• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's Second Term

Andy_Ross said:
Donald on the Falklands

Q: How was your phone call with prime minister Andy Burnham last week? Did he talk about the Falkland islands and Argentina?

Trump: Well, the falkland islands is very interesting because here we go again.
I remember as a young boy, pretty young boy anyway. But the falkland islands and, uh, I think it was a different country at that time, the uk a little bit, but they went in and they took it over. I'm not sure if they're doing that.
They have a little problem with immigration. They have a little problem with energy and they have some other problems they have to take care of.
So I don't know, you know, I don't know if they're going to be willing to travel that far. That is very far away. You're talking about weeks by boat.

Video in link
Click to expand...
"young boy"? He was 36 at the time.
 
PitPat said:
This is a scary precedent. There are so many bad examples he's normalizing, I hope the Democrats can resist the temptation to follow suit and just do tuquoque "Well Trump did it too!"
Click to expand...
I understand your sentiment, but letting Trump win because he is the only one playing dirty, also seems wrong. Apart from actual cheating, elections are determined by emotions, not by facts. Too often good candidates (and I am not just talking about the U.S.) with the facts on their side have lost because they didn't want to play dirty and attack below belt.
 
steenkh said:
I understand your sentiment, but letting Trump win because he is the only one playing dirty, also seems wrong. Apart from actual cheating, elections are determined by emotions, not by facts. Too often good candidates (and I am not just talking about the U.S.) with the facts on their side have lost because they didn't want to play dirty and attack below belt.
Click to expand...
Yeah I realized I didn't phrase that well, I meant I hope the Dems will take the high road and not fall into his practices. I don't think they would but it's hard to predict anything anymore.
 
steenkh said:
I understand your sentiment, but letting Trump win because he is the only one playing dirty, also seems wrong. Apart from actual cheating, elections are determined by emotions, not by facts. Too often good candidates (and I am not just talking about the U.S.) with the facts on their side have lost because they didn't want to play dirty and attack below belt.
Click to expand...

PitPat said:
Yeah I realized I didn't phrase that well, I meant I hope the Dems will take the high road and not fall into his practices. I don't think they would but it's hard to predict anything anymore.
Click to expand...

I think the Democrats will have to resort to much smarter tactics, even if they don't overstep any virtual boundaries of decency. MAGA are winning precisely because they simply ignore decency completely. They lie and cheat because that is allowed by applicable law...or more accurately, lack of applicable law.

You could say MAGA have played within "the rules". But "the rules" also incorporated a bunch of unwritten conventions of decency and honour that the Founding Fathers and most politicians since then have considered "a given" for the political process. They expected people with a modicum of honour, of decency, of fairness, of respect for the intent of the law to be your political leaders. The unwritten conventions were deemed not necessary to be written. People like Bannon, and Cohn-trained Trump and co., are stretching the boundaries of the laws as written. And the corrupt SCOTUS is playing along by essentially saying "Them's the law, the rules! MAGA are good to go!"

So now, with MAGA, these unwritten rules absolutely do need to be written. Like all legislation, they need to be hashed out, written up, crash-tested against all possible scenarios, drafted as legislation, and enacted. And they need to be locked in as hard as possible, so the next Trump can't simply cross them all out. And they need enforceable penalties.

For example, presidential Executive Orders need to be much better defined as to their status in law. Do they carry the weight of accompanying police enforcement? Or are they just a presidential wish-list, which can be safely ignored? Can they be deferred? Annulled? By whom, and how? Yes, I know some of these limitations are already in place. But to what extent, who knows about them, and how do the controlling processes work?

Another example: Every state needs to have the same presidential election balloting method. I favour the "optional preferential" counting method, and a proportional distribution of state electors in the Electoral College, i.e. not the first-past-the-post winner-take-all methods. Better still, ◊◊◊◊-can the EC and go for a nation-wide popular vote.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
He accidentally said a good thing there. But it should be by the border poll and not other means.
Click to expand...
It's Trump writ large. If any other US President wanted to comment, they would probably say something along the lines of "I have a great fondness for the country of my ancestors and romantically have always wanted to see a united and prosperous Ireland, but that is a decision to be taken only by the people of the island of Ireland", and it would pass virtually unnoticed. But Trump barely knows which country he's in and is ignorant of the history and the geography of the region, so all he ever does is stir up controversy where it's unnecessary.
 
The White House lashed out at independent journalist Aaron Rupar Saturday night after he flagged who President Donald Trump brought with him during his trip to Ireland.

“Look who made the trip to Ireland!” Rupar wrote Saturday in a social media post on X to his more than 1.1 million followers, alongside a photograph of Trump’s 35-year-old female aide Natalie Harp, whose unusually close relationship with the president has unsettled the White House.

“President Trump does, in fact, travel with staff,” reads the response from the White House. “Aaron, on the other hand, is a sick, deluded freak (in his 40s) who sits behind a keyboard and posts creepy things like this.”


Aaron replied

Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
I know being in my 40s makes me too old for the president but I’m at peace with it

Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
My taxpayer dollars, hard at work!
 
Last edited:
Donald and creepy things:

en.wikipedia.org

Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
I forgot the small talk about furniture!
And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.
Click to expand...
 
We already have one example of an outside actor using an AI voice to make a call to high ranking white house officials last year. With the advances in AI since then, its entirely possible, maybe even probable, someone did call pretending to be the Houthis and the WH bought it.

In fact, this is so simple to do, it doesn't require a sophisticated criminal/terrorist network. Crazy Bubba and the morning zoo on 104.1FM in Tucson could likely pull it off.
 
LiteBright said:
We already have one example of an outside actor using an AI voice to make a call to high ranking white house officials last year. With the advances in AI since then, its entirely possible, maybe even probable, someone did call pretending to be the Houthis and the WH bought it.

In fact, this is so simple to do, it doesn't require a sophisticated criminal/terrorist network. Crazy Bubba and the morning zoo on 104.1FM in Tucson could likely pull it off.
Click to expand...
Heck, if a call got throught to Trump and the speaker used a Bullwinkle voice to say "Hey there! This is Mr. Apple, of Apple products! I want to launch a new device called the iTrump, a 3D lifesize replica of your head! People can put it in their house and it'll read your tweets in your voice to them! Would a billion zillion dollars be enough?" and he'd fall for it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Heck, if a call got throught to Trump and the speaker used a Bullwinkle voice to say "Hey there! This is Mr. Apple, of Apple products! I want to launch a new device called the iTrump, a 3D lifesize replica of your head! People can put it in their house and it'll read your tweets in your voice to them! Would a billion zillion dollars be enough?" and he'd fall for it.
Click to expand...
"There was just a small bug during the test runs, all the milk curdled within a 5 miles radius …"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom