America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

A bit more face-eating from everyones favourite leopard

 

[Joey D]

A bit more face-eating from everyones favourite leopard

View attachment 1423232

Every hospital in the country has a nurse shortage. I don't know why she couldn't just walk into any hospital and say, "I need a job." They would probably ask her to start yesterday. Working for the VA kind of sucks too. We've had all sorts of doctors and nurses leave to work there only to return because it's terrible.

It sounds like he wants to be outraged....which makes sense because Trumpers need to be outraged over every single thing in existence.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Danoff]

A bit more face-eating from everyones favourite leopard

View attachment 1423232

As @Joey D mentioned, nursing is in demand. However, I also know people personally who just had offers rescinded due to the hiring freeze and are left now not starting the job they reorganized their lives to start. It's not just a dick move to rescind an offer, and needs to be reserved only for the most extreme circumstances, it's also generally bad for the federal government.

One of the ways the government kept costs down and salaries lower for federal employees was the appearance of stability and benefits. Rescinding offers and calling all remote workers (many of whom bought houses in other states on the basis that remote work was an embraced federal program) erases that stability. As a result, prices rise. Reclassifying federal employees as political appointees does the same. Canning DEI workers and trying to turn federal employees into spies turning in anyone doing anything suspected of DEI does the same.

I know that the goal is to prevent the government from functioning. But those same people are not going to be happy when the government doesn't function nearly as efficiently, and taxes rise, and waiting lines grow.

 

[Imari]

As @Joey D mentioned, nursing is in demand. However, I also know people personally who just had offers rescinded due to the hiring freeze and are left now not starting the job they reorganized their lives to start. It's not just a dick move to rescind an offer, and needs to be reserved only for the most extreme circumstances, it's also generally bad for the federal government.

I know the labor laws in the US are generally pretty weak compared to most places, but how is that a thing that can be done? People don't move on a job offer, they move on a signed contract for a job. So basically they're not having their offer rescinded, they're being fired at zero days. Which is still awful, but one would hope that there are some protections for people in such a situation.

If not, that seems like a whole problem in itself. Employers should not be permitted to offer jobs and then at the last minute say "just kidding, GTFO" without consequences or demonstrating some sort of force majeure. That seems like a pretty basic necessity if you're going to have any sort of geographic mobility for workers at all.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Not really.

View attachment 1423019

If you think of everyone in the world as people, then nationalism very obviously unites some and divides others. Someone who believed that people in, say, China were people would not say what you said. It wouldn't even occur to them.

But if nationalism only unites people, then all those other "things" that it divides them against must not be people. That makes perfect sense, but only if you don't think of the Chinese as people.

You don't have to say it out loud to make it very clear that you don't think of the Chinese as people. You're going to backpedal on it now, but your inner beliefs came through loud and clear with what you said.

Well, the call is coming from inside the house at this point so that's a bit of a big ask. The people of America demonstrably want tyranny - they elected a tyrant who publically campaigned on his promises to act tyrannically. I'm not sure it's in anyone's power to unite people against their own wishes.

But let's generalise and say that you have a lot of individuals who are against tyranny, but just need to be united to form a strong coalition against it. How could you go about it?

You can show them that there are other people that feel the same way and give them ways to meet up. You can start leading and organising, even at a fairly small and local level, because this may grow into a greater movement. You can make sure to visibly support people who have been publically injured by the tyrants to encourage others to resist. You can make public the damage that the tyrants are doing to individuals, to communities, to everyone within their reach.

Hell, you can start a militia to enact violent resistance and assassinations if you really want. Or just get a weapon and go full Saint Luigi hoping that other people will follow your example.

There's lots of ways that you can unite, basically anything that makes resistance to tyranny visible and encourages others to join in. None of this requires reference to any nation at all. You are simply a group of people who are against the behaviour of the tyrants and are willing to act in resistance in whatever form that takes. That is the bond that links you, and that is enough. For the people where that isn't enough to draw them into the group, they shouldn't be there anyway because they're not actually against tyranny.

Throwing in nationalism doesn't help this, it just gives ways for the movement to mistakenly target individuals or groups that the national identity labels as "other" and avoid targeting those labelled as "citizens". Those are not the groups that are the problem if your purpose is to fight tyranny. You want to target "tyrants" and avoid targeting "non-tyrants", and those groups can be external or internal.

Know your enemy, because I don't think you do. You're just parroting more stuff that you've been fed on the internet without really thinking about what it means. Maybe this time sit down and have a think about what you actually believe before you go off half-cocked.

OK OK OK let me rephrase: the Western world must stand up to the Chinese Communist Party and it's tyrannical leader Xi Jingping or else things could get messy indeed. I was not referring to the people of China because not all of them are evil. Sorry if I did not make that distinction clear enough for you. But saying that Trump is a tyrant? Wow. I don't think he'll have people killed for going against him or order the massacre of uni students in a town square. He will not enslave thousands of Uighur Muslims and he will not persecute people who are LGBTQI. Another thing he won't do is exterminate millions of Jews. Trump loves his country, yes, but he's no Hitler.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

OK OK OK let me rephrase: the Western world must stand up to the Chinese Communist Party and it's tyrannical leader Xi Jingping or else things could get messy indeed. I was not referring to the people of China because not all of them are evil. Sorry if I did not make that distinction clear enough for you. But saying that Trump is a tyrant? Wow. I don't think he'll have people killed for going against him or order the massacre of uni students in a town square. He will not enslave thousands of Uighur Muslims and he will not persecute people who are LGBTQI. Another thing he won't do is exterminate millions of Jews. Trump loves his country, yes, but he's no Hitler.

What if he has people that go against him prosecuted? What happens if he strips LGBTQ people of rights they've had until this point? What if he gives a wink and a nod to white supremacists who torch synagogues/mosques?

The bar you've set is literally "worst human in history" so you've given Trump quite a lot of latitude to be extremely awful.

 

[McLaren]

OK OK OK let me rephrase: the Western world must stand up to the Chinese Communist Party and it's tyrannical leader Xi Jingping or else things could get messy indeed. I was not referring to the people of China because not all of them are evil. Sorry if I did not make that distinction clear enough for you. But saying that Trump is a tyrant? Wow. I don't think he'll have people killed for going against him or order the massacre of uni students in a town square. He will not enslave thousands of Uighur Muslims and he will not persecute people who are LGBTQI. Another thing he won't do is exterminate millions of Jews. Trump loves his country, yes, but he's no Hitler.

Brother, I have some concerning news for you.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper charges in a memoir out May 10 that former President Trump said when demonstrators were filling the streets around the White House following the death of George Floyd: "Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?"

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/mark-esper-book-trump-protesters

What if he has people that go against him prosecuted?

Look at how the cleric is being treated by his cult stooges; proposing deportation & that she's a heretic to the church b/c she dared ask a man she said had tremendous power to show mercy.

What happens if he strips LGBTQ people of rights they've had until this point?

Ending any internal programs that benefit those people & banning the LGBTQ+ flag from federal properties is the start.

What if he gives a wink and a nod to white supremacists who torch synagogues/mosques?

Elon giving out "concerning gestures", pardoning people who tried to stop an official election certification as a sign of loyalty to those willing to commit crimes for him. Won't be winks and nods this time.

 

[Famine]

Trump loves his country, yes

If he is capable of love, the only thing he'd love is himself.

The USA is, in effect, a construct made to enable the (currently) 50 States to work together as a single entity for a range of efficiencies and conveniences: common language, common currency, common defence and policing, effectively borderless travel, and so on. That construct is governed by the Constitution and its Amendments (the first ten of which are the Bill of Rights).

He either broke or expressed intent to break through absolute ignorance at least seven of the 27 amendments in his first term in office, including fundamental limits enshrined in the Bill of Rights and in fact the very first one as noted above. He's already tried to break one in his second (the 14th) which has been slapped down as "blatantly unconstitutional" by a judge. And, lest we forget, he attempted to subvert the 2020 election to reinstall himself in power against the actual results.


If he loved the USA, you'd think he'd show it a bit better by doing his actual job of defending the Constitution (it's literally in the oath of office) - which is what the USA itself is - than all but wiping his arse with it.

 

[ScottPuss20]

What if he has people that go against him prosecuted? What happens if he strips LGBTQ people of rights they've had until this point? What if he gives a wink and a nod to white supremacists who torch synagogues/mosques?

I would be concerned if this did happen but I don't think it will.

 

[Jezza819]

But saying that Trump is a tyrant? Wow. I don't think he'll have people killed for going against him

Sure he could. Apparently you haven't noticed a recent Supreme Court ruling that says a President could do exactly that and get away with it.

The Supreme Court Gives the President the Power of a King

The immunity decision has enormous implications for Trump’s trial — and the future of the presidency.

www.brennancenter.org

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it plainly: “Under [the majority’s] rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed ‘unofficial’ is destined to be vanishingly small.”

She also wrote:

“A hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics . . . has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model.”

So yes Trump could have people who are against him killed. All he would have to do was make it an "official act".

 

[Com Fox]

OK OK OK let me rephrase: the Western world must stand up to the Chinese Communist Party and it's tyrannical leader Xi Jingping or else things could get messy indeed. I was not referring to the people of China because not all of them are evil. Sorry if I did not make that distinction clear enough for you. But saying that Trump is a tyrant? Wow. I don't think he'll have people killed for going against him or order the massacre of uni students in a town square. He will not enslave thousands of Uighur Muslims and he will not persecute people who are LGBTQI. Another thing he won't do is exterminate millions of Jews. Trump loves his country, yes, but he's no Hitler.

He just let people who violently rampaged the white house go scot free over an election result they don't like. Even IF Trump isnt being the tyrant himself he is accepting of supporters acting like a mini unofficial political force

 

[ScottPuss20]

Sure he could. Apparently you haven't noticed a recent Supreme Court ruling that says a President could do exactly that and get away with it.

The Supreme Court Gives the President the Power of a King

The immunity decision has enormous implications for Trump’s trial — and the future of the presidency.

www.brennancenter.org

She also wrote:



So yes Trump could have people who are against him killed. All he would have to do was make it an "official act".

"Could"

 

[Exorcet]

I wonder if it wouldn't be a bad start to have some kind of professional registration that requires executives at companies over a certain size be registered and commit to some kind of ethical standard.

Some way of formally detailing the effect of businesses on society and highlighting ethical practices couldn't hurt. I'm wondering now if the concept of wealth through prosperity is considered at all in business education. In the short term maximizing your own profit is best but in the long run raising everyone else up accelerates progress overall, or at least I'd think so.

But saying that Trump is a tyrant? Wow.

His response to not being elected was to try as hard as possible to undermine the government and sow chaos through his supporters. His actions upon being reelected were to walk back on promises instantly and enact pointless policies to appeal to his loyal fan base.

Trump is basically Xi, but more effective at destroying the US.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Some way of formally detailing the effect of businesses on society and highlighting ethical practices couldn't hurt. I'm wondering now if the concept of wealth through prosperity is considered at all in business education. In the short term maximizing your own profit is best but in the long run raising everyone else up accelerates progress overall, or at least I'd think so.

His response to not being elected was to try as hard as possible to undermine the government and sow chaos through his supporters. His actions upon being reelected were to walk back on promises instantly and enact pointless policies to appeal to his loyal fan base.

Trump is basically Xi, but more effective at destroying the US.

He doesn't kill his own people mate.

 

[05XR8]

He's in position to make it happen. He's been in the chair less than a week. If all goes his way, he's got four years and plenty followers to make things real bad.

 

[McLaren]

He doesn't kill his own people mate.

He asked his Defense Secretary to shoot people in the legs. There's literally a long-standing "joke" that he could shoot someone and get away with it from his own mouth. Please try actually looking this stuff up for once....

 

[ScottPuss20]

He asked his Defense Secretary to shoot people in the legs. There's literally a long-standing "joke" that he could shoot someone and get away with it from his own mouth. Please try actually looking this stuff up for once....

That doesn't refute my point.

 

[Exorcet]

He doesn't kill his own people mate.

The best you can say is that he doesn't personally inflict fatal wounds on people, most likely for his own convenience. He had no qualms inciting an insurrection where people died, he had no hesitation in propping up conspiracy theories during a health crisis where people died, he doesn't care about anyone outside of how they serve him. No question the most tyrannical person to sit in the White House.

 

[Jezza819]

"Could"

Could and would.

 

[McLaren]

That doesn't refute my point.

If you have the gall to ask your military personnel if they can just shoot civilians, you are fully engaged in the thought of them being killed. The military does not shoot to injure or maim.

 

[ScottPuss20]

If you have the gall to ask if your military personnel if they can just shoot civilians, you are fully engaged in the thought of them being killed. The military does not shoot to injure or maim.

Asking is not the same as actually doing.

 

[McLaren]

Asking is not the same as actually doing.

As the President of the United States, it absolutely carries equal weight because the President should not be asking in the first place if you can just shoot civilians. The answer is no without 2nd thought, but Trump is an imbecile incapable of 2nd thought.

 

[ScottPuss20]

As the President of the United States, it absolutely carries equal weight because the President should not be asking in the first place if you can just shoot civilians. The answer is no without 2nd thought, but Trump is an imbecile incapable of 2nd thought.

It does not carry equal weight at all.

 

[McLaren]

It does not carry equal weight at all.

Mods, can't you just ban ScottPuss? I'm not saying you should, I'm just asking if you can.

You know, totally not overstepping boundaries asking for something I know better than to be asking.

 

[Biggles]

David Frum on Trump:



Americans have elected a man who is a predator - a predator in his personal life, in his business life and now in his political life. Trump and his backers want to overturn the post WWII alliance & cooperation between liberal democracies that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity and replace it with a world in which "Might is Right".

And the mightiest by far is the United States which has just become, in his view, his own personal fiefdom.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Mods, can't you just ban ScottPuss? I'm not saying you should, I'm just asking if you can.

You know, totally not overstepping boundaries asking for something I know better than to be asking.

I know the mods can ban me. But they won't find enough evidence to do so.

 

[McLaren]

I know the mods can ban me. But they won't find enough evidence to do so.

I painted myself at fault in my post for asking that hypothetical question, not for the mods to actually ban you.

Good grief, your comprehension needs serious work.

 

[Spacegoat]

There's literally a long-standing "joke" that he could shoot someone and get away with it from his own mouth

Still by far the most truthful thing he has ever said. Hell a majority of his supporters and the GOP would help him pull the trigger these days.

 

[Grand Prix]

Still by far the most truthful thing he has ever said. Hell a majority of his supporters and the GOP would help him pull the trigger these days.

He could have held up a baby to protect himself from a gunman's bullets before the election (like that scene from The Dead Zone) and he likely still would have won.