Trump's Second Term

For the "fun" of it...

To revisit the debt and poke at those who tried to say that the Democrats these days are no Clintons as if that would somehow exonerate their debt concern pretense -

  • Jimmy Carter added $25 billion to the deficit.
  • Ronald Reagan added $74 billion. That seemed bad at the time; just you wait.
  • George H.W. Bush added $102 billion.
  • Bill Clinton reduced the deficit by $383 billion, leaving the budget in surplus when he left office.
  • George W. Bush added $1.54 trillion to the deficit.
  • Barack Obama got the deficit down to $585 billion; that is, he reduced it by $825 billion.
  • Donald Trump added $2.1 trillion to the deficit.
  • Joe Biden reduced the deficit by about $942 billion
Click to expand...

Once more, it would be utterly insane to vote for Republicans over debt concerns, yet that canard has been trotted out over and over and over.
 
The office thing with Musk and Rubio. Early signs of an unscheduled rapid disassembly?

Well, yes and no. Trump is weak, it seems. But not too weak to get some input from his closest henchmen. He will likely decide one has to go. I think Musk and Vance on this list. Very easy to send a VP to their office and shut up. But he could also empower Vance and kick out Musk. But only when he feels he has done enough to punish us.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure the distinction between whether Trump is lying or stupid in regard to the "transgender mice" thing is even relevant. Trump doesn't believe or disbelieve things according to whether they can be demonstrated to be true or not- I think his filter is installed the other way around, where things are true or not according to whether he believes them. This thing is the same as the "Haitians eating the cats and dogs" episode- is there any reason to think someone correcting him on the facts, then or now ("sir, transgenic is not the same thing as transgender, sir"), would make any difference to him?
 
I saw a quote this morning this morning about Trump doubting that the European nations in NATO would step up to support the US if something came up.

Most of the responses have been to point out that the only time article 5 was invoked was after 9/11, and the countries absolutely did their part.

Which is true, but I don't think it's relevant.

What is more relevant is the fact that, if he is correct that Europe won't step up to support the US, it is because the US, with Trump as President, has burned all the bridges with those allies and now they hate us. So yeah, I can believe that they would tell us to get stuffed.

It wouldn't been that way in March 2024. To the extent it is true today, it is because of Trump.

So you piss off all your friends and then complain that they don't support you any more. Yeah, who's fault is that?
 
kookbreaker said:
National Parks had record years in 2024. The Trump administration is trying to hide that fact as they dismantle the parks.

Click to expand...
Much like the federal government as a whole, I think his goal is to destroy so that he can rebuild in his own image--privative the 'national' parks to turn them into giant concession stands with Trump golf courses covering what used to be wilderness.
 
stanfr said:
Much like the federal government as a whole, I think his goal is to destroy so that he can rebuild in his own image--privative the 'national' parks to turn them into giant concession stands with Trump golf courses covering what used to be wilderness.
Click to expand...

They'll be wildernesses to good taste, if that's any consolation?
 
turingtest said:
I'm not sure the distinction between whether Trump is lying or stupid in regard to the "transgender mice" thing is even relevant. Trump doesn't believe or disbelieve things according to whether they can be demonstrated to be true or not- I think his filter is installed the other way around, where things are true or not according to whether he believes them. This thing is the same as the "Haitians eating the cats and dogs" episode- is there any reason to think someone correcting him on the facts, then or now ("sir, transgenic is not the same thing as transgender, sir"), would make any difference to him?
Click to expand...
Good point, It is completely irrelevant to him so long as it serves his narcissistic needs.
I personally don't buy the assumption that Trump is "stupid" as a blanket term, as if he has an IQ below 60 or something. I frequently call him an idiot, and that's well-deserved, but to get to the position he is in required more than just luck, the stupidity of others, and help from the political machine. It requires a certain degree of intelligence. He is no Sarah Palin, MTG, Dan Quayle, or any of the myriad of other 'stupid' politicians that pop into my head. Hell, I dare say he is far more intelligent than Don Jr. or Erik. He's still a complete idiot ;)
 
Aridas said:
  • Jimmy Carter added $25 billion to the deficit.
  • Ronald Reagan added $74 billion. That seemed bad at the time; just you wait.
  • George H.W. Bush added $102 billion.
  • Bill Clinton reduced the deficit by $383 billion, leaving the budget in surplus when he left office.
  • George W. Bush added $1.54 trillion to the deficit.
  • Barack Obama got the deficit down to $585 billion; that is, he reduced it by $825 billion.
  • Donald Trump added $2.1 trillion to the deficit.
  • Joe Biden reduced the deficit by about $942 billion
Click to expand...
Are the numbers normalized to 2024 dollars?
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
Good point, It is completely irrelevant to him so long as it serves his narcissistic needs.
I personally don't buy the assumption that Trump is "stupid" as a blanket term, as if he has an IQ below 60 or something. I frequently call him an idiot, and that's well-deserved, but to get to the position he is in required more than just luck, the stupidity of others, and help from the political machine. It requires a certain degree of intelligence. He is no Sarah Palin, MTG, Dan Quayle, or any of the myriad of other 'stupid' politicians that pop into my head. Hell, I dare say he is far more intelligent than Don Jr. or Erik. He's still a complete idiot ;)
Click to expand...
A certain degree of intelligence, yes, obviously.
However, let me tell you about a Danish case, a reality tv star. Her name is Amalie Szigethy (Wikipedia).
Much like in the case of Trump, people debated if she was really as dumb as she appeared to be on tv, or if it was all a question of editing, i.e. finding sound bites that made her appear to be more stupid than she actually was. One argument for her "certain degree of intelligence" was that she was good at 'playing the game', i.e. the reality-tv game at Paradise Hotel (Wiki).
The debate was more or less settled by an IQ test. Her test result was 75 (Wiki).

Now, I won't claim that you can't have a low IQ score and still have a certain degree of intelligence. An IQ of 75 is a certain degree of intelligence.
But there is reason to assume that she spent more of her time in school putting on make up than doing homework, which, of course, also requires a certain degree of intelligence.

The major difference between Trump and Amalie is that she didn't inherit an awful lot of money from her parents, so she also never had a guy like Roy Cohn to help make her look smart. And unlike The Apprentice (Wiki), the producers of Paradise Hotel (Wiki) didn't edit the show to make her look intelligent.

Amalie Szigethy

www.billedbladet.dk

Nu afsoner Amalie sin samfundstjeneste

Realitystjernen og anti-sprogekvilibrist Amalie Szigethy er nu gået i gang med at afsone noget af den dom, som retten tilkendte hende sidst i januar.
www.billedbladet.dk www.billedbladet.dk
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
It’s all transactional with Trump and it’s what have you done for me today, the past doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Transactional suggests "give something to get something", Trump is more "See. Want. Take. Have." And he thinks the same (absence of) rules should apply to all the ultra rich, especially dictators and hoping-to-be-dictators.


ETA: And once you cease to be useful you can go on the scrap heap with Gulliani & Mike Lindel
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
Transactional suggests "give something to get something", Trump is more "See. Want. Take. Have." And he thinks the same (absence of) rules should apply to all the ultra rich, especially dictators and hoping-to-be-dictators.


ETA: And once you cease to be useful you can go on the scrap heap with Gulliani & Mike Lindel
Click to expand...
Yeah in Trump's world a deal means he gets whatever he wants and you get, well probably nothing unless he feels like it. He is trying to extend his long history of failing to pay contractors to global economics.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Transactional suggests "give something to get something", Trump is more "See. Want. Take. Have." And he thinks the same (absence of) rules should apply to all the ultra rich, especially dictators and hoping-to-be-dictators.


ETA: And once you cease to be useful you can go on the scrap heap with Gulliani & Mike Lindel
Click to expand...
True. For example, in the "deal" Trump suggested for ending the Russian war against Ukraine, Russia gets to keep what they've won with no demand on them even for a promise that they won't do it again, while Ukraine gets nothing of what they've asked for- no restored boundaries or security guarantees (other than some implicit ones Trump thinks Putin will respect); and America, for arranging Ukraine's defeat, gets their "raw" earth. It's not even "transactional" here, it's thievery of a man that's been beaten to his knees by another and berating the beaten man for "gambling with the lives of millions" because he refuses to stay down.
 
pgwenthold said:
I saw a quote this morning this morning about Trump doubting that the European nations in NATO would step up to support the US if something came up.

Most of the responses have been to point out that the only time article 5 was invoked was after 9/11, and the countries absolutely did their part.

Which is true, but I don't think it's relevant.

What is more relevant is the fact that, if he is correct that Europe won't step up to support the US, it is because the US, with Trump as President, has burned all the bridges with those allies and now they hate us. So yeah, I can believe that they would tell us to get stuffed.

It wouldn't been that way in March 2024. To the extent it is true today, it is because of Trump.

So you piss off all your friends and then complain that they don't support you any more. Yeah, who's fault is that?
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that NATO for all intents and purposes is dead at this point. It exists in name only. The US can't be counted on to defend any other NATO nation and vice versa. If Canada finds itself the target of a US invasion, we're under no illusion that our traditional European and commonwealth allies will help. They'll all find convenient excuses to look the other way in order to keep access to the all-important US market.
 
Garrison said:
Yeah in Trump's world a deal means he gets whatever he wants and you get, well probably nothing unless he feels like it. He is trying to extend his long history of failing to pay contractors to global economics.
Click to expand...

Trump's concept of deals and negotiation have long been shown to be zero sum. If the other side gets anything that they want, it's a bad deal.
 
LiteBright said:
I'm of the opinion that NATO for all intents and purposes is dead at this point. It exists in name only. The US can't be counted on to defend any other NATO nation and vice versa. If Canada finds itself the target of a US invasion, we're under no illusion that our traditional European and commonwealth allies will help. They'll all find convenient excuses to look the other way in order to keep access to the all-important US market.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine the possibility of the UK turning a blind eye to a US military invasion of Canada. It's hard to foresee what we could actually do about it but no British government could survive failing to respond seriously.

Of course until recently the notion of the US ever trying something like that was completely absurd. Even now it seems like the sort of outrageous thing Trump will talk about doing to shake things up but never actually do.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I can't imagine the possibility of the UK turning a blind eye to a US military invasion of Canada. It's hard to foresee what we could actually do about it but no British government could survive failing to respond seriously.

Of course until recently the notion of the US ever trying something like that was completely absurd. Even now it seems like the sort of outrageous thing Trump will talk about doing to shake things up but never actually do.
Click to expand...
It would also be interesting to see the reaction of the other Commonwealth countries, both those who have Charles as head of state and those who don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom