More specifically, he was born in Africa and neither one of his parents was a US citizen. While all past presidents were born in the USA, it hasn't yet been definitively ruled that you must be born on US soil to be a "natural born Citizen", and my understanding is that you likely don't, you just need to have been a US citizen at birth rather than naturalized later.
Facebook has insane pull. Sometimes I forget about it, but it is used by majority of every single demographic base once you consider different portions of the FB app (markets, groups, messenger), Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads (don’t think it is that relevant yet). That being said, to my understanding, Meta has been trying to move itself away from political-adjacent conversations. While Twitter is completely the opposite, and thrives on poli-rage.
Well, he's also on video recently at a church saying, "I need you to come out and vote for me. And if things work out the way we want, you won't need to vote again."
Apparently this is the smoking gun and Trump is going to become dictator for life? Is this where we are in the debate? You might as well be talking about what kind of ice-cream he likes then.
Come on, we both know that he means (specially if you read the full context) that there will be no reason to vote afterwards (to a group that seldom votes) because their wishes/goals will be delievered by trump. He was just trying to convince them that this election matters most.
> He was just trying to convince them that this election matters most.
Sure. And he said he was going to "act as a dictator from day 1" (after saying repeatedly that "America could benefit from a dictatorship" and praising what other dictators "have been able to do for their country") for what reason? He said he'd terminate the constitution. The guy who just got indicted again for his BS on and around Jan 6.
Really, he just means "I'll fix the country so well, and there will be so much love, that people will be happy to keep voting us back in".
I don't think he'll succeed. I don't think he'll be elected. But if you think there's not a part of Trump that wants to be President For Life, and will if he thinks he can get away with it, then ... you haven't been listening to him.
>Really, he just means "I'll fix the country so well, and there will be so much love, that people will be happy to keep voting us back in".
No, it means exactly as Trump said it would - he wants to be a dictator, and is willing to terminate the constitution to make it so. Even then, he won't fix jack shit, because that would actually require working, which is something he cannot and will not do. He had a supermajority in congress in his first term...and did nothing besides pass tax cuts for billionaires.
I'd never in my youth imagine that the country I grew up in would elect a guy who trashes the constitution who wears lifts and orange makeup, let alone potentially doing it twice. May you live in interesting times indeed.
>Yeah because Trump is the one who's going after his opponents using the judical system.
I'm sorry, the $450 million judgement was for systemic fraud committed for decades prior to his involvement in politics.
Further, the going after him for retaining government documents could have been avoided completely if he didn't lie to the FBI, lie to them again, and then lie to his own attorneys so they'd unknowingly lie to the FBI on his behalf. It's not like they were benign documents about what the secreatary of HUD or eudcation eats for lunch; they were SCI documents pertaining to Israel's nuclear weapons program...that were gifted to the Saudis so the Saudi PIF would in turn fund a golf tournament Trump could host at his courses in an attempt to give the middle finger to the PGA Tour.
> More than eight-in-ten White evangelical Protestant voters who attend religious services frequently (85%) voted for Trump in the most recent election, as did 81% of those who attend less frequently.
> White born-again or evangelical Christians made up 24 percent of the electorate in the 2022 elections, according to the media consortium exit poll conducted for CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. Black (11 percent) and Latino (11 percent) voters and those from a union household (18 percent) combined to constitute 40 percent of the vote.
Can you please cite the court case that proves Trump won in 2020? Regardless of how many people believe that the Democrats cheated, asserting that Trump won AND that his alleged victory was proven in court is quite a bold claim. Post proof or gtfo.
The rules don't apply to the people who make them. What do you expect is going to happen if he does show up on the ballot and the most people vote for him?
> Also, he's almost as toxic to the left as Trump is at this point because he doesn't want kids to be transitioned and doesn't think people that say mean things (or things someone in particular thinks are mean) are automatically bad people.
That's a pretty big understatement about all the wacky, inept and dumb things he has said (and presumably believes)
If you go back 4 years, Trans and Black Lives Matter very much dominated the DNC, and those topics today get barely a whistle. I read the whole DNC platform, it's very much not what it was a few years ago.
Meanwhile the VP candidate on the other side has a non white, non Cristian wife and has very much repudiated the racist part of the party.
I suspect that in 4-8 years you will have seen some massive shift in US politics and party platforms away from where we are today. Because it looks like both sides are making some pivots
Zuckerberg sees the writing on the wall. I suspect that he would rather see a trump admin and avoid an anti-trust fight or privacy legislation.
I'm pretty into right wing blogs and forums. I have yet to see even a glimpse of a Nazi and even anyone that goes beyond "why is half of Bidens Whitehouse Jewish? Isn't that weird? Why do so many politicians have to take a photo in Israel?" That's as 'Nazi' as it gets.
I'd be surprised if Elon's detractors know about his daughter, generally speaking. The tech conversations don't overlap with the gossip conversations very often.
Elon detractors love to focus on made up bullshit instead of the very real, more problematic issues with Elon. But this is the same of anyone unpopular.
The person was clearly trying to say "it wasn't a big thing, and is huge now in comparison to just a few years ago". But hey, you won debate there with some counter examples that prove them wrong. But did we move the debate forward?
Me jumping in for everyone to understand the push-back and why the "data" you propose is not swaying our opinion. The reason something like a study isn't changing our minds about the topic is because we've seen how profit-making institutions, researchers, academia, and even the school system have all been "captured". The topic is taboo, and any sort of dissent is met with a huge amount of pushback, mockery, cancelling, "phobe" calling, and all manners of ugliness. The "literature" is then effectively rigged.
And even if the study is true, and valid, and there was no bias in the research conducted, because we've seen the above "capture" we can't reasonably convince ourselves to trust "the science". This is why it's so tragic that the left has gone scorched-earth with previously-trusted institutions. The trust and reasonable debate will take decades to be re-established, and until then we're stuck with this weird tribal "us vs them" hell hole.
"It wasn't a big thing" - how do you know? You do not. A group of people ask for a place at the table and you and your ilk question their legitimacy as human beings - that's what you're doing. People are saying "I feel this way, I am this way, I see others who feel like me and and feel empowered to come forward and live as the person I feel I am"
And your response is 'it's a phase' - like their identity is a fidget spinner. Nothing is being lost or endangered by making trans people feel welcome and valid and allowing them to pursue treatments that make them happier.
The topic is not taboo. What's taboo is invalidating the lives and existence of other human beings just finding a voice and a place in the world and figuring it out. After all if it's a phase, or a social contagion, it'll blow by and you can relax - but the amount of effort going in to making these people feel scrutinized and unwelcome doesn't seem like that's the point at all.
> "The topic is not taboo. What's taboo is invalidating the lives and existence of other human beings just finding a voice and a place in the world and figuring it out. After all if it's a phase, or a social contagion, it'll blow by and you can relax - but the amount of effort going in to making these people feel scrutinized and unwelcome doesn't seem like that's the point at all."
Every single person I know that isn't on-board with the Left or trans issues (someone the left would call a bigot and nazi), is 110% fine with actual real-world average trans people that want to just live their lives. What everyone has an issue with is the fact that trans activists have an obsession with "being allowed" in opposite-gender spaces such as toilets (like WTF, why?!?). They also have this weird obsession of wanting to have trans issues exposed, taught and presented to kids (again, why?). Also the whole thing about promoting, encouraging and allowing minors that can't consent to be transitioned and have their bodies effectively butchered (on this I will take a stand - this is a tragedy and history will judge those that participated). All of these have nothing to do with normal people questioning the "legitimacy" of trans individuals as humans, that's just been the catchy marketing hook presented by professional activists as they usurped the trans movement, so that they could polarize and perpetuate "The Movement" at the detriment to peace and harmony among all humans (whether they're trans or not).
The fact that the whole trans movement go co-opted by activists is sad, and causing real harm to trans individuals. Meanwhile, the rest of us, normal people, average people, have no desire to prevent trans individuals from being who they are or want to be.
There are people going back thousands of years which seem to fit pretty well under modern conceptions of trans people.
Even if you want to limit consideration to people who self-professed an identity under our modern conceptions, there's a full century of consistent examples. There was a thriving community of trans people in Berlin in the 1920s and early 1930s, until it was rather abruptly cut off in 1933. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissen...
> because he doesn't want kids to be transitioned and doesn't think people that say mean things (or things someone in particular thinks are mean) are automatically bad people.
Characterising the critiques of Musk in this way is not only reductive, but flat out wrong.
