Donald I, emperor of the world.

[Pblakeney]

Is that whataboutery? Asking for a friend.

You started it. At least mine is current.

 

[Stevo 666]

Most of the threads on on this forum are just repeating the same old stuff (think Brexit for example), why should this one be different?

Don't worry, this particular thread has roughly a 3.5 year life span.

 

[Pinno718]

Props for the shorter than usual post though 👍

You're making the mistake of thinking I'm a Trump fanboi. The point being that I'm not attempting to deflect from his many failings or to absolve him of any blame, I'm just interested in why he generates quite so much hate amongst his detractors when he's just the latest in a wide field of hopeless American presidents who were personally flawed, did morally repugnant acts in their public and private lives, and were ill equipped for high office. I mean I'm happy to concede the point being made in the above link, but do you really think that George W Bush was a military genius for instance? And if I'm to be accused of Whataboutery for saying this, then in a two horse race for who becomes president how else can the people decide if not by whataboutery? Both candidates set out their policies and they then spend the weeks and months before the election engaging in endless whataboutery should the other guys policies be enacted. Wouldn't it be more honest of you to just admit that you really, really hated Donald Trump so much that you were prepared to ignore Joe Biden's catastrophic cognitive decline and have a man with advanced dementia installed as president and not worry too much about who was really running the country behind the scenes?

?

 

[briantrumpet]

You're making the mistake of thinking I'm a Trump fanboi. The point being that I'm not attempting to deflect from his many failings or to absolve him of any blame, I'm just interested in why he generates quite so much hate amongst his detractors when he's just the latest in a wide field of hopeless American presidents who were personally flawed, did morally repugnant acts in their public and private lives, and were ill equipped for high office. I mean I'm happy to concede the point being made in the above link, but do you really think that George W Bush was a military genius for instance? And if I'm to be accused of Whataboutery for saying this, then in a two horse race for who becomes president how else can the people decide if not by whataboutery? Both candidates set out their policies and they then spend the weeks and months before the election engaging in endless whataboutery should the other guys policies be enacted. Wouldn't it be more honest of you to just admit that you really, really hated Donald Trump so much that you were prepared to ignore Joe Biden's catastrophic cognitive decline and have a man with advanced dementia installed as president and not worry too much about who was really running the country behind the scenes?

Start a thread for dead and ex-presidents if you want to (and ignore this one, if you can't see the point of criticising Trump, because some of the others weren't perfect). I'll admit to bemusement (or amusement) that you write long paragraphs wondering why people are exercised about the most corrupt president in history (certainly recent, if ever) on a thread bearing his name.

 

[Pinno718]

A dead presidents thread and a George Dublya thread?
Wiz zis thread proliferation, you're really spoiling him.

 

[Dorset Boy]

If you rolled up the worst aspects of every US President, and then added in some extra like the dismantling of the constitution, the negative impact of tariffs etc, then you get the Tangoed Tw@t.

 

[the snail]

Don't worry, this particular thread has roughly a 3.5 year life span.

Assuming Maga abide by the constitution and trump isn't dictator for life by then.

 

[Stevo 666]

Assuming Maga abide by the constitution and trump isn't dictator for life by then.

I'll leave that one with the hand-wringers. In any event, what's to say that his successor will be better - assuming that the next POTUS is a republican. JD Vance anyone?

 

[PurplePenguin]

I'll leave that one with the hand-wringers. In any event, what's to say that his successor will be better - assuming that the next POTUS is a republican. JD Vance anyone?

JD Vance would be much better for the currently owned liberals, because he is not popular enough to put through unpopular things. Sunak/Truss are examples in the UK - they didn't have Johnson's popularity. Also, JD Vance has occasionally muttered some sensible things and is vaguely coherent.

 

[Stevo 666]

JD Vance would be much better for the currently owned liberals, because he is not popular enough to put through unpopular things. Sunak/Truss are examples in the UK - they didn't have Johnson's popularity. Also, JD Vance has occasionally muttered some sensible things and is vaguely coherent.

Careful now, you'll get the same treatment as people having the temerity to ask why the personal hatred for Trump with statements like that.

 

[Shortfall]

JD Vance would be much better for the currently owned liberals, because he is not popular enough to put through unpopular things. Sunak/Truss are examples in the UK - they didn't have Johnson's popularity. Also, JD Vance has occasionally muttered some sensible things and is vaguely coherent.

Shhhh.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Shhhh.

This is in comparison to Trump, so quite a low bar to clear.

 

[briantrumpet]

JD Vance would be much better for the currently owned liberals, because he is not popular enough to put through unpopular things. Sunak/Truss are examples in the UK - they didn't have Johnson's popularity. Also, JD Vance has occasionally muttered some sensible things and is vaguely coherent.

The question would be whether Vance could break free from the stranglehold that Trump has engendered through MAGA. It's hard to tell what any Republicans actually stand for now, given the imperative to march in line behind Trump to avoid the wrath of Trump & MAGA.

I'm not sure that lumping Truss & Sunak together is fair on Sunak or reflects quite how mad Truss was/is. I can remember a few of us on CS being hopeful that Sunak might be vaguely competent and would bring the Tories back from the trollery & incompetence of the Johnson era, but he just seemed to continue in the Johnson mould, but without the charisma.

If Vance were to replace Trump, it would be interesting to see if he can break free, or just has to go along with the financial & health disasters that might lie ahead.

One might see why lefties wouldn't be too keen on him though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_JD_Vance

On social issues, Vance is considered conservative.[12] He opposes abortion,[13][14] same-sex marriage,[12] and gun control.[15][16][17] He has taken a number of natalist positions. He has repeatedly expressed his belief that childlessness is linked to sociopathy. Vance has repeatedly asserted that parents should have more voting power than non-parents;[18][19] however, in August 2024, he backtracked from that suggestion.[20] He has proposed federal criminalization of gender-affirming care for minors.[21] He supports Israel in the Gaza war.[22] He opposes continued American military aid to Ukraine during the ongoing Russian invasion and prefers a negotiated peace.[23][24][25] Vance has argued that the country's largest and most powerful institutions have united against the right and has called for "a de-woke-ification program".[26][27] He is critical of universities, which he has called "the enemy".[28] Vance is also critical of both the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[29]

 

[Psamathe]

I'm just interested in why he generates quite so much hate amongst his detractors when he's just the latest in a wide field of hopeless American presidents who were personally flawed, did morally repugnant acts in their public and private lives, and were ill equipped for high office. I mean I'm happy to concede the point being made in the above link, but do you really think that George W Bush was a military genius for instance?

Couple of aspects.

1. Hate implies strong personal dislike but for me it's "hate" in relation to what he's doing (eg to people, to the environment, to our legislative systems, to moral standards, etc.).

2. Disliking what Trump is doing does not mean that one approves of what other US Presidents did in the past. That said, my impression is that Trump seems to be a merger of all the bad aspects from many previous Presidents, ie all the bad stuff in a single package.

Whilst he's a US President and thus "none of my business", his scope and impact is spreading far beyond the US. His damage to the environment extends to impact the whole world and whilst we all struggle to try and reduce the devastation he's blindly taken a "dislike" to anything that can reduce humanity's destruction of our only planet. Similarly, innocent civilian Palestinians living in Gaza didn't get a vote on US President yet that President has the power to stop their being killed through starvation, bullets & bombs, to stop it this afternoon yet instead he choses to continue to enable the killing. etc., etc.

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

Don't worry, this particular thread has roughly a 3.5 year life span.

Given the performance of the Democrats (or rather lack of performance) in 3½ years time we'll only need a minor thread title change (or maybe we won't even need that).

Ian