The Second Term of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Shiftless2
Well-known member
A naked, gold-covered Trump statue has been unveiled inside the European Parliament in Strasbourg. It's called "Orange Plague," also known as "King of Injustice," and shows him sitting on another man's shoulders holding an enormous golf club. Covered in reportedly 23-karat gold, of course. Even as a statue, he needs someone else to carry him.
The risk of using the "
Like" reaction function is of being misinterpreted.In the case of #4,083 a vehement reaction,
may be perceived as agreement with the Strasbourg display, -OR-the reaction of a Trump loyalist.
The statue depicted in #4,083 is unprecedented. In the Western world, is there such a statue of Kim Jong Un? In Parliament?
U.S. President Donald Trump has made the U.S. the laughing stock of the globe he has victimized. BUT !
He's just one guy.
The U.S. electorate is responsible for this.
So America, here's one for YOU:
BUT !
Thank you E. P. / Strasbourg for not suffering in silence. & !
Thank you S2 for reminding US, Trump may be wreaking havoc, but not unnoticed.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Meanwhile in Dallas
www.facebook.com
If this doesn't motivate you, nothing will #lgbt | Andrew Tarr | Facebook
If this doesn't motivate you, nothing will #lgbt
www.facebook.com
Shiftless2
Well-known member
I never understood how anyone who wants a republic could support the death penalty?
Since we as individuals can not execute, then I see no way we can give that authority to a government we create?
It's a Founding premise of the United States that we have an unalienable right to life.
Unalienable means not to be separated, given away, or taken away. BUT !!
My opinion, and apparently not exclusively my opinion, is that if a human murders, they forfeit their own right to life.
"Cruel"?
"Unusual"?
By whose standard? Does it make MORE sense for us to impose / inflict our wholesome standard on a murderer? OR
is it more compassionate to embrace, apply the criminal's own standards in such cases?
Hint: those that don't want the death penalty should not perpetrate capital crimes.
It's a Founding premise of the United States that we have an unalienable right to life.
Unalienable means not to be separated, given away, or taken away. BUT !!
My opinion, and apparently not exclusively my opinion, is that if a human murders, they forfeit their own right to life.
"Cruel"?
"Unusual"?
By whose standard? Does it make MORE sense for us to impose / inflict our wholesome standard on a murderer? OR
is it more compassionate to embrace, apply the criminal's own standards in such cases?
Hint: those that don't want the death penalty should not perpetrate capital crimes.
When an armed person is attempting to kill you, then obviously you have the right of self defense to kill them first.
But executions are not defensive, so than have no such justification unless they acted as a deterrent against future murders?
But according to experts, like Charles Dickens, executions do not act as a deterrent, but instead show that murder is acceptible.
For example, Dickens showed how pickpockets enjoyed it when they executed a pickpocket, since it gave other pickpockets better opportunities to pick pockets.
This is supposed to be a republic, which then means government is just our own creation.
And we can not legally endow government with any authorities we do not personally already have.
Which means that since we individually can not execute, there is no legal way for us to create a government that can execute.
Yes.
That.
Certainly that.
Unquestionably that.
Absolutely that. BUT !
Not only that.
The People have a right to expect a relatively murder-free environment, residential neighborhood, workplace, market, town square, etc
Capital execution does not prevent a criminal from perpetrating murder.
Capital execution prevents a criminal from perpetrating murder again.
Who needs to be told this?
Isn't it rather obvious? DON'T KILL PEOPLE !
But the execution is just another murder, and 2 wrongs do not make a right.
You can kill in immediate defense, but there is no legal basis for executing a helpless victim, no matter what they did in the past.
If we "DON'T KILL PEOPLE", then we have to stop executing them.
Vague, unfocused thought / word invokes Twain's contrast, lightning, vs lightning bug.
On casual consideration murder and homicide may seem nearly synonymous. One way to distinguish them:
All murder is homicide, BUT not all homicide is murder *.
n. 1. a. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
But often, in the U.S., capital executions are conducted AFTER both formal law court jury trial, and years or decades of incarceration to undergo the appeals processes.
We will not resolve @CV.us whether capital execution is a deterrent, BUT can we rule out the possibility it may deter some?
This societal dilemma is not satisfactorily resolved by turning our backs on it.
Citizens can eat, but must not be allowed to have a chef's knife in the kitchen?
The fact remains R5, murder has persisted in human society since Cain was abel.
If we do not terminate the murderer, our choices are few:
- we can do something else, or
- we can do nothing.
Ferociously objective though it may be, I remain vehemently against the "do nothing" approach.
So what would you have us do?
I encourage you, instead of simply condemning the practice, suggest an improvement. Don't do that. Instead, do this ________________________________ .
On casual consideration murder and homicide may seem nearly synonymous. One way to distinguish them:
All murder is homicide, BUT not all homicide is murder *.
mur·der (mûrdər)
n. 1. a. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
It's another homicide.
But often, in the U.S., capital executions are conducted AFTER both formal law court jury trial, and years or decades of incarceration to undergo the appeals processes.
We will not resolve @CV.us whether capital execution is a deterrent, BUT can we rule out the possibility it may deter some?
We may agree avoidance of what is wrong is a worthwhile objective.
This societal dilemma is not satisfactorily resolved by turning our backs on it.
Providing citizens with the means and opportunity to murder is wrong?
Citizens can eat, but must not be allowed to have a chef's knife in the kitchen?
The fact remains R5, murder has persisted in human society since Cain was abel.
If we do not terminate the murderer, our choices are few:
- we can do something else, or
- we can do nothing.
Ferociously objective though it may be, I remain vehemently against the "do nothing" approach.
So what would you have us do?
Ahh, the most indulgent of fantasies for serial killers everywhere.
The pseudo-plausibility of this fundamentally flawed notion rests on ignoring the distinction above *.
I encourage you, instead of simply condemning the practice, suggest an improvement. Don't do that. Instead, do this ________________________________ .
Executions are murder because they do nothing to defend the rights of anyone, and instead show by example, that life is not precious and can be take on a whim.
This is well established by Charles Dickens as he observed how pickpockets enjoyed it when they hung a pickpocket, since it gave them good opportunities to pick pockets.
Imprisonment is what defends the rights of others from a criminal, so executions are instead to not just terrorize, but to enable discrimination.
The facts prove imprisonment works much better and executions don't work at all.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Trump has made a last-minute pitch for the Nobel Peace Prize, insisting he deserves the prestigious award despite acknowledging his chances of winning may be slim.
Trump has repeatedly noted missing out on the prize, particularly after Barack Obama received it in 2009. He has also pointed to his efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon as evidence he deserves the honor.
CONTINUED
Trump has repeatedly noted missing out on the prize, particularly after Barack Obama received it in 2009. He has also pointed to his efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon as evidence he deserves the honor.
Verdict: False - Extremely Exaggerated at Best
On Oct. 7, 2026, Trump told reporters, “I settled eight wars.” He has helped push some parties toward ceasefires and agreements, but “settled” suggests durable peace. His eight-conflict tally includes ....CONTINUED
{...
The eight conflicts generally included in the Whitehouse’s tally…
- 1. Israel-Hamas: Trump helped broker a ceasefire and hostage deal, a significant diplomatic result. But a ceasefire is not a final peace settlement; major questions about Gaza’s future governance and security remain unresolved.
- 2. Israel-Iran: A 2025 ceasefire halted a 12-day conflict, but it was not a permanent peace agreement. By October 2026, the U.S. and Iran were again at war after the U.S. joined Israel in strikes on Iran in February. Calling this “settled” is especially untenable.
- 3. India-Pakistan: A ceasefire followed their May 2025 fighting. Trump claimed credit, but India said the two countries handled the cessation of military action through their own channels.
- 4. Thailand-Cambodia: Trump applied trade pressure as the countries negotiated a ceasefire. But the 2025 agreement later collapsed, and a replacement ceasefire was reached without his involvement.
- 5. Rwanda-Democratic Republic of Congo: The countries signed agreements, but fighting continued; the M23 rebel group, a central armed actor in the conflict, was not party to the original deal.
- 6. Armenia-Azerbaijan: Trump hosted a peace agreement in August 2025, an important step. But the agreement still required further action toward adoption and ratification; that is progress, not proof he ended a war outright.
- 7. Egypt-Ethiopia: They were not at war. Their dispute over the Nile dam remains unresolved, so counting this as a war Trump ended is misleading.
- 8. Serbia-Kosovo: Trump’s first administration helped secure an economic-normalization agreement in 2020. It did not resolve the underlying dispute or produce a peace settlement, and it predates his return to office
Instead Trump started 2 new wars, in Venezuela and Iran.
Venezuela, wasn't that essentially a kidnapping?
Reminds me, wasn't it President GHWB that invaded Panama to capture Noriega?
What is it about Republicans ?!