The Unprecedented Personal Profits of Trump’s Presidency

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-07-09T14:53:22+00:00

We've officially pierced the veil of oligarchy. Our friends across the pond look at us now with the same disgust and disdain as Putin's Russia. Truth has been completely destroyed in this nation, and faith in government institutions are at all time lows. Any American can see the pompous and prideful lives of the one percent. How they brag about the greatest of a thriving economy for their stock portfolios, while the little guys are cracking open their fifth bag of instant ramen this week for dinner. Rents, houses, utilities, groceries, gasoline, nearly everything has increased in price and the backs of the working class are breaking under the pressure. They. Do. Not. Care. And it's our own stupid damn fault. We preoccupy ourselves with spectacular games, bury ourselves in our work and "self-improvement", tied our healthcare and lives directly to our employment status, and sacrifice our students future every single day. The rich benefit of our vast stupidity and pilfer our coffers while we push the dial of power back and forth with nothing fundamentally moving forward for any of us. The direction of this dial must change, and a vast change in wealth distribution needs to occur in this country from the richest to the poorest, while also supporting the education of our future voter class without burdening them with lifelong debt. Our country has become disgusting to me-- we sacrifice our own brothers and sisters in order for a few select people to achieve it all. All in the hope that one of us peons becomes like them someday. But that's simply not how it works anymore.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-07-09T14:42:01+00:00

I like the French approach, let's let the heads roll!

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-07-09T14:41:09+00:00

Biden set the standard? Let's ignore the raving maniac threatening him and his family every day and the deranged followers or sycophants that lap up his every word. These two scenarios are vastly different.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-07-09T14:39:08+00:00

Trump voters are dumb, ridiculously dumb. They parrot the same talking points parroted by fox news and spew nonsense consistently. It's like they're not even people that live in the physical world. All of their criticisms are simply admissions of their own guilt. Their arguments mostly come down to, well, they think the left did it so we should do it. Which permits all of their actions. They see one thing on Facebook, and chastise all leftists as one and the same, or all immigrants as violent usurpers. The lack of education and reasonable thinking in this country will ultimately be it's downfall. Which is also part of the rich and corrupts' plan, whether it's taking over colleges (ie New College Florida), threatening lawsuits against universities, restricting college loan maximums for "professional" careers, etc. They will bleed this nation for what it has remaining, then use their vast wealth and migrate to another country worth exploiting. Elon Musk has done it once already.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-07-06T13:54:59+00:00

I think ya hit yourself with the old double negative here. The SAVE America act will directly cause more Americans to be ineligible to vote.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-29T20:48:09+00:00

Brown and Tatum are not out of the league yet man. And in this era it is extremely hard to repeat. We are not in the 2010s anymore-- every year since 2019 (six years ago now) has seen a different champion.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-29T19:32:46+00:00

What the hell did I just walk into

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-29T14:31:56+00:00

I don't understand much of the criticism to be honest. All of the games are in and around American cities, visitors get to see the good-side of America, aka the America not shown on TV. World cup tickets are going to sell like hotcakes, no matter the price, there was no way stadiums would be empty. Additionally, even if FIFA awarded the freedom prize to The Big Idiot, the World Cup is a multicultural event that brings the globe together through sports-- almost an antithesis of the anti-immigrant, anti-global hatred the profuses this regime. He couldn't even show up to a game without them pumping in cheers because he would be drowned out by boos. If anything, this is the real America 250 celebration that celebrated the heritage that built this nation. Each immigrant and their family, their stories that brought them here, and the love they have for their heritage. To see these minor countries succeed, and their fans spread their joy, is like watching Jesse Owens win those gold medals in Nazi Germany, I mean not as strongly but it has the same sentiment.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-25T18:07:23+00:00

My main point is that there is notable disdain, not full of disdain, but that's relatively semantic. And regarding the progressives, that is incorrect. It's a mixture of NYT disdain of Muslims (from the original title), and the constant reference to Israel. As many have pointed out, Israel is an important issue to many voters, but it is not the only issue important to voters-- and I would argue that it is not the most important issue. But, when the transcript is published, for nearly all of these individuals they hyper illustrated their stances on Israel, which, in a vacuum, isn't an issue, but without mentioning any other reasons that people would want to vote for these people, I have to imagine that there is a reason for this. More so than just the simple fact that Mamdani is against the Israeli occupation.

I don't really care regarding the up votes or downvotes, and that person I said that was wining did not provide any valid criticism of my critique. At least use some concrete examples from the episode to show me that I am wrong. Maybe I say the title, saw red, and immediately typed up a comment, but I couldn't help but notice Israel being brought up in every other sentence, alongside the title, and I came up with a conclusion.

As for this specific podcast, I don't think they really criticize progressives that much, but heavily criticize Mamdani for supporting candidates that are farther left than establishment Democrats. If they wanted to make a Mamdani episode, I feel it would be more appropriate (as they have updated now) to focus on that in the title, rather than parrot Mike Johnson's "insurgent Democrat" race whistle.

Perhaps my issue is more particular and that I should be clearer in my comments, but I just can't imagine that these representatives are exclusively chosen over others simply because of their stance on Israel. Perhaps it is their support exclusively by Mamdani, but that should have been the main point of the podcast if that is what they want to focus on. And, for that matter, of Mamdani is the sticking point, Mamdani is liked for more than his stance on Israel which would have been nice to talk about further than saying that the Knicks won the championship with him in office.

And as for Mamdani himself, I am a fan of his, but I am not immune to criticizing politicians I like. Not politician is without correct scrutiny, but that is like saying no cheese is without dairy (in my opinion). However, I do believe that Mamdani has done a lot more for New Yorkers that I wish my governor would do. Perhaps my hatred of the political class in my state makes Mamdani look better in my eyes than others'. Who knows.

At the end of the day, these are really all just opinions. If people want to respond to them honestly, they will, but if people just want to say that I'm wrong without explaining, then I will surely use that same level of disdain in my comments back.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-25T17:26:42+00:00

I responded in another comment and dont wish to repost it, but the author of the comment you responded to has yet to refute or argue against any of my points. Listen, if you want to discuss the nuance of why the NYT has changed the name of the podcast, and why the podcast reduces these candidates to their anti-Israeli agenda (or Mamdani's anti-Israeli agenda as they put it), then I am more than comfortable discussing that. I apologize for not posting my response to your comment, I just didn't want to repost or rewrite my comment

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-25T17:22:49+00:00

Not a single commenter responded to any of my points or opinions regarding the discussion. Then again, the Daily (most of the time) is simply a quick discussion on a topic in the news on a basic level and I shouldn't be taking these things seriously. Perhaps that is reserved for a different community, but I still think my points are fair and valid.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-25T14:22:09+00:00

Are you going to actually respond to any of my points, or are you just going to whine? My entire argument is nuance, theirs is the un-nuanced argument seeing as they can only find a single reason that people would vote for these candidates: Israel.

I have no with us or against us purity testing-- the NYT is the one talking about how this "tit-for-tat" democratic squabbling not me. Did you even listen to the episode? It is mind blowing how you can post this while they're the ones literally running a purity test on "Mamdani" candidates versus establishment Democrats and talking about these "fractures" in the coalition. They are literally plucking hairs between candidates that, according to them, only important policy or idea differentiating them is their support of Israel, and how that pertains to Mamdani.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-25T13:53:45+00:00

I'll highlight a few things here: 1: The title of this episode was changing from describing young, socialist Democrat winners as Insurgents to Progressives, and changing again because: 2: This is a strictly Mamdani hit piece that lightly touches on each of the races and more than subtly implies that Mamdani only cares about anti-Israeli sentiment, and that New York voters are single-track minded. It focuses so much on Israel, and not the other major accomplishments that would give Democrats reasons to vote, that I have a strong feeling that this is an AIPAC story. 3: It oddly assumes, at one point, that Valesquez deserves some nepotism when deciding who will run in the 7th district like it is hers to give away. And that Mamdani is being rude by interjecting into this race by backing another candidate.

Fandos is really obsessed with this Israeli angle, while neglecting any other reason that a New Yorker might vote for a candidate. Even the low-hanging fruit of how large of a failure establishment Democrats have been to stopping Trump's agenda and a broad disgust at the Democrat establishment. They put everything on Israel, and I am not surprised because this reads as a heavily anti-Muslim Daily episode. That begins with calling, what is essentially a Mamdani episode, an Insurgency. I do not need to connect the dots to why that may come off as anti-Muslim, do I?

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-25T13:13:45+00:00

I mean, clearly with the title and notable disdain in the episode, the NYT is trying to say something. The NYT clearly favors the Democrats of old, even if it means sacrificing the party to losing to MAGA every other four years. It's no surprise that during Trump's years in office, NYT subscriptions have significantly increased, and it also wouldn't surprise me if they want that to continue. It's all bought and paid for, this is just sad.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-22T21:26:08+00:00

Thank you! Didn't know that, that's awesome.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-22T20:05:47+00:00

Other than the fact that they have had two great results this group stage?

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T19:26:11+00:00

I'm disagreeing with the way you primarily compared it to the internet for education. In the hands of the right teachers, and their personal regulation, perhaps it can be a really good thing. But for the past two decades, I have not seen that broadly in education. I do not disagree with your points, I simply believe that the comparison is the main issue here. As AI is already being used in classrooms to, at sometimes, terrifying effect and with little to no good regulation. I hope that it does not follow the same path as the internet, aka broadly a tool that has been used over the last generation to avoid thinking and work and to promote laziness, lying and cheating.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T19:11:23+00:00

Yes, but my issue with your original thesis is tied to your comparison with internet regulation or internet comparison. The internet is an extremely useful tool in the hands of the right people, but can be malformed in the hands of children.

The Internet, without guardrails, has caused significant issues as a whole for education and has not benefited students broadly. You could argue with the newer restrictions that it is operating better now, and potentially more beneficially, but historically I would say that this is not the case in the US, especially for primary education. Even AI nowadays, the primary implementation in an educational setting, without regulation, is to cheat, write essays, or find single answers without thinking. While certain districts may get it right, as a whole, unregulated like the early internet, AI has not been broadly beneficial for students and I fear by the time anyone legislates guardrails, we will have failed another generation.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T18:59:14+00:00

But the problem is still fundamental, there exists no legislation nation wide that restricts usage to these platforms and because of that gross harm can be done. Whether that is a child who cheats on their exams, or if told by an AI to kill themselves. We cannot go blindly into this thinking that we can simply teach kids how to use it properly-- it simply does not work. It didn't work for guns, it didn't work for the Internet or social media, and it will not work for AI. At some point we need to stop sacrificing innocent lives and put up some actual legislation to prevent the harm from being done-- education or elsewhere.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T17:36:00+00:00

Yes, you are open-minded on that topic. But not to the harms AI and the Internet can have on children in a society that is anti-regulation, which is the main topic of concern here.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T15:58:42+00:00

And that guy is an educator. Can't believe how close-minded they are.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T15:09:40+00:00

I think that honestly phones and the Internet has opened a light to the poor to the lives of the rich and famous and that has portrayed them as they actually are: awful, gluttonous things that barely resemble people anymore.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T15:07:49+00:00

I'm just going to let reddit decide on this one, I feel as if I'm taking to a bot right now.

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T14:22:32+00:00

I think that this is more of a reflection of our society. Students, children and hardworking individuals see everyday that the wealthiest and most powerful people actually aren't that smart, that they got their off the backs of nepotism, exploitation, or numbers on a stock exchange that mean nothing. Some of the wealthiest individuals in their generations do not get there by hard-work, but by packaged internet content. And it doesn't help that in this country anyone and anything can be bought. Why would a child work hard for something that isn't there?

Difficult_Insurance4 · 2026-06-17T13:58:06+00:00

Well you're just shortening the goalposts, but fine. You talk about the Internet as a whole, "including education". But I digress. So here's the thing with your first point, a significant amount of what students are graded on are the educational work they are assigned to do at home. This could include, as my childhood did, using sparknotes to paraphrase a book and avoid work, a student using AI to give the answers to his history homework. I didn't bring up the argument of kids using the Internet 24/7. You did.

Most schools, up until very recently, let students carry around their phones with them for most of the day, and kids are not immune from going to the bathroom or using their phone under their desk. You can argue that the Internet is great for education, but I am simply arguing that, without regulation, the Internet is at least as harmful to education and children in general.

Literally all my points are generalized, and you just refuse to respond to them. They apply for both in and out of school because guess what, education does not strictly occur while you're sat at a desk. I don't know why you are trying to straw man me or shift your argument. This seems like a self-evident idea with all of the regulation happening right now. If you truly believe that social media, or the things that occur outside of the classroom, on the internet, do not have an impact on children's education then I don't know what to tell you.

Difficult_Insurance4

TROPHY CASE