President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
It really is mind blowing that any sane human could say that trump isn't authoritarian. Even hardcore trumpers think he is.
I assume we can agree that elizabeth warren and bernie would have been miles ahead in terms of being more authoritarian than any other candidate between the two parties, but after that I think reasonable minds can debate who would have been the 2nd least authoritarian (after trump) of all the candidates who ran for prez over the past 3 elections.
I think we can throw out all dems for being in the top 5 of least authoritarian during trumps first term because I think all dem politicians were all-in on closing down parts of the economy, keeping schools virtual, distancing, trying to force the vax and masks.
Even if we compare trump to past presidents, instead of more recent candidates trump still seems way less authoritarian than the rest in recent memory for all the reason I previously mentioned: cutting the size of gov't, tax cuts, delegated the abortion decision, delegated education, cut the amount of people working for him, cut business regulation and invited in an audit over the gov't he was running. Every single of these are the opposite of what we see in authoritarian gov'ts.
“I assume we can agree that” is such a lazy method of trying to win a concession that the poster knows will never happen or is something that can never be proven.
You are claiming that reducing the size of government makes it weaker but its just concentrating the same power to his most loyal supporters
Delegating power isn't a reduction of power. Its explicitly a power move. Like, if I told you to ban anyone who said Trump isn't authoritarian you could just say no thats your job.
...
Reducing the size of the fed gov't means less power for him. He is giving power to states to make more decisions (abortion, education, etc.). He is giving people more power by lowering their taxes. In giving more power to the people and every state he is not intentionally not giving it only to his supporters.
This is typical.
Have you ever seen one Conservative poster respond by a no content foul mouthed response like this guy? These people are fragile and neurotic and can't handle a different point of view. They are clearly not winners at poker because they don't have the emotional fortitude to handle the swings and the other players.
Congress is passing it not Trump.And congress always had the power to name facilities to which it donates money to, so there is no "grab", it is a power that always existed and which has always been exercised.How do you think the center came to be called after Kennedy to begin with?Congress decided to name it after JFK after the assassination in 1964 and Johnson signed that law
This is a really good point. Liberals only get mad when it's not their team benefitting. I also think liberals tend not to think through how we have historically arrived at this point.
“I assume we can agree that” is such a lazy method of trying to win a concession that the poster knows will never happen or is something that can never be proven.
Is there anyone ITT that disagrees with my notion that bernie or warren would have been more authoritarian than trump? Their whole platform is about trying to maximize the amount of control they have over other peoples' lives.
I think saying "I assume we can agree" can be useful when having a debate in finding the common ground. I could have asked if he agrees that bernie and warren would have been more authoritarian than trump, but I figured it was a waste of time to wait for his response to then say what I want to say after he agrees with me.
Reducing the size of the fed gov't means less power for him. He is giving power to states to make more decisions (abortion, education, etc.). He is giving people more power by lowering their taxes. In giving more power to the people and every state he is not intentionally not giving it only to his supporters.
You can't claim that hes delegating education while the executive branch is actively attacking colleges that don't fall in line.
Its intricacies like this that make it pointless to argue with you on the subject
You can't claim that hes delegating education while the executive branch is actively attacking colleges that don't fall in line.
Its intricacies like this that make it pointless to argue with you on the subject
Companies that are partly funded by tax payers should not allowed to discriminate openly on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
Companies that are partly funded by tax payers should not allowed to discriminate openly on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
Ah, so DEI is needed for those companies to ensure they don't discriminate, right?
Companies that are partly funded by tax payers should not allowed to discriminate openly on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
Was there an investigation? Was there a process by which people actually were found to be engaging in discrimination? Or did Trump et al just assume discrimination based off seeing a few key words?
No, Trump wants to control content of speech. And he doesn’t care if he destroys scientific progress.
There have been exposes of discrimination done by Republicans, so it’s certainly possible for them to do it. Let congress use their investigation powers, or let the attorney general investigate civil rights violations. Otherwise I think it’s horrible to make inferences based off of use of phrases like “DEI”.
There is no well thought out maga post. Ever. Every one is based on a mountain of lies and disinformation.
Baba is trying to tell us trump is the least authoritarian president ever. How do you even debate something so monumentally stupid as that?
Now maga is calling for Obama to be arrested for treason because one of trump's idiot lackeys made up a bunch of nonsense. At some point you can't debate people like that. They are horrible, racist, stupid people and should be called out as such.
So, you are backing off the "(or almost exclusive) way to get a mortgage" part. Good.
It is not surprising that current mortgages are heavily towards fixed rate. People locked in over the past 20 years or so. Turnover has gone down since rates started going up (can't afford to move with rates going up), but the average length owning a home is still only about 12 years.
No really i am not. I added the "almost exclusive" when thinking about other countries, it wasn't referred to the USA specifically. Main was.
Re-read the sentence you attacked. It started with "most countries". Some countries really have a moralsuasion sort of mechanism where everyone except really high income people is pushed toward fixed rates , with the montly payment 1/3 or less of their net take home salary, in order to avoid waves of forfeitures the occasional time rates jump dramatically.
France comes to mind but there are other places as well ( i think greece since 2014 as well). It's like they treat you like a pariah if you are a normal person and ask for a variable rate mortgage.
And it was right to do so. Allowing the confederacy to persist and be glorified is definitely a part of the problem. But to compare "Fort Bragg", named after a confederate general that literally nobody knows who he was, vs renaming the ****ing kennedy center to your wifes name, is a pathetic abuse of power.You have no decency or understanding of respect in these matters so yo
Yes i compared ANY name changing to ANY name changing, for the purpose of deciding if changing names is authoritarian, a power grab, or not.
It's either never is or always is. Tertium non datur.
The rest is a discussion about specifics, is it GOOD to change this name into that name? that's normal politics. You have your opinions, others don't give a ****, no one is doing anythin gout of line by renaming stuff though.
Trump could change the name of a thousands places in "Obama is a traitor center" and that would still not be a power grab.
You can't claim that hes delegating education while the executive branch is actively attacking colleges that don't fall in line.
Its intricacies like this that make it pointless to argue with you on the subject
He is attacking colleges that take a shitton of federal money. Have you own communist college without federal money and you can do everything that doesn't violate the law or the constitution with it.
The instant you take a single dollar from the federal government, the executive not only has a right, it has a DUTY, to verify you deserve it and you act in a way that the executive deems (arbitrarily) appropriate.
Or you stop receiving the free cash. That's not an abuse of power. The abuse is these zillions of institituions taking taxpayers money. Dont' you feel like a fraud defending institutions that can't even survive in the market?
There is no well thought out maga post. Ever. Every one is based on a mountain of lies and disinformation.Baba is trying to tell us trump is the least authoritarian president ever. How do you even debate something so monumentally stupid as that?Now maga is calling for Obama to be arrested for treason because one of trump's idiot lackeys made up a bunch of nonsense. At some
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1m...
It’s a total farce obviously. Trump called Obama a treasonist over this
Companies that are partly funded by tax payers should not allowed to discriminate openly on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
They shouldn't but now there's no safeguards in place that they won't .
They historically have and will not only continue to, but will be encouraged to.
He is attacking colleges that take a shitton of federal money. Have you own communist college without federal money and you can do everything that doesn't violate the law or the constitution with it.The instant you take a single dollar from the federal government, the executive not only has a right, it has a DUTY, to verify you deserve it and you act in a way that the executive
If it was about the money they could just cut off the money, right?
It’s not about the money it’s about the intimidation from threat of the executive branch suing for arbitrary reasons if they don’t bend to the administrations will.
Its so obvious that I’m sure you get it but want to push nonsense for equally obvious reasons
RIP humanity..
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation...
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to reverse its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, removing the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters.
If it was about the money they could just cut off the money, right?
It’s not about the money it’s about the intimidation from threat of the executive branch suing for arbitrary reasons if they don’t bend to the administrations will.
Its so obvious that I’m sure you get it but want to push nonsense for equally obvious reasons
They are actually threatening to cut off th emoney that's what the whole discourse is about. Keep in mind the money means all research grants, all federal loan guarantees for all student loans, and so on.
And harvard et al are answering that threats about cutting off the money are violations of the 1a and so on and on.
RIP humanity..https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation...The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to reverse its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, removing the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations, two sources familiar with the discuss
A splendid development i reported about in the climate change thread.
Is there anyone ITT that disagrees with my notion that bernie or warren would have been more authoritarian than trump? Their whole platform is about trying to maximize the amount of control they have over other peoples' lives. I think saying "I assume we can agree" can be useful when having a debate in finding the common ground. I could have asked if he agrees that bernie and w
I will pretty much guarantee you that no poster here that is not a trump ball-licker will indicate they agree with your contention in this thread.
