Trump on Joe Rogan

[Valcazar]

The ones who lost money when he negotiated the Afghan pull out. The ones who hear him saying he will end the wars going on now. The ones who won't be given access to the White House this time via proxy like Kelly. The ones who don't want RFk Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard in Cabinet because of their clear views.

So no one you can point to.
Just "you know, them".

But seriously, why would they be worried?
He said he was going to end the wars last time and he didn't.
He escalated them.
Threw massive amounts of drones.
Was apparently stopped repeatedly from opening new conflicts.

I completely agree that a given company might be worried about him - Trump holds grudges and probably would be happy to block someone who has access now if he doesn't think they are loyal.
But he has major defense industry backers right now -> no one is worried about the MIC not being well taken care of by Trump.

They might be hedging their bets contributing to Trump(they do that in Congressional districts and Senate Races as well). But in the end it's about who is more controllable. Who is the sure thing to kow tow.

And that's an interesting question.
Who is easier to control?

Trump is famously easy to manipulate in all kinds of ways, but he is volatile.
You have a much greater risk of him turning on you for some weird personal reason and that might be enough reason to try and keep him out of it.

So I am sure there are companies who prefer Harris to him.
But the industry doesn't seem to be against him, really.

They are happily donating to Trump.

As you so love to espouse, who in the arms dealers eyes are the "lesser of two evils" to their wants. It's an opinion, and a valid one.

Don't like it, I don't care. Kelly was a plant. Fuck his opinion and lies.

That's a LOT of cognitive effort to try and deny Kelly's comments.

 

[Valcazar]

I can't insult anyone I don't know.


I'm pretty sure it's something that goes in your mouth and that's what you offered. Don't go changing your tune just because you anticipate a rough ride. Don't worry princess, I'l be gentle.

It's just going to be weak sex domination insults?

Well that's boring.

If your ideas are challenged, you just turtle and lash out with rape jokes?

How lame.

 

[Butler1000]

So no one you can point to.
Just "you know, them".

But seriously, why would they be worried?
He said he was going to end the wars last time and he didn't.
He escalated them.
Threw massive amounts of drones.
Was apparently stopped repeatedly from opening new conflicts.

I completely agree that a given company might be worried about him - Trump holds grudges and probably would be happy to block someone who has access now if he doesn't think they are loyal.
But he has major defense industry backers right now -> no one is worried about the MIC not being well taken care of by Trump.



And that's an interesting question.
Who is easier to control?

Trump is famously easy to manipulate in all kinds of ways, but he is volatile.
You have a much greater risk of him turning on you for some weird personal reason and that might be enough reason to try and keep him out of it.

So I am sure there are companies who prefer Harris to him.
But the industry doesn't seem to be against him, really.

They are happily donating to Trump.



That's a LOT of cognitive effort to try and deny Kelly's comments.

Guess we will find out shortly

 

[mandrill]

The ones who lost money when he negotiated the Afghan pull out. The ones who hear him saying he will end the wars going on now. The ones who won't be given access to the White House this time via proxy like Kelly. The ones who don't want RFk Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard in Cabinet because of their clear views.

They might be hedging their bets contributing to Trump(they do that in Congressional districts and Senate Races as well). But in the end it's about who is more controllable. Who is the sure thing to kow tow.

As you so love to espouse, who in the arms dealers eyes are the "lesser of two evils" to their wants. It's an opinion, and a valid one.

Don't like it, I don't care. Kelly was a plant. Fuck his opinion and lies.

Silly.

The Afghan War was unsustainable. The claim to end all wars is simply part of his "I'm the greatest, smartest guy of all time".

If Trump gets back in, Jared and Ivanka and all their hangers-on will come back to gobble up the perks and the bribes and the kickbacks and Trump will be dealing, just like he dealt with MBS and the Saudis and with the Chinese.

Tulsi and RKF Jr are sleaze in human form and will slurp and gobble at the trough as well.

And all the arms dealers and billionaires will get a piece. Like Musk and Thiel, who have already worked their way up Trump's ass like the human tapeworms they truly are.

 

[mandrill]

It's just going to be weak sex domination insults?

Well that's boring.

If your ideas are challenged, you just turtle and lash out with rape jokes?

How lame.

Don't mock his valuable keystrokes.

 

[mandrill]

The ones who lost money when he negotiated the Afghan pull out. The ones who hear him saying he will end the wars going on now. The ones who won't be given access to the White House this time via proxy like Kelly. The ones who don't want RFk Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard in Cabinet because of their clear views.

They might be hedging their bets contributing to Trump(they do that in Congressional districts and Senate Races as well). But in the end it's about who is more controllable. Who is the sure thing to kow tow.

As you so love to espouse, who in the arms dealers eyes are the "lesser of two evils" to their wants. It's an opinion, and a valid one.

Don't like it, I don't care. Kelly was a plant. Fuck his opinion and lies.

Who planted Kelly?

For a guy with big opinions, you're smol on actual facts.

 

[Valcazar]

Guess we will find out shortly

Will we?
In what way?
What is going to count as "finding out"?

 

[mandrill]

Well then, I will let my future wife AOC speak for me.

shhh, she doesn't know the future wife part yet!!!!

I ended it with Alexandra - or Lexi as I call her - because we argued about Gaza. She's just with you to make me jealous and win me back.

 

[The Oracle]

Apparently so.

"The other side's got a lot of crazy endorsements. Swift, Eminem, Leo DiCaprio, Beyonce. Every day the Democratic Party looks more and more like a Diddy party."

'' Supporters take Trump seriously but not literally. Opposition take Trump literally but not seriously. ''

 

[Valcazar]

Sooo right up your alley?

No.
I'm boring in a completely different way.

Funny, I don't recall being challenged and I'm certain I didn't make any rape jokes because those are only funny in jail.

Wow.
You're a prince among men, I see.
You might want to read what I wrote more carefully, though.

Perhaps you've rolled into the wrong thread or mistaken me for someone else? I realize you're intellectually challenged so I totally understand.

LOL.
I have to admit, this tactic is going to work to get people to leave you alone.

 

[mandrill]

I disagree. I know a lot of people. The only ones I know that are raising the fascist issue never voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020.

I'm sure there are a very small group of people that are persuaded by this argument. However, the polling strongly suggests the argument that Democracy is under threat is not landing.

If anything, "Fascist", "Hitler" are great rallying cries to motivate liberal voters. And because the Democrats have put this into the news, the liberal media echo chamber can repeat this over and over again in their newscasts for the next week.

Absolutely right. The whole idea that a failed candidate would have his thugs storm the Capitol and delay the investiture of the winner and then launch dozens of fake lawsuits claiming that the election was stolen is preposterous, ludicrous, impossible and implausible and.......

Trump certainly wouldn't do it again. Certainly for sure not after he loses this election. Or ever. It could never happen. Ever.....

 

[Butler1000]

Will we?
In what way?
What is going to count as "finding out"?

On election day. At this point all arguments and policy are out there. All history known. Over 40 million and counting have advanced voted out of about 200 million.

Wisconsin was within 20,000 in 2020. The Muslim vote has collapsed in Michigan for Harris putting it back to the probability of a 10,000 vote difference in 2016. Pennsylvania I saw a poll they were within 0.1% of eachother.

And in the end, despite the bleating if partisans on both sides, the world won't end, democracy won't end, and 2 years after the mid terms will happen(and talk will begin on those the day after as a solution).

And either way I will have fun trolling on the board.

So finding out is watching what the winner does. It's that simple.

 

[Valcazar]

I disagree. I know a lot of people. The only ones I know that are raising the fascist issue never voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020.

That does not mean they are not voting against him because they perceive a fascist threat.
Just because he was the worse candidate in their eyes in the past doesn't mean this isn't a reason they are voting against him now.

That said, it is clear I misunderstood what you were arguing, which was that you don't think people who would otherwise vote for him are voting against him due to this.

I'm sure there are a very small group of people that are persuaded by this argument. However, the polling strongly suggests the argument that Democracy is under threat is not landing.

I agree.
It's a fundamental tragedy that it isn't.
The US electorate really doesn't want to believe Trump when he tells them what he wants to do.
They just cannot accept it, and so make sure not to believe it.

There are not nearly enough people taking it seriously.

If anything, "Fascist", "Hitler" are great rallying cries to motivate liberal voters. And because the Democrats have put this into the news, the liberal media echo chamber can repeat this over and over again in their newscasts for the next week.

It's mostly exhausting to liberal voters, actually.
Everyone would far prefer it wasn't on the table.

 

[Valcazar]

Absolutely right. The whole idea that a failed candidate would have his thugs storm the Capitol and delay the investiture of the winner and then launch dozens of fake lawsuits claiming that the election was stolen is preposterous, ludicrous, impossible and implausible and.......

Trump certainly wouldn't do it again. Certainly for sure not after he loses this election. Or ever. It could never happen. Ever.....

That's not Wyatt's argument.
Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to the point he is making.
It is whether or not it is motivating people to switch votes.

 

[mandrill]

That's not Wyatt's argument.
Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to the point he is making.
It is whether or not it is motivating people to switch votes.

I agree with that. Everyone who gives a shit has already got the point. And calling someone a "fascist" is overdone and ineffective.

I called my dog a "fascist" yesterday and he still wouldn't get off the couch.

 

[Valcazar]

On election day. At this point all arguments and policy are out there. All history known. Over 40 million and counting have advanced voted out of about 200 million.

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
Who wins the election isn't going to show us anything about who the MIC supports, since they are - as you pointed out - hedging their bets.

 

[WyattEarp]

Silly.

The Afghan War was unsustainable.

I'm sure there were many in military leadership who thought we should maintain some type of defense perimeter around Kabul and other controllable regions indefinitely. That seems to be the situation we found ourselves the last years of the war. I don't think the U.S. military was directly confronting the militias in the remote regions. Perhaps bombs and missiles being expended periodically was the extent of war-making towards the end.

The U.S. military leadership is biased towards maintaining a large, global footprint. I like Trump's rhetoric of reducing our footprint and/or expecting allies to contribute more to their own defense. I don't think Trump was very successful in reducing our footprint his first four years. On the matter of allies ponying up on defense, I think he takes unfair flak for that. For good reasons and bad reasons, I can see why U.S. Generals and Admirals would want all the hardware and troops to be American.

I generally side with Butler's argument that the U.S. military leadership is too cozy with defense contractors. It's been a debated point for over sixty years for good reason. Hence, Eisenhower's use of the term "military-industrial complex". I'm not as overwhelmed with the idea that the Democrats support wars. I think Presidents from both parties have a hard time controlling the military leadership.

I think when Trump tells the story of General Milley saying it would be cheaper to leave our hardware in Afghanistan it's very funny. I'm sure it is exaggerated to an extent. However, I am cynical enough to believe that Milley's thinking leave it, we can just buy more stuff.

 

[Valcazar]

Sorry, I only know one kind of boring.

You should expand your horizons.
There is a whole world of possibilities out there.

Ok I reread it and I stand behind my previous statement but I'm not surprised that you get confused so easily. It's sort of a theme with you and again, I can totally understand based on your intelligence or lack thereof.

LOL!!!
Adorable.

Leave me alone? Now that sounds boring. Like you.

You're coming across kind of desperate and needy here.
Don't worry, when you say something that piques my interest, I'll comment.

 

[Butler1000]

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
Who wins the election isn't going to show us anything about who the MIC supports, since they are - as you pointed out - hedging their bets.

I'm sure this is a compelling point to you, but it's opinion. That's it. If Harris wins and the wars continue and expand then they are happy, and under her, they will.

If Trump wins and they continue and expand then hey, I was wrong, oh ah big deal, the USA has been waging proxy wars and regime changes since the 1950's so it's the same again. I won't lose sleep about it.

But if he doesn't or lessens them, then I'm right, less people get killed. Great!

But either way it will have absolutely no affect on my life as it stands. Just as the last 8 years of Trump/Biden didn't either. It's just an intellectual exercise. A move perhaps of the USA Overton window, a continued migration/realignment of demographics between the two parties.

And ultimately what I consider to be the real change that is world occurring of an increased tendency toward isolationism that if some of the economic/demographics collapses occur in Japan, China, Russia, and more coupled with more xenophobia, this will accelerate in the USA.

And who ever gets election now and after will only be a symptom, not a catalyst or a solution.

 

[richaceg]

Absolutely right. The whole idea that a failed candidate would have his thugs storm the Capitol and delay the investiture of the winner and then launch dozens of fake lawsuits claiming that the election was stolen is preposterous, ludicrous, impossible and implausible and.......

Trump certainly wouldn't do it again. Certainly for sure not after he loses this election. Or ever. It could never happen. Ever.....

The media skewered bits and pieces of this to make a narrative...you need to move on from Jan 6. It was the biggest nothingburger and you guys are clinging like flies to shit....