- Registrado
- 18 de Oct, 2022
Trump Prime. Rolls off the tongue much better than Giedi.
💼 Careercow Donald J Trump - 45th/47th President of the USA, convicted felon, Epstein bro, Putin/Netanyahu simp, serial liar, sore loser, cheat and the Chris-Chan of Presidents. Lost a war to Iran and algae. THIS IS NOT USPG2.
- Iniciador del tema JaneThough
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
I imagine they are going to affix some sort of leather cover on top so you aren’t rubbing up against the marble. Pretty sure marble doesn’t retain heat so they’ll be cold
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Jun, 2019
Haven’t most of Trump’s peace deals been exposed to not amount to shit in the long run?As the world is sliding towards large scale war in Europe and East Asia due to the weakness and decrepitude of a President who is seen as an imbecilic clown by allies and enemies alike, the Ministry of Truth has renamed the "Institute for Peace" after the the raving lunatic, with a message that could not be further removed from reality.
It might be of interest that Trump tried to dissolve the Institute via executive order earlier this
Also, his big claims in regards to Ukraine vs Russia and the Middle East continue to fail because he tries to be some great peacemaker despite not acting like it. Ukraine/Russia has Trump trying to do a peace deal that’s just giving Putin what he wants while all of Europe says that Ukraine is all that stands between a revived Soviet Union that turns the rest of Europe into a new Russian Empire that controls the entire continent, and that the only way that the imperial ambitions Russia has can hope to come to an end is Putin’s death. Meanwhile, Trump tries to achieve peace in the Middle East when Israel and the Arabs that surround them have been going by Highlander’s “there can be only one” Rules since 2023, along with most of Trump’s peace plans are just turning all of Gaza into one of his vanity projects as he talks about Bibi needing to “finish/fix the problem”.
It’s funny how Trump 2024 was the best thing that could happen to Israel and the worst to happen to Ukraine, and Kamala winning could have very easily been the other way around .
Última edición:
Mudkipcorn
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Nov, 2021
Pretty much, yeah.
>Armenia v Azerbaijan
Border conflict ongoing since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's gone hot a handful of times since 1990. The last war ended in 2023 with a ceasefire. Trump deserves some credit for orchestrating the peace. Will it be a lasting peace? Personally, I think so. But that's more to do with the fact that the Azeris definitively won the conflict. They captured all the disputed territory. They also have a better military and a 3x larger population/economy.
Barring Armenian irredentism and a huge increase in their economy/population, the decades-old conflict is probably done. Trump played a role but I think it's silly to assume this wouldn't have happened without him. As a result of events in 2023, this was a rather simple conflict to resolve and scoring the peace was an easy W. I'll give him a point anyway. The other conflicts are much more intractable and as a result, Trump's claims to have achieved peace are far less reality-based.
>DRC v Rwanda
Another conflict dating back to the 90s. DRC has been in a perpetual civil war (though the intensity has fluctuated a lot). Rwanda has fucked around in it since 94, when Rwandan rebels based in DRC ended the Rwandan genocide and their own civil war. This is not an interstate war, but one country interfering in a failed state.
Rwanda's dictator (same guy who ended the genocide) is a smooth operator. As you may expect, he has largely denied interfering in the DRC. Crucially, even in the agreement Trump brokered, he didn't admit that he was involved in the first place. So the agreement was basically 'we won't do this thing [supporting Congolese M23 insurgents] which we swear we were never doing in the first place'. Unsurprisingly, DRC is still in a state of civil war and Rwanda is still messing around. Their president has accused Rwanda of violating the agreement, which is affirmed by reporting on the ground. Trump accomplished nothing.
>India v Pakistan
Like Armenians and Azeris, this was a new outbreak of a longstanding border disagreement. Unlike in the Caucauses, the conflict was by no means resolved after the latest blowup. India and Pakistan will continue to have minor wars with each other.
Trump's diplomacy went some way to ending the outbreak and he deserves some credit. But realistically, the two countries have had several outbreaks, none of which really came close to escalating to a major war. Thus it's silly to suggest that Trump avoided WW3 or anything crazy like that. India and Pakistan will continue to have minor wars every decade or so until diplomacy triumphs or one side can change enough facts on the ground.
Would this year's war have lasted longer without forceful US diplomacy? Perhaps, so I'll give him credit, maybe half a point. But the conflict is very much unresolved.
>Iran/Hizbullah v Israel
This is just a complicated situation. The latest round of wars since 2022 may result in real change in the area (Hizbullah might be disarmed, Iran may seriously roll back on foreign intervention). But it may not. Six months ago I was way more optimistic but now it's looking less likely that any real change will happen. Israel will continue to have small wars against Iranian-backed groups and Iran itself every decade or so.
In this case, Trump effectively started the war. Well, he approved of the brief air campaign against Iran itself. If he didn't sign off on the thing (he even participated), it might not have happened in the first place. He approved of the war, but enforced that it would have a very short duration. Better than starting a major war, but it doesn't make him a peacemaker. You don't get praise for ending wars that you start.
>Israel v Hamas
I give him slightly more credit here. He was enabling the war, but it did start under his predecessor. Bibi wants to keep the war going indefinitely for political reasons. Trump seems to have put his foot down and that was a major factor in the ceasefire. But the conflict (just the occupation of Gaza to say nothing of the 70+ year greater conflict) is not definitively over.
So he loses points for enabling Bibi and for his ludicrous schemes for peace. I think another American President would have likely acted faster (though for inexplicable reasons Biden did not). But if Trump pledged full support to Bibi, the fighting would probably be ongoing. On the other hand, you can only turn Gaza into a parking lot once (or once every decade after they rebuild), so arguably the war had to end as there was nothing left to do. Still, for political reasons, I don't think Bibi was ever going to end it unless forced.
Unlike with the direct strikes on Iran, he didn't start this war. He merely enabled it to extend for awhile. Take from that what you will, but being objective I would have to give him some small amount of credit. But Israel is still in Gaza so this one isn't over.
>Cambodia v Thailand
A skirmish over a longstanding border dispute, primarily centered on who owns a temple. Per the ICJ, it's the Cambodians, but they've largely been unable to enforce the ruling as it came amidst decades of civil war. Unlike India/Pakistan or Armenia/Azerbaijan, this dispute has not resulted in regular bouts of fighting.
Until this year. Trump brokered a ceasefire which recently broke in a very big way. Unlike with the former Soviet Republics, there is nothing close to a real settlement. That said, Thailand dwarfs Cambodia even more than Azerbaijan does Armenia, so it's possible that Thailand will just curbstomp Cambodia until they give up on the temple. But the fact that international law is on Cambodia's side might make this less likely. Who knows?
We'll have to see how things escalate and whether Trump moves to stop that if it occurs. Or he'll come in and take credit once Thailand definitively wins the conflict. But it's one thing to end a conflict by diplomacy and another for it to end when one side just, like, wins. I don't consider that to be a great diplomatic victory. Give him 0.25 points for instigating a ceasefire for a couple months, I guess.
>Kosovo v Serbia
This is another intransigent conflict. Kosovo says it's independent, Serbia says no. The rest of the world is about 50/50 on whether independence is valid, with most rich countries recognizing Kosovo. Unlike the other conflicts on this list, this one hasn't turned hot, so you can't say he ended a war. Even if no fighting happens but the conflict is resolved (through Kosovo being recognized or Serbia moving toward the EU), that'd be a great thing and I'd happily give Trump credit for ending one of Europe's remaining conflicts. Only problem for Trump is no such thing has occured.
>Ethiopia v Egypt? Sudan?
Sudan is in flames. Ethiopia has an on again/off again civil war that is likely to go back on in a very big way soon. These civil wars are related and many analysts expect a larger regional war in the Horn. If it occurs, it'll be a mix of civil wars with international elements.
I am not entirely sure what Trump took credit for (he himself was vague about the wars he supposedly ended), but I think he said something about Egypt and Sudan specifically. Those two countries have never fought but have opposed interests in terms of water rights and in Sudan and Eritrea.
Eritrea is taking part in Ethiopia's civil war and will continue to be involved if that conflict expands. Likewise, Egypt will do what it can to fuck over Ethiopia if the war expands. Only problem is that two civil wars sit between Egypt and the Horn: the Sudanese and South Sudanese (the latter currently quiet, but liable to reignite, especially if we get the big war in the Horn that many fear).
So I'm skeptical that Egypt would do much beyond supporting factions opposed to the Ethiopian President (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lol). But maybe they'll throw a missile at the new dam. Who knows?
Larger conflict in this area is only getting more likely and Trump has done absolutely nothing to defuse it. Which is fine, it's a very complicated state of affairs. Even if he dedicated himself to the project I doubt Trump or any American president could pull anything off. So no fault on his part, but no credit either.
Border conflict ongoing since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's gone hot a handful of times since 1990. The last war ended in 2023 with a ceasefire. Trump deserves some credit for orchestrating the peace. Will it be a lasting peace? Personally, I think so. But that's more to do with the fact that the Azeris definitively won the conflict. They captured all the disputed territory. They also have a better military and a 3x larger population/economy.
Barring Armenian irredentism and a huge increase in their economy/population, the decades-old conflict is probably done. Trump played a role but I think it's silly to assume this wouldn't have happened without him. As a result of events in 2023, this was a rather simple conflict to resolve and scoring the peace was an easy W. I'll give him a point anyway. The other conflicts are much more intractable and as a result, Trump's claims to have achieved peace are far less reality-based.
>DRC v Rwanda
Another conflict dating back to the 90s. DRC has been in a perpetual civil war (though the intensity has fluctuated a lot). Rwanda has fucked around in it since 94, when Rwandan rebels based in DRC ended the Rwandan genocide and their own civil war. This is not an interstate war, but one country interfering in a failed state.
Rwanda's dictator (same guy who ended the genocide) is a smooth operator. As you may expect, he has largely denied interfering in the DRC. Crucially, even in the agreement Trump brokered, he didn't admit that he was involved in the first place. So the agreement was basically 'we won't do this thing [supporting Congolese M23 insurgents] which we swear we were never doing in the first place'. Unsurprisingly, DRC is still in a state of civil war and Rwanda is still messing around. Their president has accused Rwanda of violating the agreement, which is affirmed by reporting on the ground. Trump accomplished nothing.
>India v Pakistan
Like Armenians and Azeris, this was a new outbreak of a longstanding border disagreement. Unlike in the Caucauses, the conflict was by no means resolved after the latest blowup. India and Pakistan will continue to have minor wars with each other.
Trump's diplomacy went some way to ending the outbreak and he deserves some credit. But realistically, the two countries have had several outbreaks, none of which really came close to escalating to a major war. Thus it's silly to suggest that Trump avoided WW3 or anything crazy like that. India and Pakistan will continue to have minor wars every decade or so until diplomacy triumphs or one side can change enough facts on the ground.
Would this year's war have lasted longer without forceful US diplomacy? Perhaps, so I'll give him credit, maybe half a point. But the conflict is very much unresolved.
>Iran/Hizbullah v Israel
This is just a complicated situation. The latest round of wars since 2022 may result in real change in the area (Hizbullah might be disarmed, Iran may seriously roll back on foreign intervention). But it may not. Six months ago I was way more optimistic but now it's looking less likely that any real change will happen. Israel will continue to have small wars against Iranian-backed groups and Iran itself every decade or so.
In this case, Trump effectively started the war. Well, he approved of the brief air campaign against Iran itself. If he didn't sign off on the thing (he even participated), it might not have happened in the first place. He approved of the war, but enforced that it would have a very short duration. Better than starting a major war, but it doesn't make him a peacemaker. You don't get praise for ending wars that you start.
>Israel v Hamas
I give him slightly more credit here. He was enabling the war, but it did start under his predecessor. Bibi wants to keep the war going indefinitely for political reasons. Trump seems to have put his foot down and that was a major factor in the ceasefire. But the conflict (just the occupation of Gaza to say nothing of the 70+ year greater conflict) is not definitively over.
So he loses points for enabling Bibi and for his ludicrous schemes for peace. I think another American President would have likely acted faster (though for inexplicable reasons Biden did not). But if Trump pledged full support to Bibi, the fighting would probably be ongoing. On the other hand, you can only turn Gaza into a parking lot once (or once every decade after they rebuild), so arguably the war had to end as there was nothing left to do. Still, for political reasons, I don't think Bibi was ever going to end it unless forced.
Unlike with the direct strikes on Iran, he didn't start this war. He merely enabled it to extend for awhile. Take from that what you will, but being objective I would have to give him some small amount of credit. But Israel is still in Gaza so this one isn't over.
>Cambodia v Thailand
A skirmish over a longstanding border dispute, primarily centered on who owns a temple. Per the ICJ, it's the Cambodians, but they've largely been unable to enforce the ruling as it came amidst decades of civil war. Unlike India/Pakistan or Armenia/Azerbaijan, this dispute has not resulted in regular bouts of fighting.
Until this year. Trump brokered a ceasefire which recently broke in a very big way. Unlike with the former Soviet Republics, there is nothing close to a real settlement. That said, Thailand dwarfs Cambodia even more than Azerbaijan does Armenia, so it's possible that Thailand will just curbstomp Cambodia until they give up on the temple. But the fact that international law is on Cambodia's side might make this less likely. Who knows?
We'll have to see how things escalate and whether Trump moves to stop that if it occurs. Or he'll come in and take credit once Thailand definitively wins the conflict. But it's one thing to end a conflict by diplomacy and another for it to end when one side just, like, wins. I don't consider that to be a great diplomatic victory. Give him 0.25 points for instigating a ceasefire for a couple months, I guess.
>Kosovo v Serbia
This is another intransigent conflict. Kosovo says it's independent, Serbia says no. The rest of the world is about 50/50 on whether independence is valid, with most rich countries recognizing Kosovo. Unlike the other conflicts on this list, this one hasn't turned hot, so you can't say he ended a war. Even if no fighting happens but the conflict is resolved (through Kosovo being recognized or Serbia moving toward the EU), that'd be a great thing and I'd happily give Trump credit for ending one of Europe's remaining conflicts. Only problem for Trump is no such thing has occured.
>Ethiopia v Egypt? Sudan?
Sudan is in flames. Ethiopia has an on again/off again civil war that is likely to go back on in a very big way soon. These civil wars are related and many analysts expect a larger regional war in the Horn. If it occurs, it'll be a mix of civil wars with international elements.
I am not entirely sure what Trump took credit for (he himself was vague about the wars he supposedly ended), but I think he said something about Egypt and Sudan specifically. Those two countries have never fought but have opposed interests in terms of water rights and in Sudan and Eritrea.
Eritrea is taking part in Ethiopia's civil war and will continue to be involved if that conflict expands. Likewise, Egypt will do what it can to fuck over Ethiopia if the war expands. Only problem is that two civil wars sit between Egypt and the Horn: the Sudanese and South Sudanese (the latter currently quiet, but liable to reignite, especially if we get the big war in the Horn that many fear).
So I'm skeptical that Egypt would do much beyond supporting factions opposed to the Ethiopian President (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lol). But maybe they'll throw a missile at the new dam. Who knows?
Larger conflict in this area is only getting more likely and Trump has done absolutely nothing to defuse it. Which is fine, it's a very complicated state of affairs. Even if he dedicated himself to the project I doubt Trump or any American president could pull anything off. So no fault on his part, but no credit either.
That's my attempt at objective analysis. I think Trump has genuinely done some good things diplomatically. But being the lolcow he is, his boasts are far, far grander than his actual accomplishments. And with regard to those accomplishments, I think it's only in Azerbaijan/Armenia that the peace is more likely to last than not. All of the other conflicts are far from resolved. And the fact that the Caucasian conflict is resolved is entirely due to Azeri military success in 2023, not diplomatic wizardy. Still, ceasefires are better than ongoing fighting.
Edited to spoiler all that shit.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 24 de Mayo, 2024
What the fuck.
Lloyd Outremer S.A.
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 15 de Mar, 2025
Construction for naval vessels takes years, when combined with development/funding/procurement this might even stretch out into decades. These ships are rumored to have a displacement of 30,000 tons, which places them among heavy cruisers or battlecruisers of WWII. America has not built a warship of this size in 80 years, save for the Zumwalt class, which has half of the displacement of the Trump battleships.
EDIT: Even then, the Zumwalts were first vaguely conceived as early as the 90's and slowly trudged along until the first one got formally delivered to the US Navy in 2018. When it comes to other nations, the French having been twittling their thumbs about getting a new aircraft carrier for the better part of 30 years, and the Spanish have been slowly trotting out their S-80 submarines since 2005, with the designs having emerged in the 80s. Trump's ships will never see the light of day, or taste the salty sea.
Última edición:
cuttysnark
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Jun, 2019
For the future French aircraft carrier, Macron announces new ship 'in an era of predators'
The French president has confirmed the construction of a replacement for the Charles-de-Gaulle aircraft carrier, set to enter service in 2038. With a crew of 2,000 sailors, the new ship will be able to carry 30 fighter jets, several types of aerial drones and numerous electronic warfare systems.
Lloyd Outremer S.A.
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 15 de Mar, 2025
I omitted this out of laziness, but I'd like to see this and the trump class ship go toe to toe at some point.
- Registrado
- 13 de Ago, 2014
Ironically this is reason I bring up to people for the democrats cheating. If they where so good at it in 2020, why did they not do it in 2024 where shit was in some cases alot worse. For the record I don't think either side cheated in 2020 or 24. I think in 24 the Democrats finally paid the full price of the stupid shit that had been building since the 2010s.
People where just legitimately done with Biden and then later Harris. While it wasn't as true as the GOP likes to claim, people where sick of feeling like the democrats cared more about pronouns, troons (insert culture war shit here) and Biden bungled every opportunity to save things by trying to be a "normal" president when people wanted change. Ironically the GOP is committing the same sins now and I really think it's going to bite them in the ass like it did the democrats.
- Registrado
- 15 de Nov, 2021
Thailand and Cambodia just brokered their own ceasefire without Trump. Not that it'll stop him taking credit for it.
A ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia has come into effect along the border, where almost three weeks of deadly clashes have forced nearly one million people from their homes.
In a joint statement, the defence ministers of the two countries agreed to freeze the front lines where they are now, ban reinforcements and allow civilians living in border areas to return as soon as possible.
The ceasefire took effect at noon local time (05:00 GMT) on Saturday. Once it has been in place for 72 hours, 18 Cambodian soldiers held by Thailand since July will be released, the statement said.
The breakthrough came after days of talks between the two countries, with diplomatic encouragement from China and the US.
The agreement prioritises getting the displaced back to their homes, and also includes an agreement to remove landmines.
Thailand's Defence Minister Natthaphon Narkphanit described the ceasefire as a test for the "other party's sincerity".
"Should the ceasefire fail to materialise or be violated, Thailand retains its legitimate right to self-defence under international law," he told reporters.
UN human rights chief Volker Türk said he hopes the ceasefire will "pave the way" for peace, while an EU spokesperson urged "good faith" in its implementation.
Thailand had been reluctant to accept the ceasefire, saying the last one was not properly implemented. They also resented what they saw as Cambodia's efforts to internationalise the conflict.
Unlike the last ceasefire in July, US President Donald Trump was conspicuously absent from this one, although the US State Department was involved.
In a joint statement, the defence ministers of the two countries agreed to freeze the front lines where they are now, ban reinforcements and allow civilians living in border areas to return as soon as possible.
The ceasefire took effect at noon local time (05:00 GMT) on Saturday. Once it has been in place for 72 hours, 18 Cambodian soldiers held by Thailand since July will be released, the statement said.
The breakthrough came after days of talks between the two countries, with diplomatic encouragement from China and the US.
The agreement prioritises getting the displaced back to their homes, and also includes an agreement to remove landmines.
Thailand's Defence Minister Natthaphon Narkphanit described the ceasefire as a test for the "other party's sincerity".
"Should the ceasefire fail to materialise or be violated, Thailand retains its legitimate right to self-defence under international law," he told reporters.
UN human rights chief Volker Türk said he hopes the ceasefire will "pave the way" for peace, while an EU spokesperson urged "good faith" in its implementation.
Thailand had been reluctant to accept the ceasefire, saying the last one was not properly implemented. They also resented what they saw as Cambodia's efforts to internationalise the conflict.
Unlike the last ceasefire in July, US President Donald Trump was conspicuously absent from this one, although the US State Department was involved.
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2021
Oops! All Redacted
Idiocracy shit. The funniest part is the redaction implies secrecy. Wexner, Trump (who, to be clear, has openly talked about supplying girls to Epstein), Maxwell, probably Summers...
If the courts do not acquit her on a technicality, Trump will 100% pardon her before his term ends. "Due to redacted evidence and everyone else having immunity, you’re free.”
That’d be like pressing the self-destruct button on JD's ambitions but clearly this is much bigger than a few dumbass Reps sweating on Fox News.
Idiocracy shit. The funniest part is the redaction implies secrecy. Wexner, Trump (who, to be clear, has openly talked about supplying girls to Epstein), Maxwell, probably Summers...
If the courts do not acquit her on a technicality, Trump will 100% pardon her before his term ends. "Due to redacted evidence and everyone else having immunity, you’re free.”
That’d be like pressing the self-destruct button on JD's ambitions but clearly this is much bigger than a few dumbass Reps sweating on Fox News.
- Registrado
- 11 de Nov, 2024
Somehow Tariffs benefit national security and are creating "great wealth" for the United States. There's no way that the United States is becoming "respected" from this and he still thinks there is no inflation.
Once again, the topic of crime comes up. This time, Trump attributes it to the "highly successful Southern Border operation"
Of course, it's now time to debunk his claims because crime data is a foreign concept to him.
Once again, the topic of crime comes up. This time, Trump attributes it to the "highly successful Southern Border operation"
Of course, it's now time to debunk his claims because crime data is a foreign concept to him.
His claim is obviously false as immigrants (including illegals) are less likely to be incarcerated compared to native-born citizens (Archive).
He also criticized other nations during speeches but of course, ignored crime in the U.S. because immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated. It's almost as if crime is not worth it because that can lead to deportation or threaten their status here among other things.
In addition to being less likely to be in jail, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes compared to native-born citizens (Archive).
In addition, in 2024, the National Institute of Justice put out a report that also affirms this fact (Archive). While the data is from 2018, it is still relevant as it can be compared to the trends in the CATO report with similar conclusions able to be drawn.
Here's a chart showing overall felony crime rates among native-born citizens and immigrants in Texas alone.
And for only violent crimes, the data shows similar results.
Illegals are even less likely than legal immigrants to commit crime.
Drug offenses in the NIJ report also show similar outcomes. No chart for this one but the facts are still valid.
In conclusion, all the data shows that compared to people born here, immigrants of all status are significantly less likely to commit crime and go to jail regardless of where they are in the country and his Border operations have had no impact on crime rate. Trump can say all he wants but anyone who has some degree of intelligence knows that his claims are unfounded as he has no legitimate data to back them up.
He also criticized other nations during speeches but of course, ignored crime in the U.S. because immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated. It's almost as if crime is not worth it because that can lead to deportation or threaten their status here among other things.
In addition to being less likely to be in jail, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes compared to native-born citizens (Archive).
In addition, in 2024, the National Institute of Justice put out a report that also affirms this fact (Archive). While the data is from 2018, it is still relevant as it can be compared to the trends in the CATO report with similar conclusions able to be drawn.
Here's a chart showing overall felony crime rates among native-born citizens and immigrants in Texas alone.
And for only violent crimes, the data shows similar results.
Illegals are even less likely than legal immigrants to commit crime.
Drug offenses in the NIJ report also show similar outcomes. No chart for this one but the facts are still valid.
In conclusion, all the data shows that compared to people born here, immigrants of all status are significantly less likely to commit crime and go to jail regardless of where they are in the country and his Border operations have had no impact on crime rate. Trump can say all he wants but anyone who has some degree of intelligence knows that his claims are unfounded as he has no legitimate data to back them up.
- Registrado
- 5 de Mar, 2021
He didn’t mention Biden or the election so I think that’s progress.
- Registrado
- 18 de Abr, 2021
In elections, cheating happens on both sides. Whoever is better at it wins.
- Registrado
- 23 de Ene, 2022
On the topic of wealth: I want my tariff gibs, dammit
Like, did Trump assume everyone would just forget the whole "2 grand checks in the mail for everyone paid for by tariffs" promise?
JT Smash: divorced & gay
Formerly Known As Water-T & Patrick Buttman
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Dic, 2024
Bizarro must be Donnie's speechwriter, because all he says is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of actual reality.
ME AM BEST PRESIDENT! ME MAKE WHITE HOUSE LOOK SO PRETTY!
- Registrado
- 22 de Nov, 2021
Pretty disgusting.
The CECOT report has apparently been broadcast on CBS Canada, since they don't care what CBS USA has to say.
The CECOT report has apparently been broadcast on CBS Canada, since they don't care what CBS USA has to say.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ago, 2017
TBF, Fatty got a couple of really good bounces against Madam President and whatever the fuck was Kamala's campaign trying to do.
- Registrado
- 11 de Nov, 2023
Now you know why Trump had to win in 2024. After October 7, 2023, a lot of things changed in terms of discourse in America. You suddenly had guys like Nate Silver, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein openly wondering if DEI was going too far afterwards.
Here is Cambodia and Thailand agreeing to a ceasefire yesterday. This is a war that Trump supposedly ended several weeks ago but here are these countries agreeing to a ceasefire yesterday. How could that be?
Trump is very good about making declarations that are only valid and legitimate in his own mind and nowhere else. Miggers are retarded enough to take Trump at his word. If you bring this up, you’ll get top hats, trash cans, and miggers stalking you.
Trump’s lawyers under oath stated there was no voter fraud that they could tell. The #StopTheSteal shit was a fundraiser that netted Trump over $300 million. It was just another grift.
Harris was very unpopular in the 2020 primaries, peaking at about 2% in the polls. Even if it’s an illusion of choice, people still want the choice, even if they don’t actually show up to the primary or caucus. Them jamming her through didn’t go over well with people. It was a fucked situation all around. Biden not stepping aside in 2023 to give time for a proper primary was his middle finger to the party he’s been a part of for over 50 years.
Even with all that, Trump only won the popular vote by 1.5%. Hardly a mandate. Which is why Democrats keep winning these elections throughout 2025.
Trump has been promising gibs nonstop since he’s been in office. Definitely a sign of a healthy economy if you have to keep talking about printing out millions of special checks.On the topic of wealth: I want my tariff gibs, dammit
Like, did Trump assume everyone would just forget the whole "2 grand checks in the mail for everyone paid for by tariffs" promise?
- Registrado
- 11 de Nov, 2024
The Trump-controlled Kennedy Center is a joke. They're threatening to sue an artist because they cancelled their show after learning Trump's name was added to it (Archive).
While trying to say he helped broker the ceasefire, Trump had a call with Putin. Next up, he'll meet the leader of Ukraine. Do you think Putin coached Trump on what to say to Zelenskyy?
The absolute slop this man parrots is astonishing.
Other than the fact he is accusing Obama and Biden of giving Iran money for nukes, this crap has unabashed racism and ignorance built right in.
And Trump is now seemingly taking credit for the Thailand and Cambodia ceasefire, saying the U.S. has become the real United Nations since the UN has been of "little" assistance to them (and also has done nothing for Ukraine).
While trying to say he helped broker the ceasefire, Trump had a call with Putin. Next up, he'll meet the leader of Ukraine. Do you think Putin coached Trump on what to say to Zelenskyy?
The absolute slop this man parrots is astonishing.
Other than the fact he is accusing Obama and Biden of giving Iran money for nukes, this crap has unabashed racism and ignorance built right in.
And that same post shills a terribly written book as well that has nothing to do with "survival strategies".
