But yes, I would not be terribly surprised if Trump were to use boots on the ground -- or at least the threat of such -- to expand the US's territory in some way.
We've been hearing hysterical things about every Republican candidate for at least 30 years. Nothing ever happens.
> Dude’s, right now, disappearing people against court orders to forced labor camps in other countries with no due process.
Extraordinary rendition flights have operated (illegally and unconstitutionally) under every president for the last 20+ years at least. Don't get me wrong, it's terrible and something the country should be ashamed of, but it's nothing special about Trump. Obama did it, Biden did it, whoever comes after Trump will doubtless do it too.
> He’s talking about taking over Canada and Greenland. What makes you think this is unrealistic? Why do you believe what you believe?
The long history of nothingburgers and hysteria, not least in the entirety of Trump's first term.
> We've been hearing hysterical things about every Republican candidate for at least 30 years. Nothing ever happens.
I think you replied to something you made up to avoid replying to the actual thing. It was that in case of Trump apparently there is a history of ppl saying "surely it is joke and president would never do that" but then the president does exactly that. Not about hysterical things talked about US presidents.
After many cases where he said "I'll do that" then people like you said "no that's insane he's not going to do that don't worry" and then he does it, a sane person should assume that maybe he talks without thinking but then he sticks to what he blurted. And those things include attacking allies bordering with USA
So it can be up to USA military to uphold constitution or do what president says.
Things are happening very quickly
That's a pretty big backpedal from "For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them."
Under multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle, with a significant drawdown under Trump.
> Or our current military support of an ongoing genocidal religious massacre?
Which started under Biden (this round) and has full bipartisan support.
> What exactly is your threshold for fucked up shit?
Something other than "It's fucked up when Trump does the things that were business as usual for several previous presidents".
Has the US government been out of control for decades? Sure. Is Trump doing something uniquely bad? I've yet to see it.
> significant drawdown under Trump
Dude is literally going full empire mode right now with our neighboring allies. And he also got very close to starting a war with Iran on his way out of his last term. And now he is continuing to support the same genocide as his predecessors, and siding with Russia over the Ukraine conflict. He is an absolute clown and an illegitimate tyrant.
> Has the US government been out of control for decades? Sure. Is Trump doing something uniquely bad? I've yet to see it.
Status quo has never been a legitimate excuse for tyranny.
If your position is that Trump is doing something crazy then you absolutely need to show how what he's doing is different from baseline. And if you're suggesting people should have voted against him, which tends to be implicit in conversations about the president, then the alternative they would be voting for is absolutely relevant.
> And if you're suggesting people should have voted against him, which tends to be implicit in conversations about the president
I'm not suggesting anything other than what I explicitly stated, and this kind of predisposition, bias, whatever you'd like to call it, is the entire issue of this conversation with you. At each turn, you pile on another straw man, telling me how I must be thinking instead of earnestly finding out exactly what I have to say. There is no value in such an exchange.
You stepped into my conversation with someone else. The statement I called out was:
"For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them. And goal posts are moved, frogs are boiled, whatever analogy you prefer."
If that's not a statement you want to defend then there is indeed no value in your participation.
This is hacker news, that's the point of threaded conversation. I presented fine counterpoints to your arguments, and you failed to effectively engage them, instead moving to straw man arguments. There is a reason your post was flagged to death. This is the end of our conversation.
That's some fine projection there. You made fine counterpoints to a strawman position that I never took.
> There is a reason your post was flagged to death.
Yes, TDS.
> This is the end of our conversation.
I'll take that as an admission of defeat.
I must be blind, because I can still see your comments.
Discussions are not about winning or losing, that is a toxic mentality to have. You need to review the HN guidelines. Good bye.