1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Dr Van Nostrand on Today at 09:20:36 PM »

honk still claiming Clinton to be a centrist.

Wow.

No one is fooled by the approach of the ilk claiming Trump to be absolutely terrible, all the while he is continuing the US down the path of the exact things you totalitarians desire.

The guy is a lifelong liberal.

As horrifying as Bill Clinton may be, at least we now know with certainty that he didn't go to any of Epstein's parties. Trump says it's all a hoax, just a bunch of lies. In fact, he's going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. It was just Epstein by himself trafficking girls from himself to himself. Clinton, Prince Andrew, Michael Jackson were publicly dog-piled with these salacious Epstein rumors by hateful people jealous of their public success.

But, Trump has been playing 4D chess all along. By pretending to believe in the list and by claiming Clinton was on the list, he could get into a position of power to safely reveal that the list doesn't exist. something like that...

I'm sure we'll have it Magasplained shortly.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 06:48:39 PM »

honk still claiming Clinton to be a centrist.

Wow.

No one is fooled by the approach of the ilk claiming Trump to be absolutely terrible, all the while he is continuing the US down the path of the exact things you totalitarians desire.

The guy is a lifelong liberal.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 04:30:14 PM »

Yeah but if Dems get back in power, revenge time.

Like, the next dem president could execute Trump at the inauguration for reasons of him being a domestic threat, arrest and deport every maga member, deny allowing any voting to be secret ballot, then, to top it all off, have ICE protect itself by killing any protesters.

Which is all the apparent power Trump now has.  Or he assumes he does.

No, a Democratic president would be held to account if they tried to exceed their power so blatantly. The Supreme Court would rule against them, Congress would impeach them, public support would drop to nothing, etc.

They might even make an amendment to prevent presidents from having such immunity to begin with.

Which would be the point.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on Today at 04:25:49 PM »

Yeah but if Dems get back in power, revenge time.

Like, the next dem president could execute Trump at the inauguration for reasons of him being a domestic threat, arrest and deport every maga member, deny allowing any voting to be secret ballot, then, to top it all off, have ICE protect itself by killing any protesters.

Which is all the apparent power Trump now has.  Or he assumes he does.

No, a Democratic president would be held to account if they tried to exceed their power so blatantly. The Supreme Court would rule against them, Congress would impeach them, public support would drop to nothing, etc. I suspect that a Republican president would also face the appropriate consequences, as there's no other high-profile conservative I'm aware of with the charisma to keep Trump's cult of personality going, although it's hard to say for sure given the GOP's embrace of cynicism and abandonment of democratic ideals.

And there's no point in arguing with Action80. He keeps moving the goalposts every time someone points out to him that his argument is nonsense. His last argument was that politicians passing laws on the subject of what Clinton did was what made it a direct reflection of his political ideology. Now his argument seems to be that the affair happening in the workplace was what made it a direct reflection of Clinton's political ideology. If I provided counter-examples of the hundreds of other inappropriate or illegal things people can do at the workplace that presumably don't reflect their political ideology, he'd change his mind yet again and insist that it actually came down to something completely different. There's nothing to be gained by debating someone who's acting in bad faith.

After the 'pussy grabbing', crypto scams, insults to our war veterans, subverting our democracy, and aligning with autocrats, it's good to see that at least some Republicans will draw the line at child sex trafficking.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/14/trump-maga-epstein-bondi-bongino-00451114?cid=apn

Live by the conspiracy, die by the conspiracy.

This will blow over, just like the hundred or so other scandals that would have ended the career of any other politician have blown over. Trump's fans don't care about child sex trafficking, just like they don't care about the fact that he's a corrupt con man, an incompetent idiot, a rapist, and a deeply foul, sleazy man who exhibits just about every negative quality a single person could have. Trump's fans care about Trump, and they will never, ever abandon him. Not even Trump's eventual death will put an end to their overwhelming devotion and loyalty to him.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Dr Van Nostrand on Today at 01:05:42 PM »

After the 'pussy grabbing', crypto scams, insults to our war veterans, subverting our democracy, and aligning with autocrats, it's good to see that at least some Republicans will draw the line at child sex trafficking.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/14/trump-maga-epstein-bondi-bongino-00451114?cid=apn

Live by the conspiracy, die by the conspiracy.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 12:52:28 PM »

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office

That's not what I said...

No, that is exactly what you said.

One can only take that you were placing yourself in Clinton's shoes by stating whether your driving habits or an honest or dishonest filing of taxes was a gauge of your political idealogy. First of all, you are nothing at all similar to Clinton in terms of position, power, or fame. B, nobody gives flying fuck what you do.

Those two acts have nothing to fucking do with the goddamn workplace and your introduction of them is typical of the fucking bullshit you post.

Engaging in sexual acts in the workplace, especially when one is in a clear position of power over the other, is a totalitarian act.

So Trump is a totalitarian, by your logic?

Yes, although I am not sure where you garner Trump has engaged in sexual acts while at the workplace.

The last one to hold office that was not was shot.

After he recouped, he ceased further attempts for fundamental change.

Ronald Reagan?

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 12:49:53 PM »

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office

That's not what I said...

No, that is exactly what you said.

One can only take that you were placing yourself in Clinton's shoes by stating whether your driving habits or an honest or dishonest filing of taxes was a gauge of your political idealogy. First of all, you are nothing at all similar to Clinton in terms of position, power, or fame. B, nobody gives flying fuck what you do.

Those two acts have nothing to fucking do with the goddamn workplace and your introduction of them is typical of the fucking bullshit you post.

Engaging in sexual acts in the workplace, especially when one is in a clear position of power over the other, is a totalitarian act.

So Trump is a totalitarian, by your logic?

Yes, although I am not sure where you garner Trump has engaged in sexual acts while at the workplace.

The last one to hold office that was not was shot.

After he recouped, he ceased further attempts for fundamental change.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 12:21:53 PM »

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office

That's not what I said...

No, that is exactly what you said.

One can only take that you were placing yourself in Clinton's shoes by stating whether your driving habits or an honest or dishonest filing of taxes was a gauge of your political idealogy. First of all, you are nothing at all similar to Clinton in terms of position, power, or fame. B, nobody gives flying fuck what you do.

Those two acts have nothing to fucking do with the goddamn workplace and your introduction of them is typical of the fucking bullshit you post.

Engaging in sexual acts in the workplace, especially when one is in a clear position of power over the other, is a totalitarian act.

So Trump is a totalitarian, by your logic?

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 12:09:18 PM »

Claiming acts of driving and tax payments are somehow analogous to acts of banging an intern at the office

That's not what I said...

No, that is exactly what you said.

One can only take that you were placing yourself in Clinton's shoes by stating whether your driving habits or an honest or dishonest filing of taxes was a gauge of your political idealogy. First of all, you are nothing at all similar to Clinton in terms of position, power, or fame. B, nobody gives flying fuck what you do.

Those two acts have nothing to fucking do with the goddamn workplace and your introduction of them is typical of the fucking bullshit you post.

Engaging in sexual acts in the workplace, especially when one is in a clear position of power over the other, is a totalitarian act.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on July 14, 2025, 06:48:27 PM »

That's unfortunate for pretty much everyone. But yes, a largely stupid population voted for a stupid thing for stupid reasons. The fact you think that's a good thing is...odd.
I mean, Trump is pretty funny. But if you think that someone being voted in to power because they're funny is a good thing then you're part of the problem.

Humor is used for multiple puropses beyond the sake of humor. I gave an example of the Kim Jong Un summit and how humor was used to gain the upper hand. Trump's use of humor has won him multiple debates, in final striking blows against his opponents, showing that he is the smartest and most dymanic candiate for the job.

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

Actually, it has gone before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. You know, Trump’s challenge to the 14th amendment.

While you’re reading the Constitution, please point out where revoking citizenship is a power granted to the president in particular or the executive branch in general.

Here is Google AI's interpretation of the 1898 case:

"The landmark Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. This case affirmed that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. "

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship. Being granted a license isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the license regardless of how you conduct yourself. Being granted a certificate of land ownership isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the land forever, regardless of how you conduct your finances or eminent domain considerations. There are a hundred examples where designations are not permanent.

Further, a US Citizen can choose to give up their US Citizenship, proving that citizenship isn't absolute. If it were absolute you would not be able to give it up.

Please don't use AI.  It's stupid.

Also, you can give up your right to remain silent.  But it can't be taken.
Same with citizenship.  No where does it say it can be taken away.  Given away, yes, but not taken.

Otherwise, the next dem could take away Trump's citizenship and deport him to El Salvador.