Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[egg]

54 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.

He's not making a proposal. He's saying what he thinks is likely. Nobody wants a climb down from Ukraine/NATO.

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

He's not making a proposal. He's saying what he thinks is likely. Nobody wants a climb down from Ukraine/NATO.

Yep. On balance I think it should continue but I don't think it will. 

[Baird of the land]

2 hours 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.

There’s no certain reality that it won’t end with Dombas if there’s some sort of deal. That’s just war hawk propaganda. Especially the ludicrous notion Russia is aiming for European war. Some sort of negotiated settlement was always the likely end point. Trump’s arrival may eventually lead to some serious conservations on that score, which have been absent up till now.

[sadoldgit]

9 hours ago, washsaint said:

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.

There was an in depth discussion about why certain people voted for Trump who you wouldn’t expect to. It comes down to looking after number 1. They are more worried about their personal circumstances than those of others. So what if he thinks that people of the same background are “cockroaches” , they are here and they want to survive here. If there neighbour is in danger of being deported, so what, that is there problem.

Bernie Saunders makes this point very well. The far right, in this case Trump, are very good at looking after the rich and powerful (the minority) by dividing the rest of us and setting us against each other. Immigrants, single mothers, benefit scroungers, trans people, gay people, Muslims etc. These are the reasons we are told that prices are going up, we can’t get housing, we can’t get a job, we can’t get promotion etc. The same is happening here and it works. When people refer to those who aren’t Trump’s normal demographic voting for him as “thick” they are really saying that they have been sucked into his grift. Divide and conquer. It worked here perfectly too with Brexit. We were led to believe that we were worse off in the EU when, very clearly, we are by far worse off being outside the EU. Turkey’s voting for Christmas again. Now sit back and watch as Trump, Musk and chums rip off their own country.

 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

There was an in depth discussion about why certain people voted for Trump who you wouldn’t expect to. It comes down to looking after number 1. They are more worried about their personal circumstances than those of others. So what if he thinks that people of the same background are “cockroaches” , they are here and they want to survive here. If there neighbour is in danger of being deported, so what, that is there problem.

Bernie Saunders makes this point very well. The far right, in this case Trump, are very good at looking after the rich and powerful (the minority) by dividing the rest of us and setting us against each other. Immigrants, single mothers, benefit scroungers, trans people, gay people, Muslims etc. These are the reasons we are told that prices are going up, we can’t get housing, we can’t get a job, we can’t get promotion etc. The same is happening here and it works. When people refer to those who aren’t Trump’s normal demographic voting for him as “thick” they are really saying that they have been sucked into his grift. Divide and conquer. It worked here perfectly too with Brexit. We were led to believe that we were worse off in the EU when, very clearly, we are by far worse off being outside the EU. Turkey’s voting for Christmas again. Now sit back and watch as Trump, Musk and chums rip off their own country.

 

WALOB

[Lighthouse]

9 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

There’s no certain reality that it won’t end with Dombas if there’s some sort of deal. That’s just war hawk propaganda. Especially the ludicrous notion Russia is aiming for European war. Some sort of negotiated settlement was always the likely end point. Trump’s arrival may eventually lead to some serious conservations on that score, which have been absent up till now.

There’s only one ‘war hawk’ in this game, that’s the man who wants the whole of Ukraine, the country he passionately declared had no right to exist when he launched his three day operation, in his empire.

For a negotiated settlement there has to be something both sides will agree to AND more importantly, some way of forcing Russia to comply with it. Any written agreement, in itself, isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. They’ve been there before with the 2015 Minsk agreements look at the peace that lead to.

As for Trump being the catalyst for ‘serious’ conversation, this is the man who told people that injecting bleach would cure COVID.

[egg]

27 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

There’s only one ‘war hawk’ in this game, that’s the man who wants the whole of Ukraine, the country he passionately declared had no right to exist when he launched his three day operation, in his empire.

For a negotiated settlement there has to be something both sides will agree to AND more importantly, some way of forcing Russia to comply with it. Any written agreement, in itself, isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. They’ve been there before with the 2015 Minsk agreements look at the peace that lead to.

As for Trump being the catalyst for ‘serious’ conversation, this is the man who told people that injecting bleach would cure COVID.

Do you think the US are likely to continue military support to Ukraine when Trump takes the helm? If not, do you think the rest of the NATO countries will continue to support Ukraine? 

[whelk]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

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.

There’s an interesting series Turning Point on Netflix on Cold War and USA’s desire to be involved in so many countries when they didn’t need to be. Absolute bastards destabilising some democracies when CIA wanted their man in 

[whelk]

If Trump leaves NATO we should invite China in

[hypochondriac]

https://x.com/RachaelWongAus/status/1854755936801636405?t=5zGKf-IV9WKX8uQkYMQ88w&s=19

This is a great thread which sums up a few reasons why Trump won. Worth a read for anyone interested. 

[hypochondriac]

Trump has announced he's outlawing gender transition surgery for children in America. One massive positive of him coming into power. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Trump has announced he's outlawing gender transition surgery for children in America. One massive positive of him coming into power. 

He's also said that it'll be law that the only genders will be male and female, as per gender at birth. 

[sadoldgit]

News coming out that the Iranians were planning to kill Trump before the election.

[sadoldgit]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

He's also said that it'll be law that the only genders will be male and female, as per gender at birth. 

It has started

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It has started

How many sexes are there soggy? 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

He's also said that it'll be law that the only genders will be male and female, as per gender at birth. 

That's a bit like creating a law that the sky is blue and 1+1=2. What a shame it has got to the point that it needs legislation for something that 99% of people already know to be true. 

[hypochondriac]

10 hours 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.

Oh look. Almost word for word what I posted yesterday. 

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Trump has announced he's outlawing gender transition surgery for children in America. One massive positive of him coming into power. 

 

1 hour ago, egg said:

He's also said that it'll be law that the only genders will be male and female, as per gender at birth. 

Fantastic news.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

News coming out that the Iranians were planning to kill Trump before the election.

you'd think they'd love him given a lot of what he believes he is the same as them

[AlexLaw76]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Oh look. Almost word for word what I posted yesterday. 

Of course, this was the likely only ending despite what the mentals suggest about Russia invading the whole of Europe 

Edited Friday at 19:57 by AlexLaw76

[Lighthouse]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Oh look. Almost word for word what I posted yesterday. 

So? What's your point? Trump can have all the plans he wants, what he has suggested is absolutely fantastic in that it's a proposal literally nobody will agree to. Kyiv, Moscow and the majority of European nations who Trump is apparently signing up to provide peace keeping forces would all reject something like that.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So? What's your point? Trump can have all the plans he wants, what he has suggested is absolutely fantastic in that it's a proposal literally nobody will agree to. Kyiv, Moscow and the majority of European nations who Trump is apparently signing up to provide peace keeping forces would all reject something like that.

Let’s see. How much more tax are you willing to pay to make up for the US shortfall?

Edited Friday at 20:01 by AlexLaw76

[The Kraken]

I don’t think it works like that 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So? What's your point? Trump can have all the plans he wants, what he has suggested is absolutely fantastic in that it's a proposal literally nobody will agree to. Kyiv, Moscow and the majority of European nations who Trump is apparently signing up to provide peace keeping forces would all reject something like that.

My point is that a variation of a plan like this was always imo the most likely end to all this. Russia won't just surrender and we don't have the political will or the resources once America stop funding Ukraine to simply carry on without them. There will be a negotiated settlement that ends this in my opinion. You disagree let's wait a little while and see which scenario is most likely. 

[hypochondriac]

Very interesting development this. I wonder if Labour will go for it:

 

[Gloucester Saint]

All the hallmarks of Russia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy93dp4zk3o

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

My point is that a variation of a plan like this was always imo the most likely end to all this. Russia won't just surrender and we don't have the political will or the resources once America stop funding Ukraine to simply carry on without them. There will be a negotiated settlement that ends this in my opinion. You disagree let's wait a little while and see which scenario is most likely. 

That doesn't make any sense. How can a plan that both Russia and Ukraine will flatly refuse be the likely outcome? Also you say we don't have the political will or resources to carry on supplying Ukraine, but your alternative, long term solution is sending British personel and equipment to indefinitely patrol an 800 mile long 'buffer zone' in East Ukraine. A solution far more costly financially and risky in terms of escalation.

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

That doesn't make any sense. How can a plan that both Russia and Ukraine will flatly refuse be the likely outcome? Also you say we don't have the political will or resources to carry on supplying Ukraine, but your alternative, long term solution is sending British personel and equipment to indefinitely patrol an 800 mile long 'buffer zone' in East Ukraine. A solution far more costly financially and risky in terms of escalation.

How do you know would flatly refuse?

[skintsaint]

https://x.com/thealexstrenger/status/1854916481433178234?s=46

Not sure where to start with this one...

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

How do you know would flatly refuse?

He doesn't and frankly if the US gets agreement with Russia (and he's already met with Zelensky apparently) then Ukraine is going to come under an awful lot of pressure to at least come to the negotiating table. 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

https://x.com/thealexstrenger/status/1854916481433178234?s=46

Not sure where to start with this one...

Americans have such a load of weird hangups about race. I assume that video is a parody though. 

Edited Friday at 21:35 by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

So? What's your point? Trump can have all the plans he wants, what he has suggested is absolutely fantastic in that it's a proposal literally nobody will agree to. Kyiv, Moscow and the majority of European nations who Trump is apparently signing up to provide peace keeping forces would all reject something like that.

Whether it's that, it'll still end up as a negotiated agreement. Everyone gives up something in a negotiation. 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Whether it's that, it'll still end up as a negotiated agreement. Everyone gives up something in a negotiation. 

It's a starting point for negotiations. I'd still like to hear how Lighthouse thinks it will end. 

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

That's a bit like creating a law that the sky is blue and 1+1=2. What a shame it has got to the point that it needs legislation for something that 99% of people already know to be true. 

I’m sure they’ll eventually find a cure for it but until they do legislation is a good step in the right direction 

[Lighthouse]

23 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's a starting point for negotiations. I'd still like to hear how Lighthouse thinks it will end. 

I doubt it will end in Putin's lifetime. It'll probably be some sort of military stalemate until that w*nker pops his clogs, after that who knows. It'll depend on who his replacement is and their appetite for what is a pretty senseless war. People have been saying it'll come to a negotiated settlement for two years now. What people haven't been saying is any kind of proposal which is in any way agreeable. Ten years ago people were saying the same about ISIS.

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I doubt it will end in Putin's lifetime. It'll probably be some sort of military stalemate until that w*nker pops his clogs, after that who knows. It'll depend on who his replacement is and their appetite for what is a pretty senseless war. People have been saying it'll come to a negotiated settlement for two years now. What people haven't been saying is any kind of proposal which is in any way agreeable. Ten years ago people were saying the same about ISIS.

In those 2 years the US have backed Ukraine.

I'll ask again - Do you think the US are likely to continue that military support when Trump takes the helm? If not, do you think the rest of the NATO countries will continue to support Ukraine?

For a military stalemate, Ukraine will need ongoing military backing. 

The Isis point isn't a good, or relevant, one. 

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I doubt it will end in Putin's lifetime. It'll probably be some sort of military stalemate until that w*nker pops his clogs, after that who knows. It'll depend on who his replacement is and their appetite for what is a pretty senseless war. People have been saying it'll come to a negotiated settlement for two years now. What people haven't been saying is any kind of proposal which is in any way agreeable. Ten years ago people were saying the same about ISIS.

I'm not sure who those people were but I was saying the exact opposite about ISIS. You can probably find the evidence on here. It's not really the same thing though is it given that it didn't actually take an awful lot to defeat ISIS. Putin could be around for many years, in your view will the West minus America continue to back Ukraine for that amount of time? 

Edited Saturday at 02:43 by hypochondriac

[east-stand-nic]

So, now that Trump is back in power you are all discussing how he will end the wars. What I want to know is, why was there never a discussion about what Biden & Harris could and would do? Why was no real effort made by them?

[Turkish]

20 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

https://x.com/RachaelWongAus/status/1854755936801636405?t=5zGKf-IV9WKX8uQkYMQ88w&s=19

This is a great thread which sums up a few reasons why Trump won. Worth a read for anyone interested. 

I switched off in the first sentence where it said they aren’t racist, sexist or stupid so it was clearly an article written by the far right. I won’t be reading that thank you

Edited Saturday at 09:37 by Turkish

[AlexLaw76]

Some of the predicted outcomes on this thread are nearly as daft as the polls...

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

So, now that Trump is back in power you are all discussing how he will end the wars. What I want to know is, why was there never a discussion about what Biden & Harris could and would do? Why was no real effort made by them?

Trump is, in effect, an isolationist who doesn't really give two hoots about most of the rest of the World, especially Europe. In the eyes of the Democrats American interests are wider than simply keeping domestic petrol prices as low as possible.

In terms of the Ukraine war, Trump just wants to stop the financial side of supporting the Ukrainians, seeing it as a local dispute and of no consequence to US interests, when the money could be better used to build his border wall and fund tax cuts for his billionaire chums. ( He also has no real antipathy to Putin throwing his weight around in Russia's own 'sphete of influence' ). The Democrats see a threat to Europe that needs to be stood up to, as failure to do so will empower and embolden Putin.

[AlexLaw76]

14 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Trump is, in effect, an isolationist who doesn't really give two hoots about most of the rest of the World, especially Europe. In the eyes of the Democrats American interests are wider than simply keeping domestic petrol prices as low as possible.

In terms of the Ukraine war, Trump just wants to stop the financial side of supporting the Ukrainians, seeing it as a local dispute and of no consequence to US interests, when the money could be better used to build his border wall and fund tax cuts for his billionaire chums. ( He also has no real antipathy to Putin throwing his weight around in Russia's own 'sphete of influence' ). The Democrats see a threat to Europe that needs to be stood up to, as failure to do so will empower and embolden Putin.

Nothing to stop Europe actually spending properly on defence, instead of sub-contracting it out to the USA

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Nothing to stop Europe actually spending properly on defence, instead of sub-contracting it out to the USA

We will probably have to if Trump cuts and runs.

Problem is weapons cost money and that means raising taxes. And as you know, if we do that our right-wingers cry like a bunch of babies.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

We will probably have to if Trump cuts and runs.

Problem is weapons cost money and that means raising taxes. And as you know, if we do that our right-wingers cry like a bunch of babies.

If trump cuts and runs (which of course will not happen), it will take years for any increase in defence spending to be a tangible benefit.

 

[sadoldgit]

46 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Nothing to stop Europe actually spending properly on defence, instead of sub-contracting it out to the USA

Absolutely, after all, we really didn’t need their help in WW1 and WW2.

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Absolutely, after all, we really didn’t need their help in WW1 and WW2.

We’d have won it without them as us winning was in gods plan 

[Weston Super Saint]

54 minutes ago, Turkish said:

We’d have won it without them as us winning was in gods plan 

Plus we had way more possession.

[pingpong]

17 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

That's a bit like creating a law that the sky is blue and 1+1=2. What a shame it has got to the point that it needs legislation for something that 99% of people already know to be true. 

It also means ihmane khelif can compete as a woman for the rest of her career (in the US at least, she could be banned elsewhere).

In practice, what does it mean for those who have already transitioned, such as musks daughter? Will they be deported as illegal people? Put in prison?

Does it mean everyone will now need to have their gender tested? There are a lot of intersex people who don't know it who could be breaking the law right now. When should that testing be? I reckon 13,14yr old would be most suitable.  I'm sure DT will volunteer to do some inspections himself that way.

 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Absolutely, after all, we really didn’t need their help in WW1 and WW2.

Turning up three years late for WW3 is probably not an option.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

We will probably have to if Trump cuts and runs.

Problem is weapons cost money and that means raising taxes. And as you know, if we do that our right-wingers cry like a bunch of babies.

If Starmer had said that the money raised from the vat on public schools, the stopping of the winter fuel allowance and the inheritance tax on farmers was all going to be spent on defence, can you imagine the reaction? Badenoch had the brass neck to call Starmer out for not spending on defence in the budget (spoiler alert, he did) yet the armed forces have been under funded by her own party for the last 14 years.