I think you and Trousers see this too simply. Aligns to the narrative he loves to pedal - they don’t respect you or your opinion. I mean many of us feel like that with politicians. My issue is that Trump and  Farage are very much the elite and love to dupe the disillusioned that they are different and have got their backs eg Trumps bs promises to rebuild US coal industry etc. The bloke is clearly a charlatan akin to a cult leader who squirrels money from his flock. Let’s see how pleased they are with what the economy and tariffs have done for the average working man in the rust belt come 2028.

I'd argue that the likes of the Clintons are much more an example of the elite. Trump didn't have every celebrity going like Beyonce, mark hamill, Taylor Swift etc shilling for him. The Clintons spent half their lives in politics and are worth hundreds of millions since getting into power. 

The American people had four years of both political parties and decided they preferred the experience of four years of Trump. It's not about one side being good and one being bad, it's not even about if people particularly liked Trump or not. The choice for the American public was clear and they obviously preferred the way the world was under Trump, the good the bad and the ugly. That the Democrats failed to convince so badly is on them.

 

Edited November 7 by hypochondriac

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I'd argue that the likes of the Clintons are much more an example of the elite. Trump didn't have every celebrity going like Beyonce, mark hamill, Taylor Swift etc shilling for him. The Clintons spent half their lives in politics and are worth hundreds of millions since getting into power. 

The American people had four years of both political parties and decided they preferred the experience of four years of Trump. It's not about one side being good and one being bad, it's not even about if people particularly liked Trump or not. The choice for the American public was clear and they obviously preferred the way the world was under Trump, the good the bad and the ugly. That the Democrats failed to convince so badly is on them.

 

They’re both the elite - Trump had a huge PAC investment from Musk, the Kock billionaires have pumped huge money into the GOP. Trump inherited a lot of money and assets with the family business. The other fact is that the Democrats have been and remain a mess post-Obama. They need a compelling counter narrative of how they’ll create new industries to keep the lights on to get a big majority with younger voters. The former coal communities ain’t coming back to them. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They’re both the elite - Trump had a huge PAC investment from Musk, the Kock billionaires have pumped huge money into the GOP. Trump inherited a lot of money and assets with the family business. The other fact is that the Democrats have been and remain a mess post-Obama. They need a compelling counter narrative of how they’ll create new industries to keep the lights on to get a big majority with younger voters. The former coal communities ain’t coming back to them. 

In some ways Trump is rather ingenious because not only is he entertaining and genuinely quite amusing at times, he can simultaneously be an extremely wealthy individual and appeal to the working class in a way that no American politician can. Even being able to have fun and be less serious provides welcome relief to a public used to the same sort of fake narrative and manner from regular politicians. That's a big reason he won imo. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps it should be relevant that someone convicted of rape/seriously sexually assaulting another person should automatically be barred from standing for high office?

If only the Founding Fathers had your wisdom, the world would be such a better place…

[Gloucester Saint]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In some ways Trump is rather ingenious because not only is he entertaining and genuinely quite amusing at times, he can simultaneously be an extremely wealthy individual and appeal to the working class in a way that no American politician can. Even being able to have fun and be less serious provides welcome relief to a public used to the same sort of fake narrative and manner from regular politicians. That's a big reason he won imo. 

He’s got a unique status as a non-Washington system person - really The Apprentice and the visibility of his enterprises enabled him to parachute in with that profile. Plus he was non-aligned for most of his life and in fact more involved in Democrat politics 90s and 00s in NYC. It’d be hard to replicate again in the same way by anyone else.

Main reason is people thought they were better off in 2020 with the cost of living and borrowing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze3yr77j9wo

They may well have been too given the post-pandemic inflation we’ve all experienced and impact of Putin’s war. But his tariffs didn’t work last time - cost of washing machines shot up for domestic consumers when he slapped 50% on those, hurting the lowest incomes, hopefully he’s learned from that https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20myx1erl6o

Edited November 7 by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Name one policy that has 'such an effect on us'.

Trade tariffs / non-negotiation of a trans-Atlantic trade deal

Increased use of fossil fuels

Pulling support from NATO in Europe

Edited November 7 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

59 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Trade tariffs / non-negotiation of a trans-Atlantic trade deal

Increased use of fossil fuels

Pulling support from NATO in Europe

Be interesting test for the “support Ukraine for as long as it takes” comment should Trump end the war / substantial US support.

 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Be interesting test for the “support Ukraine for as long as it takes” comment should Trump end the war / substantial US support.

 

To be honest if Trump forces Ukraine to settle and maybe allow Russia to have Crimea and a few other bits that are basically Russian and not allow Ukraine to join NATO, the majority of the general public around the world will be pleased even if the public response will be outrage. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

To be honest if Trump forces Ukraine to settle and maybe allow Russia to have Crimea and a few other bits that are basically Russian and not allow Ukraine to join NATO, the majority of the general public around the world will be pleased even if the public response will be outrage. 

What’s in it for Ukraine though? They can’t fight at the same level if Trump slows the funding package but Russia’s operations are now in part propped up by N Korea. And America doesn’t want that. Crimea and Donbas will go to Putin in any settlement next year, RUSI have predicted that for months. Although the latter Putin’s forces have smashed to shit, and Russia has no money for reparations anywhere with their economy in tatters. 
Trump has campaigned on not funding overseas wars so can’t fill the reparations gap either, but what he can do is NATO membership which would also be a positive stroke for Western Europe, who are concerned about Putin holding on for another 4 years for a crack at Latvia/Lithuania. 

Putin would hate that but he’s already in a corner and Xi won’t supply any more credit. He can claim a hollow win for liberating the Russian speaking lands. 

Edited November 7 by Gloucester Saint

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

To be honest if Trump forces Ukraine to settle and maybe allow Russia to have Crimea and a few other bits that are basically Russian and not allow Ukraine to join NATO, the majority of the general public around the world will be pleased even if the public response will be outrage. 

Trump can’t force Ukraine to settle anything, those bits are not ‘basically Russian’ and the general public would not be pleased with a brutal tyrant being rewarded for a war of cruelty against innocent civilians.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Trump can’t force Ukraine to settle anything, those bits are not ‘basically Russian’ and the general public would not be pleased with a brutal tyrant being rewarded for a war of cruelty against innocent civilians.

It's going to end with some sort of negotiation in the end. The only question is when that's going to be. 

[washsaint]

I posted this on the Ugly and a couple of days later it is truer than ever.  Seeing imbeciles like Jimmy Kimmel nearly in tears, thinking anyone gives a s**t about what he thinks about the election is beyond amusing.

Likewise the left in the US cannot see the irony: shouting from the rooftops that they are pro-women and then supporting men taking part in women's sports under the label 'transgender'.

Oh, how funny it has been seeing the liberal elites all throw tantrums over the election results here in the US.

Americans do not like being told how to think, what to support or being labeled 'fascists' because they have a different view to the person assigning this label. Likewise Americans, by their very nature, are quite conservative. The whole transgender nonsense (allowing men into womens sports) did not sit well (as the election shows) with the silent majority all while the shameless left patted themselves on the back and continued to hide the obvious: Biden's mental capacities severely diminished.

In the years following 2016 Americans did very well from the Trump presidency until COVID.

If Trump is a 'fascist' then why did his share of the black community, Jewish community and Latino community soar?

I did not vote for Trump (nor Harris) but can understand why a lot of people did.

[east-stand-nic]

On 06/11/2024 at 18:19, sadoldgit said:

When a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist starts talking about FACTS! You know it is tin foil hat time.

So no answers or comeback of intelligence, just the usual BS. And you have the nerve to criticize others. 

[aintforever]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's going to end with some sort of negotiation in the end. The only question is when that's going to be. 

Not really the only question though is it.

How much of Europe do you surrender to a brutal dictator is one pretty important question too. Also, another fairly important one is how do you stop the inevitable future invasions once you cave in to Putin over this?

Edited November 8 by aintforever

[egg]

6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Trump can’t force Ukraine to settle anything, those bits are not ‘basically Russian’ and the general public would not be pleased with a brutal tyrant being rewarded for a war of cruelty against innocent civilians.

This will have a negotiated settlement.  The US won't sponsor a fight to the bitter end, or at all, and the rest of NATO won't fancy it without US backing. With western backing Ukraine are still losing ground, without it there'll lose the whole lot. 

I don't agree with Hypo re "basically Russian", but he's correct that this will resolve itself. 

[egg]

Just now, aintforever said:

Not really the only question though is it.

How much of Europe do you surrender to a brutal dictator is one pretty important question too. Also another fairly important one is how do you stop the inevitable future invasions once you cave in to Putin over this?

Play the tspe forward. If NATO europe continue to support Ukraine after a US pull out, and Russia make gains, what next? We either lose or pull out and look weak either way making a push further into Europe a stronger possibility, or we get our hands dirty on the ground and have a European war, then god knows what. Russia will keep land, and this will end. Forget idealism - that's reality. 

[whelk]

10 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

and a few other bits that are basically Russian

WTF?

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Play the tspe forward. If NATO europe continue to support Ukraine after a US pull out, and Russia make gains, what next? We either lose or pull out and look weak either way making a push further into Europe a stronger possibility, or we get our hands dirty on the ground and have a European war, then god knows what. Russia will keep land, and this will end. Forget idealism - that's reality. 

If NATO caves in to Russia it won't end with the Dombas - that's also reality.

There will have to be an agreement in the end but it can't end with Russia dictating wether Ukraine joins NATO or not, if that's the outcome it's basically surrender and we might as well prepare for a European war.

[egg]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

If NATO caves in to Russia it won't end with the Dombas - that's also reality.

There will have to be an agreement in the end but it can't end with Russia dictating wether Ukraine joins NATO or not, if that's the outcome it's basically surrender and we might as well prepare for a European war.

You're ignoring the inevitable US withdrawal of support. NATO without them, in reality, is Europe. Do you really think Nato Europe will want to (or can - they can't btw) increase its arms support to Ukraine, or get it's hands dirty? It's that which will lead to European war, not a settlement.

[hypochondriac]

47 minutes ago, whelk said:

WTF?

"Ukraine would not need to permanently concede the loss of territory but could pursue nonmilitary means to regain its 1991 borders. Russia, for its part, would face continued repercussions, as sanctions would remain in place, and its frozen assets would be used to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction"

"Beebe and Lieven imply that Ukraine would need to accept continued occupation of the territory presently under Moscow’s control. However, they likewise propose that the loss need not be permanent and would be up for negotiation between the two sides sometime down the road."

Personally I don't see that as outlandish. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, aintforever said:

If NATO caves in to Russia it won't end with the Dombas - that's also reality.

There will have to be an agreement in the end but it can't end with Russia dictating wether Ukraine joins NATO or not, if that's the outcome it's basically surrender and we might as well prepare for a European war.

Which is why it would probably be some sort of wooly compromise. Leaving the door open for future membership but stating it's not on the cards any time soon. 

[aintforever]

38 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

"Ukraine would not need to permanently concede the loss of territory but could pursue nonmilitary means to regain its 1991 borders. Russia, for its part, would face continued repercussions, as sanctions would remain in place, and its frozen assets would be used to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction"

"Beebe and Lieven imply that Ukraine would need to accept continued occupation of the territory presently under Moscow’s control. However, they likewise propose that the loss need not be permanent and would be up for negotiation between the two sides sometime down the road."

Personally I don't see that as outlandish. 

That's basically surrender. You're in fucking dreamland if you think they could cave in then negotiate their way back to 1991 borders.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You're ignoring the inevitable US withdrawal of support.

It is not inevitable

[badgerx16]

To paraphrase Bonnie Greer on QT;

The USA is a continent between 2 walls, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and is only interested in preserving that situation. They don't care about what happens elsewhere in the World unless it is in their insular interest. Fundamentally it is a country founded by people running away from something, and want to protect their land from everybody else.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

To paraphrase Bonnie Greer on QT;

The USA is a continent between 2 walls, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and is only interested in preserving that situation. They don't care about what happens elsewhere in the World unless it is in their insular interest. Fundamentally it is a country founded by people running away from something, and want to protect their land from everybody else.

Not really true although maybe is now with Trump at the helm. Those thinking all the US security agencies are just going to act on his crazy whims might need to think again. 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Not really true although maybe is now with Trump at the helm. Those thinking all the US security agencies are just going to act on his crazy whims might need to think again. 

Well, they rushed into the 17-18 war and the 41-45 one. I don't think they have ever really forgiven us for burning Washington in 1814.

Edited Friday at 08:54 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Which is why it would probably be some sort of wooly compromise. Leaving the door open for future membership but stating it's not on the cards any time soon. 

Your proposal is basically just that everything carries on as it is, but Ukraine signs a piece of paper which says that certain bits of it are legal, in effect rewarding Russia for their aggression. It’s straight out of the Neville Chamberlain playbook, one side believes they’ve negotiated a compromise and are working towards a peaceful solution, the other side thinks they’ve just signed a random piece of paper.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Your proposal is basically just that everything carries on as it is, but Ukraine signs a piece of paper which says that certain bits of it are legal, in effect rewarding Russia for their aggression. It’s straight out of the Neville Chamberlain playbook, one side believes they’ve negotiated a compromise and are working towards a peaceful solution, the other side thinks they’ve just signed a random piece of paper.

That would be the case if a piece of paper were signed and nothing else happened. It would have to be rigorously enforced. Supposedly there was talk of certain countries signing an agreement that further acts of aggression relating to this matter would mean intervention from those other countries in support of Ukraine. I don't see how that's a success for Russia. How do you propose it ends given Trump in a best case scenario will reduce his support for Ukraine. 

 

Edited Friday at 09:25 by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

It is not inevitable

True, inevitable is strong, but felt very likely.