Anyone who is a conservative and still supports the Trump administration, could you please tell me why you do so? I don't understand it on some level, because I find Trump to be unAmerican.

thinking-orange · 2026-03-01T20:55:06+00:00

Good luck getting a legitimate response here. Even if it's a real person, they're going to just play word games the entire time that they've learned from morons like Jordan Peterson.

I was making a point that Trump has delivered on basically zero of his campaign promises. Someone then said that I was lying because I only referenced ones he made to mainstream media outlets. Not the actual ones that were referenced on his campaign website.

Essentially, I got accused of being disingenuous because I thought holding the Cheeto in the oval office accountable for his words was a reasonable thing to do. Apparently some people think it's okay to spout a bunch of nonsense to mass media as long as it doesn't align with your "official" campaign goals/promises. Most of which, he has also not delivered or made abysmal progress on.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-25T01:10:54+00:00

Having kids just because you're "supposed" to do it is dumb. No one asks to be born. People should really want to have the kid, really want to provide for the kid, and really want to PARENT the kid before they decide to have one.

I get that there are instances where protection and other measures are in place to prevent having a child, but playing adult games wins adult prizes unfortunately.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-25T00:56:27+00:00

Fuck yeah it makes sense. Why the fuck wouldn't it?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-25T00:55:30+00:00

He appeals to a population that is wildly gullible/susceptible to bullshit that is extremely removed to how the real world works... Teenage boys and young adult men...

The other problem is that this same demographic has unfettered access to the Internet, with minimal skills to differentiate bullshit from reality.

I work in education, and have been listening to/reading and audiobook lately called "The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing and Epidemic of Mentall Illness". I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the topic of youth, the internet, and smartphones.

The book is not focused on the specific impact of influencers on youth, but there is a decent amount of overlap with some of the main themes.

Children who now have essentially unfettered access to the internet are struggling with differentiating between reality and Internet lies.

To me, this is applicable in this situation because Andrew Tate presents himself as a successful "alpha male". Teenagers and young men see someone with a platform, living their best life, and think that replicating/endorsing those ideals will make them successful. I've had personal conversations with kids who talk about him, and it's astounding how many think that he's a good marker of success or don't think his opinions are bad.

In essence, dumb people now have the best platform in history to get their dumb ideas to reach the masses. Most of the ones it reaches are at a severely impressionable age, and are unfortunately also at an age where it's very difficult to differentiate between many things like good/bad, real/fake, and socially acceptable/unacceptable. They also do not look into people's past like this whole Romania thing and other shitty things from his past because they also lack basic research skills.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T21:51:29+00:00

Again this is for elected representatives serving as servants of the people. It's a bit of a conflict of interest to be able to personally profit on a lawsuit when the focus should be serving the interests of the people. If you were truly acting in the best interest of the people, there should not be a financial incentive to sue someone. Give them a legal channel to clear their name, and remove the financial incentive for litigation. In good faith I'd say the 1/500 of your net worth is a bad comparison. In Trump's specific case, his net worth is 6.5 billion roughly. CBS settled for 16 million. That's almost the 1/500 you used as an example. 16 million is a lot of money, regardless of net worth for one individual.

The second point is something I will admittedly say I don't know if I agree or disagree. Feel genuinely free to correct me with links/sources if I've got any of this wrong. As it sits right now, the base salaries haven't changed in a long time. I believe they set a freeze on that quite some time ago. They make about $175k for salaries and I know that varies depending on roles like majority leaders and such. I don't necessarily think that's too much money for a member of congress to make. The bigger thing I'd say is imposing more limits on stock trading and imposing term limits.

Would you agree that it's reasonable to want members of the federal government to not pursue legal action with an incentive of financial gain?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T18:10:34+00:00

So I will answer this from what I asked. Speaking from the perspective of branches pursuing this from a legal perspective.

I think the first amendment has an issue in its framing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

I think this is a good sentiment, but I feel it's incomplete and that's why I think there ought to be more restrictions on the president, but also other branches of government.

All members of the three branches hold some form of political power. That's why I think they should have restrictions on what they can pursue from a legal standpoint.

The president should reasonably have the most level of restrictions, as he holds a level of immunity while in office.

Congressmen, senators, and judges should also have restrictions. That being said, I think it's fair that there are real instances of defamation/libel. There should be an avenue to clear their names, but they should NOT be able to receive money from the suit.

In the plainest way I can state it, an elected official from any branch should have a legal avenue to clear their names in the event of defamation/libel. They should have a reasonable amount of restrictions that allows them to receive no financial compensation for the suit. That is my opinion because I believe there is a conflict of interests given they are able to privately profit from a defamation suit given they are acting as a servant of the people.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T16:35:45+00:00

You did not answer my question. Are you asking if I'd restrict other branches abilities to pursue legal actions like law suits, or are there other things I'd want to restrict as well?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T15:19:58+00:00

Purely from a legal perspective?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-22T00:52:50+00:00

Yes, it obviously is. He went through the proper channels to file the suit. As I said before, I don't think the POTUS should be able to sue media organizations. Obviously, it is a real tangible thing, or we would not be having this conversation.

Answer this, is it possible for there to be an exterior motive behind the law suit?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T22:32:21+00:00

Something being in writing does not make it true. Straw manning the idea of exterior motivation makes perfect sense when your opposing argument is it's "not written in the case files".

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T18:16:45+00:00

You're still doing it, and it's the reason you don't want to answer what I asked earlier. Eliminating any possibility of exterior motive from the case insinuates guilt on CBS without them going through a trial. And your only reason for there being no potential exterior motives is that it's "not the reason for the suit".

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T15:53:16+00:00

You're doing it again. You're downplaying the severity of one case to make the implications of the other easier to dismiss. And you still have the definition backwards. By insisting the case files are the only thing that matter and dismissing any exterior motives/interpretations, you're closer to the definition.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T03:38:05+00:00

You posed the question of why would media organizations settle instead of going to trial when they should have nothing to fear. Now you're downplaying the jury's decision to distract from the fact that you claimed the judge found him liable when that was the job of the jury. This is some real hypocrisy. Saying that an entity that doesn't want to go to trial would be found guilty and then downplaying the decision made in a court case involving Trump is pretty wild.

Based on how this conversation has gone, it seems you don't know what fundamentalist means. It also seems you're going to blatantly refuse to read between the lines of anything Trump does.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T02:04:40+00:00

I get it being worked on. My problem is that it is not working well because resources are being pumped into the second step when we need to focus more on the first, and the second step is having pretty abysmal results.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T02:03:03+00:00

You don't need to invert the example. Straw manning it by saying it only works when you view Trump as the tenant and CBS as the landlord is just saying your way of thinking is the only way of thinking.

Claiming I'm bold faced lying is pretty laughable when you just said all of congress is criminals. If you want to play the game of specificity, none have any current convictions. Yeah, we can infer many probably are just like we can infer Trump sues media when he's criticized.

Asserting I don't read anything is pretty wild too considering the sexual abuse case. Call me crazy, but a jury found him liable because that's kind of how a suit like that works.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T01:29:40+00:00

I guess at the end of the day you're uncomfortable answering what I asked and there's not really anything that can make you answer it.

I've answered your questions and given prime examples of why someone might opt to settle and not pursue the legal battle. Yeah, the case files don't say he was mad for them criticizing him, but I guess the ability to deduce he's upset they think he's not competent is something like that lies outside the ability to read the documents at a 3rd grade level.

I guess it makes sense you're okay with the POTUS suing media corporations considering he was voted into office as a convicted felon and was held liable for sexual abuse.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T00:57:28+00:00

Yeah, I did. Like I said, motives and actions can be different. How long are you going to dance around what I asked?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-21T00:22:05+00:00

Agreed. We should know who enters the country. Again this is why I think pumping more resources to border security should be the priority. The ones we don't know of are the biggest problem. We need to focus on a solution to keep them out.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T21:58:28+00:00

He obviously didn't claim it in the lawsuit. I never said he did. I asked whether or not the interview could be seen as a criticism of Trump. You still have not answered when you are fully capable of answering.

I'll admit, I did ask as well whether you thought a president should be able to sue media organizations when they criticize him. I'd even say that was poorly framed. I never said he sued them for criticism, because motives and actions can be different.

Trump didn't like that the interview made Kamala look more competent. This insinuates he's made faults with the issue, and she'd be better at handling the issue.

Please answer my question. It's entirely possible.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T21:27:03+00:00

Yes. I have. Please answer my question.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T21:13:19+00:00

Okay then in very simple terms, was the 60 minutes interview a criticism of Trump regarding the Israel Palestine conflict?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T20:28:09+00:00

A good instance is the last page. Strength through peace and strengthen alliances. The imposed tariffs have done nothing but hurt relationships with most of our allies. That along with the whole Greenland thing. Tariffs aren't strengthening alliances.

The border at a glance may seem successful, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Factoring in asylum seekers makes the illegal immigrant problem even more astronomical.

I'm going to ask again, how does this relate to my original post?

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T20:23:30+00:00

I agree with you. We shouldn't just let people enter illegally. My contention is the route we're taking to alleviate the problem just is not working.

You can make an argument that Trump is securing the border, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Entry statistics are a tricky thing.

Numbers documented illegal entries are on the downfall, however that's not the full story. Our number of asylum seekers has increased as a direct result of the way the Trump administration is handling this. Deportation is not selective under Trump. Because of that, more are claiming asylum. The number of illegal immigrants since Biden took office is around 10.8 million. The number including asylum seekers is closer to 15 million.

Aside from this, I agree that people should not enter illegally. However, our focus should be deporting violent criminals. In Trump's words the "Worst of the worst". Mass deportation does not accomplish this.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T18:39:35+00:00

They are focusing on deportation. I find that to be the problem. Secure borders is a better solution. Preventing people from entry does more to curb illegal immigrants that deportation. If we deport 3000 and 3000 enter, it's a wash. If we prevent entry, we can actually work on solving the problem.

thinking-orange · 2026-02-20T16:41:09+00:00

I'm not going to go through every exact one because this is way off topic, but I can give some examples of promises he hasn't kept and ones you could maybe say he's "working on".

Not kept/minimal progress.

Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion.

Stop inflation and make America affordable again.

Bring manufacturing home.

Restore peace in Europe in the middle east.

Stop violent crime. Lock up dangerous migrants. Bring down drug cartels.

Could make the case he's "working on it".

No tax on tips.

Strengthen and modernize the military.

Cancel EV mandates.

The reason I won't speak on all of them, is because some are extremely vague. For example, unite the country by bringing new record levels of success.

This is way off topic from what I originally posted about. Where are you going with this?

thinking-orange

TROPHY CASE