What does it mean for the US now? Like what does second term of Trump mean for the US now?

[Trurl]

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's hard for me to think well of those who forgive him for all he's done. I only needed one deal-breaker, and here you are accepting a mountain of them with praise.

Well I don’t approve everything Trump does but everyone voted for him. I don’t like the cabinet picks. They seem deliberate dismantling of those offices.

But I believe we must hold both sides accountable. Like Biden giving long range misses to Ukraine.

I understand why a lot of people don’t like Trump particularly his personality and the dangers of changing a system that works pretty well.

The elephant in the room is the majority of those who worked for him are now his enemies.

Harris had major faults too. They tell you to vote it’s your right. But we don’t get to choose the people we are to vote for.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Well I don’t approve everything Trump does but everyone voted for him.

Not everyone.

9 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I don’t like the cabinet picks. They seem deliberate dismantling of those offices.

I thought MAGA wanted smaller government. All the offices you guys don't like will now be run by people who don't know what they're doing. You and I will be paying the salaries of thousands of federal employees who will be working hard to destroy those agencies. Their only qualification is loyalty to POTUS/Emperor. 

13 minutes ago, Trurl said:

But I believe we must hold both sides accountable. Like Biden giving long range misses to Ukraine.

Big fan of the Russian invasion? Most people don't like Putin the way you seem to.

14 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I understand why a lot of people don’t like Trump particularly his personality and the dangers of changing a system that works pretty well.

Do you? It doesn't seem that way. I think you just voted to raise your own taxes to pay for a government loyal to one man. 

18 minutes ago, Trurl said:

The elephant in the room is the majority of those who worked for him are now his enemies.

Elephant in the room? That's one of the first indicators for me for anybody's job performance. Most of the people who worked for him the first time refuse to be loyal to him now. They haven't exactly been quiet about how dangerous TFG is. 

21 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Harris had major faults too.

Please elaborate on Kamala Harris' major faults.

[Trurl]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Please elaborate on Kamala Harris' major faults.

Well she wasn’t chosen Biden had medical problems. Problems that appear to be most of his term.

But the things you don’t like in Trump are the same as Harris.

I saw a video of Harris where she boasted she could ruin someone’s life with the swipe of a pen. In this video she says that she wouldn’t even have to go to trail, she’d bankrupt them.

Same stuff, different person, presented better on evening news.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

But I believe we must hold both sides accountable. Like Biden giving long range misses to Ukraine.

Um, what? 

Holding someone accountable typically is in the context of illegal or improper acts. How does supplying weaponry to an ally, with whom we have treaties and agreements, and for which there is congressionally-approved support, qualify?

 

Quote

Well I don’t approve everything Trump does but everyone voted for him

Everyone? He didn’t get half of the votes cast, and about two-thirds of registered voters didn’t vote for him.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Well she wasn’t chosen Biden had medical problems. Problems that appear to be most of his term.

But the things you don’t like in Trump are the same as Harris.

I saw a video of Harris where she boasted she could ruin someone’s life with the swipe of a pen. In this video she says that she wouldn’t even have to go to trail, she’d bankrupt them.

Same stuff, different person, presented better on evening news.

All hat, no cattle, as they say. 

[iNow]

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well she wasn’t chosen Biden had medical problems. Problems that appear to be most of his term.

Biden has a far better job, with 'medical problems' than the last three Republican presidents did with clean bills of health (at least one from a questionable physician, but still). She was on #2 on the winning ticket in 2020, so a whole lot people voted for her, and the convention was unanimously in favour. She was chosen, all right.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

But the things you don’t like in Trump are the same as Harris.

I can't think of a single thing they have in common.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

I saw a video of Harris where she boasted she could ruin someone’s life with the swipe of a pen. In this video she says that she wouldn’t even have to go to trail, she’d bankrupt them.

Do you happen to know who faked it?

   

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well she wasn’t chosen Biden had medical problems. Problems that appear to be most of his term.

What do you mean "she wasn't chosen"? She was elected as VP, voted into office by the People. What's the role of the VP, you might ask? One part is to take over when the president can't fulfill the duties. 

And Biden left us one of the strongest economies in recent history. So strong it encouraged US corporations to price gouge their own customers, knowing the uneducated would blame Biden, as if POTUS has control over private companies and what they charge.

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

I saw a video of Harris where she boasted she could ruin someone’s life with the swipe of a pen. In this video she says that she wouldn’t even have to go to trail, she’d bankrupt them.

And yet you don't bother to link to it here. I'm going to assume you made it up.

OTOH, TFG has decades of ruining people's lives under his belt: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/trump-small-business-owners/index.html

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/2020/01/24/donald-trump-still-owes-money-to-contractors-who-built-taj-mahal-atlantic-city/4547037002/

https://nj1015.com/trump-stiffed-hundreds-of-workers-and-contractors-in-new-jersey-report-says/

https://theweek.com/articles/783976/brief-history-trumps-smalltime-swindles

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hundreds-claim-donald-trump-doesn-t-pay-his-bills-n589261

He's a swindler, so I assume you cheat people too. None of this is a deal breaker for you. People like you and him kill thousands of decent Americans every year.

He's a racist, so I assume you hate people of color too. None of the bigotry and prejudice bothers you enough to make it a deal breaker. People like you and him discriminate against the only known humans in the universe, and ignore the diversity of life we have on this planet. I hope you don't pass this behavior to the next generation. 

He's fooled you because of all your ignorance and hatred. You're the poorly educated people he truly loves. 

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

Same stuff, different person, presented better on evening news.

Harris kept trying to tell you what she was going to do for us. TFG keeps telling you who he's going to punish, and you evangelicals just lap it up. It's all about punishment and atonement and how shitty humans naturally are, and now you have the shittiest human on the planet as your leader. Get down on your knees and take him there!

[Logos]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

He's a racist, so I assume you hate people of color too. None of the bigotry and prejudice bothers you enough to make it a deal breaker.

The "he's a racist" narrative isn't going to work, and there's no litmus test for determining who is a racist and who isn't, beyond common sense which doesn't likely apply to Trump.

It's merely a talking point which has been in use since the very beginning, and most likely doesn't relate to actual policy or actions, but rather tangential things. Pointing out that he has racists who support him, for example, is a strategy that has been in use long before Trump ran for office (similar talking points were used against Ron Paul, for example).

If you keep up with this, you'll eventually have to try to argue that more than half of Americans are racists, fascists, or Nazis due to having voted for him, and that narrative simply won't fly due to being one of the most common and uneducated talking points used by opposition. It's proven ineffective in two elections, so coming up with something more original is likely in order.

Edited November 25, 2024 by Logos

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Logos said:

The "he's a racist" narrative isn't going to work, and there's no litmus test for determining who is a racist and who isn't, beyond common sense which doesn't likely apply to Trump.

It’s not Trump’s common sense that matters. Trump being a racist isn’t even a close call.

8 hours ago, Logos said:

If you keep up with this, you'll eventually have to try to argue that more than half of Americans are racists, fascists, or Nazis due to having voted for him, and that narrative simply won't fly due to being one of the most common and uneducated talking points used by opposition. It's proven ineffective in two elections, so coming up with something more original is likely in order.

Half of Americans didn’t vote for him. He got around 77 million votes. The population of the US is around 335 million, so even accounting for some of the population not being citizens, it’s about a quarter of Americans.

[iNow]

It's also a nonsequitur fallacy from "I'm on post #2" Logos to suggest that all voters had one motivation.

Yes, millions of racists voted for Trump. No, not all Trump voters are racist. Many buy into his businessman better for economy / will fix inflation with magic narrative. Some have a similar reaction to transgender issues that we saw years ago to gay marriage. Others still just want to see the system as a whole get dismantled. There is overlap in these groups, too... This isn't exactly hard logic.

But yes, racism was also involved. Full stop.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

1 hour ago, Logos said:

you'll eventually have to try to argue that more than half of Americans are racists

Try harder

Edited November 25, 2024 by iNow

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Logos said:

The "he's a racist" narrative isn't going to work, and there's no litmus test for determining who is a racist and who isn't, beyond common sense which doesn't likely apply to Trump.

It's merely a talking point which has been in use since the very beginning, and most likely doesn't relate to actual policy or actions, but rather tangential things. Pointing out that he has racists who support him, for example, is a strategy that has been in use long before Trump ran for office (similar talking points were used against Ron Paul, for example).

If you keep up with this, you'll eventually have to try to argue that more than half of Americans are racists, fascists, or Nazis due to having voted for him, and that narrative simply won't fly due to being one of the most common and uneducated talking points used by opposition. It's proven ineffective in two elections, so coming up with something more original is likely in order.

Common sense, the go to narrative of the ill informed and Trump's field of dream's. 

Trump doesn't care what 'ism type he is, so common sense would suggest, "get the fuck out of Dodge"; you seem to be out of your depth, so grab something that floats...😉

 

[TheVat]

Come on, this is MAGAmerica, so facts don't matter, only appeals to emotion do.  Oh, and answering any criticisms of the Trump administration or the potus's character by telling people they have a "syndrome."  The character of the president and the effects of his policy agenda don't matter; only triggering the oppo and laughing at their TDS.  Some of us wasted our time in the first Trump admin trying to engage with the faithful, no sense in doing that another four years. 

As Paul Simon put it: a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

 

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Logos said:

The "he's a racist" narrative isn't going to work, and there's no litmus test for determining who is a racist and who isn't, beyond common sense which doesn't likely apply to Trump.

It's easier than you think, you just have to be honest. I'm far too racist for my own tastes, but I'm learning and growing. I've lived with racism my entire life, and I don't fool myself into thinking it hasn't affected me, and that helps me avoid discrimination (for the most part).

2 hours ago, Logos said:

It's merely a talking point which has been in use since the very beginning, and most likely doesn't relate to actual policy or actions, but rather tangential things. Pointing out that he has racists who support him, for example, is a strategy that has been in use long before Trump ran for office (similar talking points were used against Ron Paul, for example).

I'm sorry you feel that way. I see it as an attempt to overturn the rule of law, and normalize discrimination by taking a moral stance and trying to make it political. I don't see equal rights as a talking point, but you obviously do.

 

3 hours ago, Logos said:

If you keep up with this, you'll eventually have to try to argue that more than half of Americans are racists, fascists, or Nazis due to having voted for him, and that narrative simply won't fly due to being one of the most common and uneducated talking points used by opposition. It's proven ineffective in two elections, so coming up with something more original is likely in order.

I absolutely am arguing that more than half of Americans are racists. I don't appreciate your lumping the rest in as a strawman, I have no patience for that crap anymore. Fascism is also applicable, but is a separate argument.

I think any white American who thinks this society hasn't taught them to discriminate against many different groups is just trying to make a distinction between themselves and the more obvious racists who don't want to change. You can have racist thoughts and realize they're wrong, that they're part of an upbringing that you need to unlearn.

What's proven ineffective in two elections is stopping the interference from foreign powers using our lack of informative sources to prejudice the American people. The media is entertainment rather than information, and coupled with an uneducated electorate we get folks voting to remove their own rights and safeguards. Good luck without NOAA, Florida!

[TheVat]

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

think any white American who thinks this society hasn't taught them to discriminate against many different groups is just trying to make a distinction between themselves and the more obvious racists who don't want to change. You can have racist thoughts and realize they're wrong, that they're part of an upbringing that you need to unlearn.

Pretty much my experience.  Maybe one answer to Logo is that few are attacking passive racism (that poison that is dripped in our ears when we are young) but rather crypto-racist policy.  I.e. legislation that pretends to foster equality, fairness and other civic virtues, but is in fact a discriminatory wolf in sheep's clothing.  People will embrace such policies because of the usual information problems (media bias, critical thinking deficits, propa, etc) not because of latent racism that's been activated.  (though it can lubricate the swallowing process, for some)

Edited November 25, 2024 by TheVat
pytoaphgrical erroor

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's easier than you think, you just have to be honest. I'm far too racist for my own tastes, but I'm learning and growing. I've lived with racism my entire life, and I don't fool myself into thinking it hasn't affected me, and that helps me avoid discrimination (for the most part).

Interestingly, "racism" always had a negative connotations, even when folks enacted clearly racist policies. I have seen some surveys from the Jim Crows days for example showed that most white folks expressed negative feeling to racism, yet considered segregation a positive policy. This disconnect is also reflected in modern HR training where folks now emphasize "implicit bias" over racism, as the latter caused a lot of pushback, though functionally having the same systemic effect.

50 minutes ago, TheVat said:

People will embrace such policies because of the usual information problems (media bias, critical thinking deficits, propa, etc) not because of latent racism that's been activated.  (though it can lubricate the swallowing process, for some)

I think often it is based on a limited experiences that causes a worldview that is implicitly racist. If you are used to interact predominantly with white folks, any minority will just pop up more. This can lead to awkward interactions (creating and reinforcing negative feelings) and/or things that are implicit discriminatory. Simple things like hair structure and styles are a prototypical examples, often with more severe consequences than one might imagine.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm far too racist for my own tastes, but I'm learning and growing. I've lived with racism my entire life, and I don't fool myself into thinking it hasn't affected me, and that helps me avoid discrimination (for the most part).

This is what in recent times try to popularize with the term anti-racism, highlighting the active effort it takes not to be racist. But as with any attempts to move the needle, these almost always result in swift pushback from the establishment, sometimes further diluting the message. That, in turn, is seen as evidence how ineffective and performative the (any) approach is, justifying the status quo.

The good news is that young folks are taking better to these new messages. The bad news is that they often do not understand what they mean and it risks becoming performative and vulnerable to revisionism.

The overall point though, is that the way we learn and interact with our environment easily leads to elements of racism (regardless of your background) and these tendencies are easily exploited, as has been said. Just as a preemptively: the reason why a lot of discussion on racism in the US is focused on the white segment is because it relates to systemic, rather than individual racism. However, for elections, the latter might play a bigger role.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Come on, this is MAGAmerica, so facts don't matter, only appeals to emotion do.  Oh, and answering any criticisms of the Trump administration or the potus's character by telling people they have a "syndrome."  The character of the president and the effects of his policy agenda don't matter; only triggering the oppo and laughing at their TDS.  Some of us wasted our time in the first Trump admin trying to engage with the faithful, no sense in doing that another four years. 

As Paul Simon put it: a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

I'm done with it. Nobody who voted for him is worth my time if they can't draw a line somewhere. The Access Hollywood tape was the deal-breaker for me, way back then. It was morally indefensible, but politically acceptable for some. Now I can say proudly that I consider consent to be important, and you know exactly who I voted for.

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, Logos said:

It's merely a talking point which has been in use since the very beginning, and most likely doesn't relate to actual policy or actions, but rather tangential things.

Did you know that Nixon's strategists brought the Southern white vote over to the Republican party through their opposition to Johnson's desegregation policies? I don't suppose you did. It was already working for Goldwater, and it's continued to work right up to the present. Over time and election molesting by state legislations,  it expanded to include the anti-immigrant factions, the religious right, misogynists, anti-intellectuals, gun nuts and haters-at-large. All Trump's people had to do was dip into that deep dark well of carefully nurtured bigotry. They don't care what he's done or what he will do, as long as he socks it to whomever they most fear. In this instance, independent women topped the list.

 

[CharonY]

Going back to OP, apparently we will see insightful and well thought-out policies such as these:

Quote

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he would impose a 25 percent tariff on all products coming into the United States from Canada and Mexico on his first day in office, writing on Truth Social, “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” The move would scramble North American supply chains and impose heavy costs on businesses around the continent.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/11/25/us/trump-news

What a brilliant mind.

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What a brilliant mind.

It allows him to give exemptions to his friends and people who support him while punishing those who didn’t or don’t. 

[Peterkin]

American businesses will have to try sourcing raw materials and parts from countries not affected by the ridiculous tariffs. Soon enough, a system of diversions and grey markets will grow around this problem; US importers getting Chinese goods through Indonesia or some port of convenience - but that will still result in higher prices for consumers. The Canadian imports will have to come from somewhere else too; at least the bulky ones, like nuclear reactors. Small things like electronic components and medicine can be diverted through a third party. For copper, they'll have to look to South America, where many of the illegal immigrants are to be deported, so those countries might not co-operate. For lumber, once the Canadian product becomes unaffordable, I suppose, he'll open the national parks to clear-cutting, since he already intends to drill them for oil. The wildlife will try to escape northward, as will many of the people. As for paper and pulp, he can simply prohibit the publishing of newspapers, magazines and books. Once he's closed the public schools, there won't be so much demand for blank paper.

Of course, none of this will affect the availability of street drugs, except insofar as it drives up illegal prescriptions.

And wrecking the economy in the process, but you won't be able to tell what part of the regime's policy causes how much of the damage, since their whole agenda seems to be aimed at destruction.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Peterkin

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

As for paper and pulp, he can simply prohibit the publishing of newspapers, magazines and books. Once he's closed the public schools, there won't be so much demand for blank paper.

You’re getting ahead of yourself. Tariffs he can do, at least to some extent. These things you describe here are not within his power so one shouldn’t just assume they will happen. More moving parts, and there will be pushback, and that will slow things down.

[TheVat]

On 11/7/2024 at 8:38 AM, Peterkin said:

The Constitution protects us and the system of checks and balances have always worked. They don't seem to realize that constitution, or legal structure, is only as good as the people sworn to uphold them (Many of whom now already have a record of breaching those foundational principles.) What checks, what balances, when executive, legislature and high court are under the same fat thumb?  

The Constitution will hold up about as well as our cheap toilet paper when we no longer have those robust Canadian boreal forest tree fibers to weave into it.  

A possible control rod in this madness might be state legislatures, which have state constitutions that somewhat mirror the federal one.  Unfortunately this path of asserting state powers (Amendment X, in the fed constitution) can lead to secessions.  There would be a lot of ketchup on the wall at 1600 Penn Ave.

[CharonY]

52 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A possible control rod in this madness might be state legislatures, which have state constitutions that somewhat mirror the federal one.

Taken over state legislatures has been a long-term strategy of groups like the Federalist society. There is no hope. Only cheese.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Taken over state legislatures has been a long-term strategy of groups like the Federalist society. There is no hope. Only cheese.

But Trump’s (narrow) win didn’t have the coattails one might have expected at the state level; Democrats broke the GOP supermajority in North Carolina, have a one-seat majority in the Pennsylvania House, and flipped 14 seats in Wisconsin (where they had new electoral maps)

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You’re getting ahead of yourself. Tariffs he can do, at least to some extent. These things you describe here are not within his power so one shouldn’t just assume they will happen. More moving parts, and there will be pushback, and that will slow things down.

I'm taking the long view, yes; four or five years down the road. I don't assume that, with all four branches of federal and at least 23 state governments under his thumb, anything much will be beyond his power by the end of the first year. (assuming he survives that long) Most of the agencies capable of blocking swift implementation of his policies will soon be run by the people best equipped and motivated to wreck them.

Where is the push-back to come from? Possibly big business, if they find the Trump legislations so onerous as to outweigh the tax breaks and deregulation. Not small business, which will be in financial free-fall within a few months. Not the population at large: they're badly outgunned... unless the armed forces side with the constitution. Hope springs eternal in the human breast... but in the end, everything ends.  

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Unfortunately this path of asserting state powers (Amendment X, in the fed constitution) can lead to secessions.

I see that, or some attempts thereat, as all but inevitable. There are three sparks of hope that the American Bloodbath II can be avoided - all of them faint and far away. 

I haven't tried to find any statistics this early, but I'm willing to bet violence at the domestic and community level has already surged; I expect more grassroots level resistance and payback after January.