Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[a1ex2001]

9 hours ago, LVSaint said:

Next week, she has the opportunity to make him look a right blithering cunt in front of millions of voters. I hope she doesn't fuck up.

It shouldn’t take much beyond being coherent and stable, DonOLD is starting to look nearly as dodgy as old Joe!  

[sadoldgit]

10 hours ago, LVSaint said:

Next week, she has the opportunity to make him look a right blithering cunt in front of millions of voters. I hope she doesn't fuck up.

He has problems with powerful women. Even bigger problems with powerful black women. Hopefully she just has to turn up and he will do the rest himself. 

[buctootim]

6 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

It shouldn’t take much beyond being coherent and stable, DonOLD is starting to look nearly as dodgy as old Joe!  

I hope so too. Whilst as a President she'd be miles better than Trump, she often isnt a great public speaker either. She had a tendency to get muddled and lose the point she was trying to make - probably why she brought in Walz who is super clear and coherent. There is also a view with several Americans I know that she isnt obviously driven either -its not clear what she actually wants to do - mebbe a natural VP rather than President.    

Edited September 7 by buctootim

[LVSaint]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

I hope so too. Whilst as a President she'd be miles better than Trump, she often isnt a great public speaker either. She had a tendency to get muddled and lose the point she was trying to make - probably why she brought in Walz who is super clear and coherent. There is also a view with several Americans I know that she isnt obviously driven either -its not clear what she actually wants to do - mebbe a natural VP rather than President.    

Yes, she can't just show up and be the better person. Walz is the aggressor of the two and would hammer Trump head to head, she needs to step up and be bold. I'm not sure she was anyone's first choice after Biden stood down but was the only option to ensure a quick fluent transition that got democrats on board in unity, and it worked.

I follow the aggregator polling websites and I know they've supposedly been tweaked to reflect more accuracy.....they were never solely showing average polling numbers, their 'averages' made expected predictions based on other factors too. The numbers are still way too close than they should be.

[The Left Back]

1 hour ago, LVSaint said:

Yes, she can't just show up and be the better person. Walz is the aggressor of the two and would hammer Trump head to head, she needs to step up and be bold. I'm not sure she was anyone's first choice after Biden stood down but was the only option to ensure a quick fluent transition that got democrats on board in unity, and it worked.

I follow the aggregator polling websites and I know they've supposedly been tweaked to reflect more accuracy.....they were never solely showing average polling numbers, their 'averages' made expected predictions based on other factors too. The numbers are still way too close than they should be.

Just by turning up she is instantly the better person - but I get your point.  

The sad thing how few people seem to be persuadable at this stage.  No matter what happens (assassination attempt on one side, change of candidate on the other) the polls are not really on the move.  The Democrats will win the popular vote and the electoral college will be so close they'll either get the orange poisonous turd back or another 'stolen election'.  Depressing.

[whelk]

13 hours ago, The Left Back said:

Just by turning up she is instantly the better person - but I get your point.  

The sad thing how few people seem to be persuadable at this stage.  No matter what happens (assassination attempt on one side, change of candidate on the other) the polls are not really on the move.  The Democrats will win the popular vote and the electoral college will be so close they'll either get the orange poisonous turd back or another 'stolen election'.  Depressing.

The polls swung massively to the Democrats when Biden stepped down

[aintforever]

15 hours ago, The Left Back said:

Just by turning up she is instantly the better person - but I get your point.  

The sad thing how few people seem to be persuadable at this stage.  No matter what happens (assassination attempt on one side, change of candidate on the other) the polls are not really on the move.  The Democrats will win the popular vote and the electoral college will be so close they'll either get the orange poisonous turd back or another 'stolen election'.  Depressing.

I don’t pay a huge amount of attention to what happens in the US but it seems so polarised, do many people actually change sides?
 

Looked to me like the biggest threat to the democrats was the lack of enthusiasm over Biden meaning a large chunk of their voters would not bother voting. I expect this new ticket will get their voters off their asses and down to the polling stations and hopefully they will win comfortably. Surely Trump’s antics would have put off a decent proportion of the traditional republican voters so while they say they support them in the polls they will stay at home polling day. But who knows, the US is a weird place.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I don’t pay a huge amount of attention to what happens in the US but it seems so polarised, do many people actually change sides?
 

Looked to me like the biggest threat to the democrats was the lack of enthusiasm over Biden meaning a large chunk of their voters would not bother voting. I expect this new ticket will get their voters off their asses and down to the polling stations and hopefully they will win comfortably. Surely Trump’s antics would have put off a decent proportion of the traditional republican voters so while they say they support them in the polls they will stay at home polling day. But who knows, the US is a weird place.

The people I know who aren't already decided for this one, are mostly those uninvolved in the whole thing.

Mind you, that applies to pretty much everyone over here, commentating on it. So, we're no different.
🙂

[pingpong]

THE HAITIANS ARE COMING TO EAT YOUR CATS AND DOGS.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, pingpong said:

THE HAITIANS ARE COMING TO EAT YOUR CATS AND DOGS.

Ha!! Harris pressed his buttons and he reacted with nonsense like that. She also hates the Arabs and Israel at the same time apparently. Bless. 

[Gloucester Saint]

19 minutes ago, pingpong said:

THE HAITIANS ARE COMING TO EAT YOUR CATS AND DOGS.

Just reading the ABC and NBC articles, did Trump seriously say those things? He is a total freak if he did.

More elections conspiracy nonsense and shocking comments about abortion. 

In a normal Western country, he’d be heading for a record defeat with the odd Deep South state voting for him as a hangover from the pre civil rights era. But America is far from that these days.

Edited September 11 by Gloucester Saint
From the

[LVSaint]

 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, LVSaint said:

 

Totally and stark raving mad. The interviewer is incredulous and Harris laughing her head off as I am doing now 😂😂😂

[badgerx16]

Meanwhile in Springfield.........

 

[Guided Missile]

If the upcoming Presidential election is based on that debate, Trump will lose heavily. I watched it live and he fell into an elephant trap.The prospect of a Marxist government in both the US and the UK is deeply depressing, for me at least, particularly given the taste of the one 20% of the electorate imposed on us here. God help us, one and all.

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

If the upcoming Presidential election is based on that debate, Trump will lose heavily. I watched it live and he fell into an elephant trap.The prospect of a Marxist government in both the US and the UK is deeply depressing, for me at least, particularly given the taste of the one 20% of the electorate imposed on us here. God help us, one and all.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 The question  remains, will you still be leaving the Marxist state that is the UK and moving to the Marxist state that the USA will have become ?

As an alternative better suited to your political affiliations, you could always try Hungary.

Edited September 11 by badgerx16

[Tamesaint]

22 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

If the upcoming Presidential election is based on that debate, Trump will lose heavily. I watched it live and he fell into an elephant trap.The prospect of a Marxist government in both the US and the UK is deeply depressing, for me at least, particularly given the taste of the one 20% of the electorate imposed on us here. God help us, one and all.

What a weird nutter. 

[trousers]

I wish someone had eaten my cat before I had to spend £10k on repairing it....

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

What a weird nutter. 

That's the only thing he's ever been able to prove  

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

I wish someone had eaten my cat before I had to spend £10k on repairing it....

 

That's private healthcare for you! My vet was very condescending I didn't want to spend thousands on palliative chemotherapy for my 16 year old cat with intestinal cancer and instead thought it was kinder to put her down. 

Edited September 11 by buctootim

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 The question  remains, will you still be leaving the Marxist state that is the UK and moving to the Marxist state that the USA will have become ?

As an alternative better suited to your political affiliations, you could always try Hungary.

🇭🇺 is a better option for Marxism, look at Orban’s price controls on everyday groceries https://www.reuters.com/article/hungary-retail/hungarys-orban-leans-on-mandatory-food-price-cuts-to-rein-in-rampant-inflation-idUSL8N37T15F/

Imagine if a Labour PM ever did that and the headlines which would follow?

But because Orban is socially conservative and authoritarian, he’s beloved by American conservatives if they ignore other things he does to limit market economics https://www.voanews.com/a/hungarian-prime-minister-shows-why-american-right-embraces-him/6687500.html

The GOP has certainly shifted from the Reagan era.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

I wish someone had eaten my cat before I had to spend £10k on repairing it....

We got pet insurance for ours from kittens with a higher ceiling and premiums, not cheap to start with but boy has it earned its keep in the long-term.

[revolution saint]

2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

If the upcoming Presidential election is based on that debate, Trump will lose heavily. I watched it live and he fell into an elephant trap.The prospect of a Marxist government in both the US and the UK is deeply depressing, for me at least, particularly given the taste of the one 20% of the electorate imposed on us here. God help us, one and all.

I'd be interested in your definition of Marxist because it's not the same as mine.  For a start no Marxist would ever sign up for a capitalist free market economy and would propose mass nationalisation.  As far as I'm aware neither Starmer, Harris or Trump for that matter are talking about dismantling their capitalist economies.  So stop banging on about Marxist this and Marxist that when clearly it's not - makes you look a bit stupid.

[buctootim]

7 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

We got pet insurance for ours from kittens with a higher ceiling and premiums, not cheap to start with but boy has it earned its keep in the long-term.

The insurance companies must negotiate much more competitive rates from the vets than individuals get. I had to pay £64 for a tiny tiny tube of topical steroid cream which apparently would cost the NHS around £4 for one ten times the size.    

[Tamesaint]

8 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'd be interested in your definition of Marxist because it's not the same as mine.  For a start no Marxist would ever sign up for a capitalist free market economy and would propose mass nationalisation.  As far as I'm aware neither Starmer, Harris or Trump for that matter are talking about dismantling their capitalist economies.  So stop banging on about Marxist this and Marxist that when clearly it's not - makes you look a bit stupid.

As I said. A weird nutter. 

 

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'd be interested in your definition of Marxist because it's not the same as mine.  For a start no Marxist would ever sign up for a capitalist free market economy and would propose mass nationalisation.  As far as I'm aware neither Starmer, Harris or Trump for that matter are talking about dismantling their capitalist economies.  So stop banging on about Marxist this and Marxist that when clearly it's not - makes you look a bit stupid.

A bit ?

[franniesTache]

4 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

If the upcoming Presidential election is based on that debate, Trump will lose heavily. I watched it live and he fell into an elephant trap.The prospect of a Marxist government in both the US and the UK is deeply depressing, for me at least, particularly given the taste of the one 20% of the electorate imposed on us here. God help us, one and all.

Hi there can you explain to me what Marxism is, because i'm pretty sure you don't know.

Just the central tenants please, they're fairly well documented you know so it should be easy.

[Guided Missile]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

I'd be interested in your definition of Marxist because it's not the same as mine.  For a start no Marxist would ever sign up for a capitalist free market economy and would propose mass nationalisation.  As far as I'm aware neither Starmer, Harris or Trump for that matter are talking about dismantling their capitalist economies.  So stop banging on about Marxist this and Marxist that when clearly it's not - makes you look a bit stupid.

Just because your definition of Marxism may differ from mine, doesn't mean I have to accept your definition, nor does it make me stupid. Marxists hide their true intentions in order to get elected and then show their true colours when power is in their grubby hands. Take Starmer, for instance. The main supporter of Corbyn, whom he wanted to make PM, and who no one can deny has strong Marxist beliefs, dropped him like a dog turd when it was apparent he was unelectable. Since Starmer got elected, all we have heard is about the working class (whoever the fuck they are) who have been exploited under capitalism (£70k p.a. train drivers, anyone?) and need the support of the Marxist trade unions, Starmers paymasters. His rallying call is for a revolutionary change to achieve equality of outcome and thus social justice and fuck the pensioners. Meanwhile, mad Ed Miliband, a committed Marxist like his father, is busy destroying our capitalist oil and gas industry. And what could be more Marxist than the upcoming wealth tax?

5 years and this shower will have run out of someone else's money, as will Harris, who has learnt well from her Marxist father. As I stated earlier, take a look at Venezuela for a clue of where we are headed.     

[Guided Missile]

3 minutes ago, franniesTache said:

Hi there can you explain to me what Marxism is, because i'm pretty sure you don't know.

Just the central tenants please, they're fairly well documented you know so it should be easy.

It focuses on class struggle, advocating for the working class (e.g. train drivers) to overthrow the capitalist system (e.g BP and Shell), leading to a classless (e.g. Angela Rayner) society where the means of production are communally owned (e.g GB Energy). It emphasizes the exploitation of labor (e.g. train drivers) under capitalism and calls for revolutionary change to achieve equality of outcome, not opportunity and social justice (banging up the Far Right).

[revolution saint]

2 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Just because your definition of Marxism may differ from mine, doesn't mean I have to accept your definition, nor does it make me stupid. Marxists hide their true intentions in order to get elected and then show their true colours when power is in their grubby hands. Take Starmer, for instance. The main supporter of Corbyn, whom he wanted to make PM, and who no one can deny has strong Marxist beliefs, dropped him like a dog turd when it was apparent he was unelectable. Since Starmer got elected, all we have heard is about the working class (whoever the fuck they are) who have been exploited under capitalism (£70k p.a. train drivers, anyone?) and need the support of the Marxist trade unions, Starmers paymasters. His rallying call is for a revolutionary change to achieve equality of outcome and thus social justice and fuck the pensioners. Meanwhile, mad Ed Miliband, a committed Marxist like his father, is busy destroying our capitalist oil and gas industry. And what could be more Marxist than the upcoming wealth tax?

5 years and this shower will have run out of someone else's money, as will Harris, who has learnt well from her Marxist father. As I stated earlier, take a look at Venezuela for a clue of where we are headed.     

Out of all that guff did you actually answer what your definition of Marxism was?  No, because you haven't a clue.  Crack on though, it's not like anyone takes you seriously.

[Tamesaint]

Cheer up GM. According to Trump he won the debate "by a lot". He reckons that a poll put him winning at 92 : 8. With such a grasp on reality I am sure that the world has nothing to fear from a Trump presidency . 

 

Edited September 11 by Tamesaint

[franniesTache]

5 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

It focuses on class struggle, advocating for the working class (e.g. train drivers) to overthrow the capitalist system (e.g BP and Shell), leading to a classless (e.g. Angela Rayner) society where the means of production are communally owned (e.g GB Energy). It emphasizes the exploitation of labor (e.g. train drivers) under capitalism and calls for revolutionary change to achieve equality of outcome, not opportunity and social justice (banging up the Far Right).

OK so please tell me how Kamala Harris or Keir Starmer are trying to nationalise the entire means of production, create permanent revolution that includes direct democracy, the eradication of class structure and hierarchy, and remove private ownership and capital.

Also if you could highlight how they are removing commodities and bringing them into value based structure that disowns the creation of passive capital in the system?

Because it seems to me that if you actually think about it in any depth at all you'd realise there is literally no such thing as a marxist politician in any position of power or evene close to it in the western world.

[Guided Missile]

2 minutes ago, franniesTache said:

Because it seems to me that if you actually think about it in any depth at all you'd realise there is literally no such thing as a marxist politician in any position of power or evene close to it in the western world.

Mate, you're the one that hasn't got a clue. How about Maduro the President of Venezuela? He's a self avowed Marxist. Xi Jinping of China? Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba?

[badgerx16]

''....hide their true intentions in order to get elected and then show their true colours when power is in their grubby hands. ''

So the Conservative party are Marxist ?

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Mate, you're the one that hasn't got a clue. How about Maduro the President of Venezuela? He's a self avowed Marxist. Xi Jinping of China? Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba?

But, but, but you haven't listed those arch Marxists Starmer and Biden. It's almost as if you know you're spouting bollocks.

[Guided Missile]

• Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza in Greece. 
• Jean-Luc Mélenchon – Leader of La France Insoumise now in the French coalition 
• The Die Linke (Left Party) in Germany 

[Guided Missile]

Oh and the delightful Mick Lynch – General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and leader of the aforementioned train drivers. 

[sadoldgit]

I know a couple of people who could be described as Marxists. Both of them hated Blair with a passion and think that Starmer is just a soft Tory. Judging by their Facebook posts before the election they would have been very happy for Labour to have lost and for there to be a change of leader back towards Corbynism. To define the current PM and Labour Party government as Marxist is beyond comprehension and I can only assume that GM is on a wind up.

As for the US, the Democratic Party have and always been centre right and the Republicans further right. You know the Marxist accusation is nonsense when Trump starts throwing at the Democrats. More desperation along with claims that the Haitians are eating pets.

Harris was spot on yesterday. Hold a mirror up to the narcissist and watch him unravel. She kept him on the back foot and she needs to keep him there. To his supporters he can do no wrong, but hopefully more and more swing voters are seeing him for what he is and will do the right thing come polling day.

[sadoldgit]

17 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Mate, you're the one that hasn't got a clue. How about Maduro the President of Venezuela? He's a self avowed Marxist. Xi Jinping of China? Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba?

How exactly do Starmer and Harris compare to them?

[franniesTache]

18 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Mate, you're the one that hasn't got a clue. How about Maduro the President of Venezuela? He's a self avowed Marxist. Xi Jinping of China? Miguel Díaz-Canel of Cuba?

Yeah so neither of those are what you'd count as the traditional western world, and neither of them are starmer or harris.

So instead of changing the subject how about answering the first part of the question?

I'll re-share it for you incase you missed it.

OK so please tell me how Kamala Harris or Keir Starmer are trying to nationalise the entire means of production, create permanent revolution that includes direct democracy, the eradication of class structure and hierarchy, and remove private ownership and capital.

Also if you could highlight how they are removing commodities and bringing them into value based structure that disowns the creation of passive capital in the system?

[Weston Super Saint]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I know a couple of people who could be described as Marxists. Both of them hated Blair with a passion and think that Starmer is just a soft Tory. Judging by their Facebook posts before the election they would have been very happy for Labour to have lost and for there to be a change of leader back towards Corbynism. To define the current PM and Labour Party government as Marxist is beyond comprehension and I can only assume that GM is on a wind up.

As for the US, the Democratic Party have and always been centre right and the Republicans further right. You know the Marxist accusation is nonsense when Trump starts throwing at the Democrats. More desperation along with claims that the Haitians are eating pets.

Harris was spot on yesterday. Hold a mirror up to the narcissist and watch him unravel. She kept him on the back foot and she needs to keep him there. To his supporters he can do no wrong, but hopefully more and more swing voters are seeing him for what he is and will do the right thing come polling day.

Yeah, what an idiot eh?

I mean, who would label Governments far right or far left when they clearly aren't.

These people need locking up in an institution.

[Guided Missile]

3 minutes ago, franniesTache said:

Yeah so neither of those are what you'd count as the traditional western world, and neither of them are starmer or harris.

"The traditional western world"? Where the fuck is that? Mate, you showed your arrogance and were wrong, so just apologise. As to your University Challenge questions, I'll cut to the chase. Starmer and Harris are basically Marxists. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. It is an opinion that will be proved right when they start operating the levers of power. It won't be pretty and anyone with a brain or a long experience of the disastrous effect on any State or Country a Socialist or Democrat (Basically a Marxist in sheeps' clothing)  has will know the fucking script. 

 

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Oh and the delightful Mick Lynch – General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and leader of the aforementioned train drivers. 

That’s Aslef you thick cunt

[whelk]

17 minutes ago, franniesTache said:

Yeah so neither of those are what you'd count as the traditional western world, and neither of them are starmer or harris.

So instead of changing the subject how about answering the first part of the question?

I'll re-share it for you incase you missed it.

OK so please tell me how Kamala Harris or Keir Starmer are trying to nationalise the entire means of production, create permanent revolution that includes direct democracy, the eradication of class structure and hierarchy, and remove private ownership and capital.

Also if you could highlight how they are removing commodities and bringing them into value based structure that disowns the creation of passive capital in the system?

It feels a bit cruel mocking him as he is clearly ill. Hard not to though 

[Guided Missile]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yeah, what an idiot eh?

I mean, who would label Governments far right or far left when they clearly aren't.

These people need locking up in an institution.

So, SOG states that his Marxist mates supported Corbyn. Just for the record, so did Starmer and wanted him to become the PM. Yet SOG posts "To define the current PM and Labour Party government as Marxist is beyond comprehension" It's beyond his comprehension because he's a moron.

[The Kraken]

Probably best sticking to chat GPT Johnno, you’re coming a bit unstuck without it.

[whelk]

Missed Corbyn’s expulsion from the Labour Party. So up to date with current affairs

[Gloucester Saint]

55 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

It's beyond his comprehension because he's a moron.

In your case it certainly takes one to know one.

[The Left Back]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Starmer and Harris are basically Marxists. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

No one's denying you that.  The problem you are having is one of credibility. I enjoy this Lounge forum when it engages in meaningful debate on important issues.  It's quite a useful way of seeing the full spectrum of views on stuff.  But it does require you to have some shred of credibility for your views.  For me, seeing you batter people with your foam sledgehammer is at best an amusing distraction and at worst an irritating waste of time.

 

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

when they start operating the levers of power

This is the sort of thing I mean.  All leaders 'operate the levers of power', it's in the job description. I am having to work too hard to work out what you mean.  If I was guessing, by joining your quotes together, I think you believe that in the next five years Starmer will "advocate for the working class to overthrow the capitalist system and call for revolutionary change to achieve equality of outcome, not opportunity and social justice.  Is that what you mean and what you believe?  If so, please expand on why you think so.

Back on thread, I think that ideologically Trump is not really far right in the traditional sense, though he certainly plays well to that crowd.  He's more like far out; an unpredictable, self serving narcissist unfit for public office.  So the main reason I want a Harris victory, and last night was an important positive step, is to bring a measure of hope, sanity, unity and peace to what looks like a pretty broken country.  If I'm honest if this was Venezuela or Hungary I would be less bothered, but the US still has the ability to massively and directly affect global matters, many of which are in desperate need for some moral leadership and joined up thinking.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

So, SOG states that his Marxist mates supported Corbyn. Just for the record, so did Starmer and wanted him to become the PM. Yet SOG posts "To define the current PM and Labour Party government as Marxist is beyond comprehension" It's beyond his comprehension because he's a moron.

What is so odd about a member of the Labour Party wanting the Labour Party to be elected? We can spend time talking about Corbynism and Marxism but as you clearly know as much about Marxism as Donald Trump it seems pointless. Out of interest, do you honestly believe that, under Corbyn, we would no longer have been a capitalist country? 

The reason many hard Left supporters are against Starmer is because they don’t believe that he shares the same values. Starmer is the PM. Starmer kicked Corbyn out of the Labour Party. Explain to us please how, in your mind, that he is a raging Marxist when he has alienated many of the Far Left of the party already.