[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1705206809273.png (722.99 KB, 960x540, 16:9, Trump_gestures_to_people_d….png) ImgOps Google

Is there going to come a point in our lives in which Donald Trump is no longer such a dominant aspect of our existence in worldwide culture, international relations, politics, religion, and society, or is Trump going to wind up similar to Napoleon Bonaparte, Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, Martin Luther, and other civilization changing figures?

More specifically, what're the chances in your opinion that Trump becomes President again in 2024, 2028, 2032, or whenever else there's an opportunity during his current and future political campaigns? Do you think that American support for the Taiwanese against mainland China, for the Ukrainians against Russia, for South Koreans against North Korea, and for Israelis against Iran (as well as other countries in the broader Mideast plus international militant groups) will all end as he has promised if he does win? Should all of those expressions of support end, regardless?


He's most similar to Francisco Franco or maybe Joseph McCarthy in my reckoning. If anything the idea of propping him up beside Napoleon is offensive as Trump does not reach similar heights.

His isolationist bend will probably result in attempts to pull out of pretty much everything except Israel. In his first presidency Trump was broadly supportive of Israel and escalatory against Iran. I see no reason he would change that posture.

But in my opinion we should not back down from any of these commitments. North and South Korea is pretty cut and dry that North Korea is just unacceptable to capitulate to. I think Taiwan inherits our agreements with the Republic of China, if we pull our of Israel we lose the ability to have a say at negotiating around the Palestinians not to mention the Iranian government being openly genocidal.

For Ukraine it's shameful there's even a debate. It's the easiest support ever. The Ukranians are fighting a defensive war and are asking for weapons we have to fight it. Weapons we were going to have to spend money decommissioning anyway. Another of Cold War era material we built to fight a war exactly where it is and against what we anticipated to fight. Against an expansionist, imperialistic Russia. The WW3 arguments are vapid. If it happens it is Russia's fault for swatting at the Eagle as far as I'm concerned


If Trump succeeds in dissolving naval alliances in Pacific Ocean related countries, and he's victorious in having the North Koreans unify all of the historic Korean lands together and mainland China unifies all of the the historic Chinese lands together, then I'd argue he'd not just be one of the most influential American Presidents of all time. He'd also be one of the most influential national leaders of all time. Particularly noting that the U.S. would be abandoning Australia, New Zealand, and other countries at the same time in terms of security support.

He'd be "the man that ended Pacific democracy".


Trump is either the biggest crook people will vote into the office (again), or he's actually the victim of the political campaign since forever.

So much red flags are raised against him that it almost looks like a joke that he's still running and especially that he's still so popular.

Like, Trump himself is not very subtle about the stuff he plans to do when he becomes president again.

I also wonder what the deal is with project 2025.
Is it a hoax the left is using to scare people?
Is it something that is actually existing, but exaggerated in what it plans to do?
Or is it really something that the right is planning to implement and somehow most people are okay with it?


If I put my hat on a a former Christian and former Republican, I can make the argument that America is a white Christian nation created by proudly white Christian Founding Fathers. And all of our Constitutional principles only exist to protect white Christians and not other individuals who are merely guests in our racial and religious homeland. It's immoral for a group such as black gay people to demand the rights of gay marriage as well as for police brutality to stop. This is our nation. Made for us. By us. Not them.

Our statutory laws must be based on white culture and Christian morality. That's our heritage. If some degenerate who's, say, a woman in man's clothing doesn't like that? Tough. Off to jail with you. It's God's will in God's country.

So, yes, the American right-wing is 100% sincere and 100% serious about all this, like I personally used to be when I said those things to people (and to myself).


He's more likely going to be another William Jennings Brian.


Trump will go down as the greatest conman to ever live. The figure representing all the hypocrises of American culture, when America destroys itself.

He represents America's long and rocky relationship with reality as it is and America's history of epistemological entitlement and general lack of intellectual humility. He's a conman who's cons have always hinged on media campaigns where he fraudulently presents himself as something other than what he is,  primarily to fuel his malignant narcissism. He's part of that category of Americans in American history like P.T. Barnum, Buffalo Bill Hicock, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk and a slew of pro wrestling promoters and athletes engaging kayfabe. He's fundamentally fraudulent, but the image he creates is one that directly appeals to the wishful thinking of his biggest fans, who very much want to believe trump is exactly who he tries to present himself as, even in those ways when the reality may be the exact opposite.

Of course, if it wasn't Trump destroying America, it would have been someone similar to him. America's lack of discipline when presented with alluring fantasies about who we really are would've eventually destroyed us.


I can certainly say as somebody who personally believed in Christianity, capitalism, and conservativism to a large degree earlier on in my life that Trump helped me see those three ideological cults as terrible packs of lies (at least, well, in their current, modern configurations).


>Should all of those expressions of support end, regardless?
Ukraine in particular should be carved up into its constituent parts according to historical and ethnic lines.  As Ukraine has itself to blame for the Russian invasion, going back to 2014 when post-Revolution Ukraine set about removing protected status of minorities within its borders (including Russians), and specifically set about making Russians within Ukraine into second-hand citizens within those areas that are overwhelmingly Russian.  Ukraine should face the consequences of their actions and not be trusted with the minority-populated lands they inherited through illegitimate means.  ANY of the minorities.  As such the lands of the Kievan Rus should be stripped to those lands that are majority Ukrainian and as determined by plebiscite, according to the principles of national self-determination and contrary to the desires of the current dictator, Zelenskyy.

The notion that we should be loyal to Ukraine just because they fired the prosecutor who was looking into Hunter Biden and Burisma in exchange for a billion dollars is a Biden concern, not an American concern.  (Unless you're considering the corruption of the current US President, which is an American concern.)


What other places is Russia allowed to claim next according to you?
If at some point Russia does a series of drone strikes / missile strikes into NATO countries because NATO is a legitimate threat, would that be acceptable to you?


>What other places is Russia allowed to claim next according to you?
This has less to do with Russia proactively claiming anything and more to do with Ukraine shattering its already questionable legitimacy.  If the Russians in Ukraine do not want to be part of a Ukraine which considers them second-class citizens, who exactly are they supposed to appeal to?
>If at some point Russia does a series of drone strikes / missile strikes into NATO countries because NATO is a legitimate threat, would that be acceptable to you?
What does this have to do with anything?  NATO is a threat.  Being a threat doesn't justify drone strikes.  Russia wouldn't drone strike NATO just as we do not drone strike Russia despite considering them a threat.  I can't even figure out what you're trying to imply; it doesn't follow.


Are you fair and non-hypocritical here in that you also support the reunification of the Chinese race by mainland China taking over Taiwan and exterminating the resistance to ethnic harmony and social togetherness there?

As far as the unification of the Russian race goes, you also support the seizure of holy Russian territory formerly administered by the Orthodox Church presented held by the Finnish, Estonian, and Polish governments currently in power as well... right? You're not a hypocrite? Just want to know!


I would suggest that if Taiwan started treating ethnically Chinese citizens and 2nd class and actively took measures to stop the peaceable vote of ethnically Chinese citizens from choosing democratically to secede from Taiwan, all the while as Taiwan courts joining a military alliance with their long time adversaries, then China would certainly have understandable cause to look into methods of intervention.


That would kind of mean that a group of Russian expats can claim a piece of France as Russian territory and then Russia has a reason to not just push for France to honor that claim, but can start launching missiles into several big cities and exterminating the French population in order to protect their own minorities there.Russia has launched their military in Ukraine over those claims. They have not just posted some troups to protect the minorities.
They have launched attacks aimed at destroying Kiev and cities all over Ukraine and have slaughtered the Ukrainian population and sent the rest back to prison camps in Russia.

They're not making a secret of the fact that other Eastern European countries are next on the list.


I'm ill convinced of much you describe here, especially in respect to a greater territorial aim from Russia.
In either case; they've got no historical claim on France, nor is it a nation that boarders them anyway. So I'm not really sure how any of that would apply.


Stating things plainly:

If the native Taiwanese peoples that organically arose on that island have a form of civilization with their own artworks, religions, music, literature, social organizations, and so on that is scientifically inferior and lesser than the mighty achievements of that mainland Chinese race, with the mainland Chinese race suffering under the idiocy and immorality of the lower races temporarily having political power, then is it a matter of scientific destiny of those with higher evolved way of life exterminate those lesser beings and thus take over the island's territory.

This is exactly parallel to the superior Russian race achieving their proper place above mongrel groups of a lower biological status such as the Finns and the Ukrainians (among many others) that're compromised by Jewish influences, homosexual influences, feminist influences, and so on, with the more evolved civilization organizing proper life above the immoral barbarian groups temporarily occupying territory that could be used more efficiently by better peoples.

As the iconic conservative political philosopher Houston Stewart Chamberlain put it, "Certain anthropologists would fain teach us that all races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie! The races of mankind are markedly different in the nature and also in the extent of their gifts."


I don't know. It's hard to care about politics anymore after the Democratic Party failed to nominate Bernie Sanders, who was the more popular candidate, resulting in the anti-establishment movement having nowhere else to turn but to Donald Trump, giving him the win in 2016. And then to see that they also ended up giving up the Supreme Court seats, as well, because they would have rather had Donald Trump as President than Bernie Sanders.

In 2020, the Democratic Party threw a few peanuts to the Bernie Sanders crowd in order to gain back some of their lost support, which barely worked.

Now, in 2024, it's the story of the new slightly-reformed establishment candidate vs. the only anti-establishment candidate again.

But would the world have really been that much different if Bernie Sanders won the nomination and presidency in 2020? I doubt it. Trump would have probably just ran and won in 2020 instead, and it would just be Bernie vs. Trump again this year.

As for the chances of Trump being President in 2024, I would say it's about as good as they were four years ago. I'm not going to follow the election, though. I'll probably do an internet search to see who the President is in February or March of next year, after all the recounts are in (and the lawsuits are over).

If Trump loses in 2024, he won't be running again in 2028. He'll be way too old. He would proably end support for such wars, I think. Expressions of support are complex, as it's often a political game when dealing with other countries. For exmaple, if you say you're never going to support X country if Y country attacks X, then you're just encouraging Y country to attack X, and if they can take you at your word because of your history of being honest, then that just encourages Y country to attack X. But it's hard to say.

Also if Trump loses in 2024, we'll almost certainly get a Republican in 2028. If Trump wins in 2024, then we'll probably get a Democrat in 2028. (But I could be wrong, as I often am.)

tl;dr: The President is just a figurehead. Real change doesn't happen through politics. If you feel like it, vote. If you don't, then don't.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]