I would love to hear from HN republicans why they think this amount of self enrichment and corruption is okay.
Add to this all the paid-for pardons, the shady stock trades, the never ending vacations at his own properties, the plane deal and much, much more.
No whataboutisms or anonymous downvotes, I’m genuinely curious why people continue to support him.
You're going to have a very uphill battle making a case that he's making America stronger in any commonly held definition of the word. Partisanship is a hell of a drug, man...
Its really interesting how he was able NOT to stumble upon these! My high-stake bet still is: All of the "major people around a distinct circle" are highly involved, meaning: Lot of politicians/gov people etc.
They will try to resist until last breath to not disclose them.
People like to forget that Elon Musk also wanted to party on the island. And that he lied about that before the email came out.
These people have enablers everywhere. It’s exactly like the abuse in the catholic church. The people in power can’t do without the enablers that make excuses for them.
People are really bad at acknowledging a mistake so they rather double down. It's way past anything rational, it's a cult. Doesn't matter what the leader/party does, it's always okay.
Ape-brained tribalism. Apparently many humans just operate without standards & principles, whether from incompetence or personal benefit. Good luck fixing that.
> Let's say we got rid of Trump, but then who is going to be the alternative in your opinion?
You seem to be using the "they're all as bad as eachother" argument. But previous US presidents haven't used their office for enrichment on this scale - and so it seems likely that there are alternative potential presidents who would behave with integrity and dignity.
But isn't that the case? They are all as bad and corrupt in their own merit. Coming back to the original question, do you have anyone concrete in mind that can be the alternative to Trump?
Has any other president fired the the FBI directory because he wouldn't swear personal loyalty to him (like Trump did Comey)? Did any other president try to do a (self) coup?
You may disagree with their policies (and even values), but would have anyone else tried to do an end-run around the Constitution? Pence went through with the 2020 election certification even when people were literally calling him for to be lynched.
The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
Further, wikipedia is not a credible source link in-case you didn't know. Anyone can edit the pages there and somethings are verified and sometime once could even make up facts and link to fake articles.
Had you ever been to a college and used wikipedia link as a source reference when writing a paper you would've known. But I guess for you it's just asking from some probabilistic token generator I guess.
> Had you ever been to a college and used wikipedia link as a source reference when writing a paper you would've known.
Some of us went to school before Wikipedia was invented. And even if Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source directly, going to the references cited in a Wikipedia article and citing those I'm guess is another matter.
>The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
>The aircraft is slated to be transferred to Trump's presidential library foundation shortly before the end of his second term, though critics argue that such a transfer may be unconstitutional.
So it will go to Trump, but only after getting the government to pay billions to upgrade it.
The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
Also stated in a news report[1] linked by Wikipedia,
In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.
The vast majority of examples in the link are either presidents firing members of their own staff, or firing people for not doing their job well. A large number of Trump firings were because people were doing their job.
>> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
What have those people done, particularly Harris, Clinton, Kasich, and Pence that would qualify them for the "crook" title? And have any of them done such things within an order of magnitude or two of the rate and intensity that Trump has done them?
> Examples where former presidents firing people for lack of loyalty, here is a list of them
* Nixon is not an example that helps your case
* Truman fired MacArther for insubordination (and nearing starting WW3): generals do not get to set policy
* essential workers are not allowed to strike: police and firefighters would be fired too
* Ford (Nixon's VP in case you didn't know) isn't helping your case either
* firing a personal chief of staff different compared to a Senate-appointed position, especially one that's supposed to be work independent (like the AG is also supposed to be)
* again, a general that does not get to set policy over a President
Comey was fired for no other reason that he would not cow-tow to Trump. Compare-contrast with another FBI Director's firing:
> However, Sessions’ ethics came into question just before then-President-elect Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Sessions was accused of improperly using an FBI plane to visit his family as well as reportedly installing a security fence around his home on the government’s dime. A Justice Department report found that Sessions had avoided paying taxes on the use of his FBI limousine for his daily commute.
What bad things has she done? Why is she laughable? Does she show up hundreds of thousands of times in the Epstein files? Does she demonstrate daily corruption and self enrichment openly?
I read you argue in favour of far-right German anti-immigration politics a few days ago, in which you admitted living in .de, now you're saying that there is no one better than Trump for US citizens?
How would you know and why would you have such a strong opinion?
Do you also happen to astroturf rightoid politics on Twitter by any chance? I heard it's a common pastime.
Antifa is an American political construct to rally the neofascists behind. In Europe it just means ‘antifascist’, and is still something to be proud of.
> But anyone with a decent amount of dignity, humility, empathy and confidence will do.
Is that enough though? That's more like saying running a country based on vibes. One could argue that a person needs strong leadership, someone putting national interest above else and work for the interest of the people that elected the person.
If you think about it the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies. In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing
> […] the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies.
I don’t see how you can say that, and then:
> In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing
Like, those are the traits required to unselfishly serve others. See literally any religion or framework of ethics.
I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term.
I would say that despite whatever pardons (which I believe can only be federal, not state?), he pro-actively gives himself and colleagues, family etc when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.
In that regard, having massive personal wealth makes some kind of sense.
However - they're all at it to some degree across both sides of the aisle - Pelosi, Crenshaw etc etc.
> I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term
Examples?
> when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.
Uhm...have you mixed Trump up with someone else. It is Trump who loves to bring spurious lawsuits. When Trump is on the receiving end it is almost always not a spurious lawsuit.
I living in a Republican part of the country, I think they believe power is its own morality.
A God that murders people because his feelings got hurt while demanding no one murder, a husband beats his wife and kids because he wasn't respected - these are valid in their moral framework, cruel asymmetrical power structures.
There is a dominant race, a dominant gender, and a dominant country in their view. Laws exist only to control the weak.
These people love Trump because he represents the slave owning, male-dominated, terrorist rebels that form the myth of who we are as a nation. His corruption and enrichment is why they love him.
I noticed the same patterns in my religious family. I live in a largely secular country, and the only people I know who talk down on “other people” all claim to be religious.
I think any HN'er who previously voted republican has experienced enough disappointment; I doubt there would be anyone left.
The most important point for every political faction however is to realize that the problems aren't solved when the current president steps down. The real power that pushes the agenda rest in the hands of a loosely connected network of 'think tanks', religious organizations, tech billionaires and media moguls. They are hidden from the public discourse, simply because they are able to manage it, and as such are a formidable opponent.
There's this weird thing where HN users seem to think for some reason they are better than other people and users of this site wouldn't do X. It all seems incredibly silly with zero foundation in reality. This site has tons of morons. Just like every other publicly accessible website with free sign ups. You can see examples of this spread all throughout the comments on this post as an easy example.
I don’t think anyone without special needs or interests being served really supports the administration at this point.
I do think that significant amounts of money are being spent to make people believe that the admin has wide support and is legitimate in a general democratic sense.
Ultimately, in a democracy, legitimacy really boils down to how much people are willing to tolerate, and that’s a very malleable metric, adjusted through fear, greed, hope, and all of the deceptions as well as legitimate plans that contribute to those motivations.
The people that I know that support him have simplistic worldviews, and largely see him as a wrecking ball destroying what they were previously dissatisfied with. I suppose that’s not too far off, actually. It’s kind of like “giant meteorite for 2028” vibes, except they mean it.
Notably, the only people who wish for a political devolution are ones who haven’t lived through one. This doesn’t end well.
They don't think its okay, as evidenced by this submission predictably being flagged. Also predictably, they will not be here to defend or explain, either.
They'd also flag it if they thought it was okay but "a bad look". Most of the Trump voter cope I read starts with, "I agree with him on a lot of things but..."
It’s astonishing how America has been led to this point where a certified con artist frauds is in charge of the world empire of lies. The only real silver lining seems to be that he is ending his vile and pathetic life of fraud and criminality and abuse by exposing his putrid character as he is unraveling America in a likely irreversible way.
President Genocidal Rapist Pederast Rug Pull, the last President of the fake American empire of lies, the emperor with no clothes, exposing his vile and disgusting true self.
Is really rather epic, like a story one would imagine has been made up about a historical figure if we hadn’t witnessed it all unfold in real time.
65 comments
[ 0.36 ms ] story [ 42.9 ms ] threadNo whataboutisms or anonymous downvotes, I’m genuinely curious why people continue to support him.
They will try to resist until last breath to not disclose them.
These people have enablers everywhere. It’s exactly like the abuse in the catholic church. The people in power can’t do without the enablers that make excuses for them.
You seem to be using the "they're all as bad as eachother" argument. But previous US presidents haven't used their office for enrichment on this scale - and so it seems likely that there are alternative potential presidents who would behave with integrity and dignity.
But isn't that the case? They are all as bad and corrupt in their own merit. Coming back to the original question, do you have anyone concrete in mind that can be the alternative to Trump?
No.
Has any other president fired the the FBI directory because he wouldn't swear personal loyalty to him (like Trump did Comey)? Did any other president try to do a (self) coup?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
Did any other president receive hundreds of millions of dollars in value as a gift?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25B_Bridge
> Coming back to the original question, do you have anyone concrete in mind that can be the alternative to Trump?
Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presiden...
You may disagree with their policies (and even values), but would have anyone else tried to do an end-run around the Constitution? Pence went through with the 2020 election certification even when people were literally calling him for to be lynched.
The Boeing wag given to the US government. Not to Trump personally. It's stated explicitly in the wikipedia link you provided.
> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
Further, wikipedia is not a credible source link in-case you didn't know. Anyone can edit the pages there and somethings are verified and sometime once could even make up facts and link to fake articles.
@grok what is a credible source?
/s of course
Some of us went to school before Wikipedia was invented. And even if Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source directly, going to the references cited in a Wikipedia article and citing those I'm guess is another matter.
>The aircraft is slated to be transferred to Trump's presidential library foundation shortly before the end of his second term, though critics argue that such a transfer may be unconstitutional.
So it will go to Trump, but only after getting the government to pay billions to upgrade it.
Also stated in a news report[1] linked by Wikipedia,
In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.
[1] https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-administration-poised-acc...
>> Any Democratic candidate, including Harris and Clinton. With GOPers: Pence, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, DeSantis, etc.
> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
What have those people done, particularly Harris, Clinton, Kasich, and Pence that would qualify them for the "crook" title? And have any of them done such things within an order of magnitude or two of the rate and intensity that Trump has done them?
* Nixon is not an example that helps your case
* Truman fired MacArther for insubordination (and nearing starting WW3): generals do not get to set policy
* essential workers are not allowed to strike: police and firefighters would be fired too
* Ford (Nixon's VP in case you didn't know) isn't helping your case either
* firing a personal chief of staff different compared to a Senate-appointed position, especially one that's supposed to be work independent (like the AG is also supposed to be)
* again, a general that does not get to set policy over a President
Comey was fired for no other reason that he would not cow-tow to Trump. Compare-contrast with another FBI Director's firing:
> However, Sessions’ ethics came into question just before then-President-elect Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Sessions was accused of improperly using an FBI plane to visit his family as well as reportedly installing a security fence around his home on the government’s dime. A Justice Department report found that Sessions had avoided paying taxes on the use of his FBI limousine for his daily commute.
* https://abcnews.com/Politics/president-clinton-fired-fbi-dir...
> So you're fine with any other crook, but not Trump. Got it.
Yes, all those are crooks…
No, it isn't. There are people of good will and integrity in US politics. As there are is almost all countries.
"They're all as bad as eachother" is just a lazy excuse for cynicism and inaction.
How would you know and why would you have such a strong opinion?
Do you also happen to astroturf rightoid politics on Twitter by any chance? I heard it's a common pastime.
But anyone with a decent amount of dignity, humility, empathy and confidence will do.
Is that enough though? That's more like saying running a country based on vibes. One could argue that a person needs strong leadership, someone putting national interest above else and work for the interest of the people that elected the person.
If you think about it the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies. In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing
> […] the president or any other elected person, their whole job is to serve people. Do what the people voted that person to do by putting aside all personal preferences, belief and ideologies.
I don’t see how you can say that, and then:
> In that regards, I wonder dignity, humility, empathy would have anything to do with governing
Like, those are the traits required to unselfishly serve others. See literally any religion or framework of ethics.
Not a Trump supporter but from the ones I've spoken to it's mostly this. Something like, "They all do it, he's just honest about it."
I would say that despite whatever pardons (which I believe can only be federal, not state?), he pro-actively gives himself and colleagues, family etc when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.
In that regard, having massive personal wealth makes some kind of sense.
However - they're all at it to some degree across both sides of the aisle - Pelosi, Crenshaw etc etc.
Couldn't even follow the ask in your first sentence.
It also came with a request for no-downvotes... What's next? A request for only responses that agree with me?
Here's my request: Upvotes only. Please don't respond.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "nonsensical and incoherent"
Examples?
> when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.
Uhm...have you mixed Trump up with someone else. It is Trump who loves to bring spurious lawsuits. When Trump is on the receiving end it is almost always not a spurious lawsuit.
> Examples?
I don't think there is much point debating with someone who doesn't actually follow the news.
Ah yes, boxes upon boxes of national secrets retained to discredit John Bolton who is, coincidentally, going to be convicted for doing the same.
Well, for that and possibly to share with certain guests.
A God that murders people because his feelings got hurt while demanding no one murder, a husband beats his wife and kids because he wasn't respected - these are valid in their moral framework, cruel asymmetrical power structures.
There is a dominant race, a dominant gender, and a dominant country in their view. Laws exist only to control the weak.
These people love Trump because he represents the slave owning, male-dominated, terrorist rebels that form the myth of who we are as a nation. His corruption and enrichment is why they love him.
The most important point for every political faction however is to realize that the problems aren't solved when the current president steps down. The real power that pushes the agenda rest in the hands of a loosely connected network of 'think tanks', religious organizations, tech billionaires and media moguls. They are hidden from the public discourse, simply because they are able to manage it, and as such are a formidable opponent.
I do think that significant amounts of money are being spent to make people believe that the admin has wide support and is legitimate in a general democratic sense.
Ultimately, in a democracy, legitimacy really boils down to how much people are willing to tolerate, and that’s a very malleable metric, adjusted through fear, greed, hope, and all of the deceptions as well as legitimate plans that contribute to those motivations.
The people that I know that support him have simplistic worldviews, and largely see him as a wrecking ball destroying what they were previously dissatisfied with. I suppose that’s not too far off, actually. It’s kind of like “giant meteorite for 2028” vibes, except they mean it.
Notably, the only people who wish for a political devolution are ones who haven’t lived through one. This doesn’t end well.
President Genocidal Rapist Pederast Rug Pull, the last President of the fake American empire of lies, the emperor with no clothes, exposing his vile and disgusting true self.
Is really rather epic, like a story one would imagine has been made up about a historical figure if we hadn’t witnessed it all unfold in real time.
I think he wrote all of those executive orders that he signed on his first week too.
This orange guy is so bad, it's all his fault that everything is happening. Let's keep focusing on the orange lightning rod.