Trump's Second Term

[Andy_Ross]

...by withdrawing the Endurance and sinking the General Belgrano?

The Belgrano was an enemy warship in a war.
Why wouldn't it be dunk if opportunity presented itself?

What difference would Endurance have made? It's an unarmed survey ship.

 

[Garrison]

First of all, disapproval NOW is irrelevant. He got 49.8% in the last election, higher than his current approval rating. Someone having regrets because they made a bad choice doesn't negate that they made a bad choice in the first place. WE (meaning many of the posters on this board) had access to the same information in previous elections that other people did, and still recognized that Trump would be a disaster.

Secondly, even a voter didn't particularly want Trump to be president, how many people simply DID NOT VOTE? Or spoiled their ballot? Or voted 3rd party? Granted, they didn't actually support Trump in the previous election, but they looked at the 2 candidates, one of whom was a convicted felon who said he would "make America a dictatorship on day 1", and the other was a politician with no criminal convictions, who happened to be female, and said "I can't decide who to vote for"? If a person cannot make up your mind between fascism and democracy, they deserve part of the blame.

Now granted, not every American is to blame. Harris did get ~75 million votes in the 2024 election, so their are absolved. But there were ~245 million eligible voters. That means that 170 million Americans did not think Trump was bad enough to actually vote against. (They supported Trump, did not vote, spoiled ballot, etc.). Less than 1/3rd of Americans actually opposed Trump in a way that it mattered. If 2/3rds of the population are OK with fascism, you have a problem.

And there were plenty of them old enough to remember 2000 and all those people voting for Nader to 'send a message' or who sat home because Gore didn't excite them and wound up with Bush the lesser. Then of course there's 2016, Trump makes it eminently clear that he is unfit for office, but 'Hilary's emails' and she's too close to Wall Street, so welcome to four years of insanity. While I don't think it was a decisive factor you can't rule out good old fashioned sexism playing a part in Trump's victories.

 

[Tero]

Not necessarily dyscalculia. You'd be surprised how many people have no idea how to calculate percentages.

ETA Although it's astonishing in Trump, given he graduated in Economics where you need to be able to calculate interest and inflation. And compound them. Not to mention Future Values... But then again, Trump's issued an injunction against Wharton/Penn from releasing his transcript and accreditations. 364th out of 366 students, is the rumour.

How many people that went to college and got a degree in economics? They just look at charts and say 80% is bigger thatn 60%?

But yes, there is some calculation. A lot of times a news item says that one item is 63% bigger than the other. Then I have to calculate what the two numbers were. Just eye balling I say the bigger number is about 80. Found my phone. 81.5% by calculator. There is actual algebra, two lines, if you want to go that way. x-y=63 and x+y=100.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...by withdrawing the Endurance and sinking the General Belgrano?

You're not wrong about the fact that Britain had been trying to find a way to slowly, quietly and diplomatically offload the Falklands, until the Argentine junta needed a distraction from trouble at home and blew the whole thing by making it politically impossible for Britain to do anything but fight.

But Thatcher didn't start the war, about as emphatically as Trump absolutely did start his (despite his sycophants claims the war started when it magically fell out of a clear blue sky in 1979).

 

[Segnosaur]

Then of course there's 2016, Trump makes it eminently clear that he is unfit for office, but 'Hilary's emails' and she's too close to Wall Street, so welcome to four years of insanity. While I don't think it was a decisive factor you can't rule out good old fashioned sexism playing a part in Trump's victories.

Well, given the fact that 3 critical swing states (Michigan, Wisc and Penn) all had margins of victory of less than 1%, it may very well have been a "deciding factor".

And in poll in the 2024 election, it was found that 1 in 5 voters said either they (or someone they knew) would not vote for a woman for president. And that's only those that are openly bigoted. I am sure there are plenty who claim they would vote for a woman, but use double standards and similar excuses as a way to justify excluding women candidates. (They will claim a woman is "cold" while a man acting the same way is "stoic". Or a woman is "pushy" while a man is "forceful and aggressive". A woman has her position because of "DEI" but a man with the same qualifications got there on their own merits.)

Young voters want more women to hold office — but wouldn’t vote for a woman president

Most voters want to elect more women, but sexist double standards emerge when picturing them as president

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Tero]

Wow, Trump and over 70% of high school graduates cannot do math

Me: if i tell a high school graduate in the us that in an election one party won by 15%, how many of them can calculate the two numbers?

Google AI: Based on national assessment data, approximately 22% to 25% of U.S. high school graduates are likely to correctly calculate the two individual percentages (57.5% and 42.5%) from a 15% margin of victory.
NAGB (.gov) +2
While a larger group of about 55% reaches a "basic" level of math, official reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that nearly half of high school seniors (45%) perform below the basic level and likely cannot apply knowledge of percentages to solve real-world problems.

More:

For someone with strong number sense, the mental shortcut is instant: you start at the 50/50 "tie" mark and move half the margin (7.5%) up and half the margin down.
While it feels like basic arithmetic to you, many students struggle because they:
Overcomplicate the setup: They try to use complex algebra when simple balancing would work.
Lack "Fluency": They might know how to solve for
on a worksheet but fail to translate a real-world sentence into a math problem.
Fall for the "Subtract from 100" trap: A common gut reaction is to say "100 - 15 = 85," then get stuck trying to figure out how to make 85 and 15 work together.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But yes, there is some calculation. A lot of times a news item says that one item is 63% bigger than the other. Then I have to calculate what the two numbers were. Just eye balling I say the bigger number is about 80. Found my phone. 81.5% by calculator. There is actual algebra, two lines, if you want to go that way. x-y=63 and x+y=100.

That makes no sense. If 80 is 63% bigger than some other number, then the other number is slightly greater than 49.

The correct algebra is x/y = 1.63, where x is the number alleged to be greater than y by 63%. Equivalently, x - y = 0.63 * y.

Edited to add: I now see that @Tero was talking about one percentage being bigger than another percentage by 63 percentage points. That is not the same as saying the bigger number is 63% bigger than the smaller. If a news item says one item is 63% bigger than the other, then either the news item stated the facts incorrectly or @Tero misinterpreted the news item.

 

[Tero]

That makes no sense. If 80 is 63% bigger than some other number, then the other number is slightly greater than 49.

The correct algebra is x/y = 1.63, where x is the number alleged to be greater than y by 63%. Equivalently, x - y = 0.63 * y.

Edited to add: I now see that @Tero was talking about one percentage being bigger than another percentage by 63 percentage points. That is not the same as saying the bigger number is 63% bigger than the smaller. If a news item says one item is 63% bigger than the other, then either the news item stated the facts incorrectly or @Tero misinterpreted the news item.

Sorry, I didn't think of example such as Democrat X won by 63% against her opponent. By that they mean the winner got 63% percentage points more than the opponent percentage.

 

[Garrison]

The math problem is much simpler if you add 2016 and 2024 then How stupid/racist/sexist are US voters?

 

[Andy_Ross]

 

[GlennB]

View attachment 70716

Exactly the same photo, cleaned up by AI in the Trump version. The pattern of ducks(?) is exactly the same.

 

[junkshop]

View attachment 70716

I was about to say the same (although clouds as opposed to ducks).

 

[junkshop]

Edited: double post

 

[Garrison]

Exactly the same photo, cleaned up by AI in the Trump version. The pattern of ducks(?) is exactly the same.

Well barring the water everything is the same, the only question is did they doctor the one on the right or on the left?

 

[bruto]

You all voted him in twice

Only if you put a hyphen in "You-all." Actuarially we as a nation voted him in,, but individually no. I would not vote for Trump for assistant deputy hog reeve, much less president. We are right in a way to mourn, regret and even be ashamed, of what America as a whole has done, just as we are right in a way to regret the many sins of the human species, but we are not all to blame for everything. If everyone is responsible by default, nobody is responsible in the end.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They are still working on the reflecting pool.
They are painting the bottom blue

 

[LDE1976]

They are still working on the reflecting pool.
They are painting the bottom blue

Are they also painting in a fake reflection for Stephen Miller?

 

[alfaniner]

Tomorrow (tonight) is the White House correspondents’ dinner

I would lay 100:1 odds that he shows up for it, citing some "war" emergency. He is not going to risk being laughed at again. (and having to appear for a couple hours in public, in his current state.)
(I'm not sure I laid my bet down correctly -- I'm saying it's highly unlikely he will show.)

 

[sackett]

I would lay 100:1 odds that he shows up for it, citing some "war" emergency. He is not going to risk being laughed at again. (and having to appear for a couple hours in public, in his current state.)
(I'm not sure I laid my bet down correctly -- I'm saying it's highly unlikely he will show.)

I assure you, we all know zackly what you meant.

Or the fat fark may show briefly and then lurch out, with no excuses or
any sort of apology. And a wonderful time was had by all.

 

[Aridas]

Not necessarily dyscalculia. You'd be surprised how many people have no idea how to calculate percentages.

ETA Although it's astonishing in Trump, given he graduated in Economics where you need to be able to calculate interest and inflation. And compound them. Not to mention Future Values... But then again, Trump's issued an injunction against Wharton/Penn from releasing his transcript and accreditations. 364th out of 366 students, is the rumour.

I seem to recall that even that likely involved him paying others to do much of the actual work for him, which would be entirely in character. Especially if he did indeed get in after paying someone else to take the SAT test for him.

A country's people have to take responsibility for who gets elected. First time, shame on Trump, second time, shame on you.

Sure. That doesn't at all mean that all of them are supporters, complicit, or deserve to be lumped together at a personal level, though. Rather, that means that we bear the country-wide consequences of the elected leaders' actions and policy together, for better or worse.

To give more concrete examples there, though - do I take issue with other countries fighting back against Trump's unreasonable tariffs? No. As a general rule, I support them, even when it means that I and those I care about end up having to lose out as a result. This is part of taking responsibility for the decisions of a group that I am part of. Do I take issue with being effectively called a Trump supporter and being treated as if I were such? Very much so. I did and do oppose Trump and co quite firmly, have voted against him and encouraged others to vote against him. Taking responsibility for the decisions of a group that I am part of does not include falsely accepting the label and implications of being a Trump supporter/voter.

I'm entirely fine with agreeing that Stacyhs' argument there was a bad argument, but I think that it's worth noting that it was made with a backdrop of certain posters acting as if the significant portion of America that voted against Trump should falsely accept the label and implications of being Trump supporters after willfully misrepresenting what falls under "responsibility." Taking issue with that misrepresentation and eventually getting triggered by similar things is entirely understandable, even if the manner of doing so was flawed.

Now granted, not every American is to blame. Harris did get ~75 million votes in the 2024 election, so their are absolved. But there were ~245 million eligible voters. That means that 170 million Americans did not think Trump was bad enough to actually vote against. (They supported Trump, did not vote, spoiled ballot, etc.). Less than 1/3rd of Americans actually opposed Trump in a way that it mattered. If 2/3rds of the population are OK with fascism, you have a problem.

As a minor quibble, having a spoiled ballot is a categorically different form of issue than supporting Trump or not voting and should not be lumped in together with those. They might also having been trying to vote for Trump, of course, so that's not at all exoneration, just not something that should be lumped together. In somewhat similar fashion, if someone is unable to vote or was prevented from voting, that's different from choosing to be apathetic, even if it's also not exoneration. Rather, they represent distinctly different kinds of problems.

With all that said, the US definitely does have serious problems of various kinds. The sheer number of people in the US that are fine with fascism in practice (whatever words they may spout) is definitely one of those problems.