5 ms·

I bet they could leverage a better deal from the EU if they get an offer from DJT first.

by delichon 2y ago

spiderfarmer 2y ago
Problem is, nobody takes DJT seriously. And rightfully so.
- krapp 2y ago
  No, the problem is too many people take him seriously and keep voting for him.
  - Aachen 2y ago
    You seem to be thinking of people and corporations in the USA though. It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to. Nobody expects his influence to turn out well for the USA, the climate, the world economy, or anything
    - palmfacehn 2y ago
      >It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to. Without wading into the partisan morass, I'll gently suggest that it might be worth checking in with alternative sources once in awhile. You don't have to agree, but it is always good to temper your views. If you are interested in these topics, it could be worth knowing what the stated intentions of an agenda are, as described by the proponents. When I take the time for this my underlying principles may not change, but I do find uncharitable interpretations and deliberate misrepresentations presented by both sides. It helps to diffuse some of the most egregious hyperbole. Otherwise, I find that I'm subjecting myself to the echochamber you describe.
      - spiderfarmer 2y ago
        One side objectively lies more though.
      - Aachen 2y ago
        I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something. Also a lot of the things I watch, read, and listen are about technology and science, new (or old) research results, and sometimes politics comes up (mainly when a party/govt does something that's not in line with the study in question or even broad consensus) but then it's not the focus of the resource; it's not "of one party" in a meaningful way As for learning the intentions behind an agenda, I think that's usually clear? Harsher punishments for crime is a common point from various parties for example, the point is to reduce crime, whereas research shows (as far as I could find) that there's a fairly low threshold beyond which it only functions as retribution while also increasing repeat offences because people lose everything after many years removed from society. But people don't do the research (not like I have time for researching everything either, so I don't have an opinion on many things) and so you get bad votes... But so like, it's not about partisanship but about what actually makes sense. Like nuclear energy, the parties I generally consider voting for are usually strongly against that, but I think they're misrepresenting (or not aware of) the facts in order to be in line with what their voters want from the party. I'm not partial to one party, I check what my options are for each election (note we don't have a 2-party system here either, so there's no big "us vs. them" besides perhaps racism parties)
        kukkeliskuu 2y ago
        "I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something." I have no clue who Wilders is or what he represents, but if I read you correctly, just by applying logic, your second sentence seems to directly contradict your first sentence.
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      Putin has some hopes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Aachen 2y ago
From what? Trying to think very hard what geographical region Iceland is in that has those initials but I'm coming up blank
- pxeger1 2y ago
  GP meant Donald J. Trump, i.e. the incoming US administration
- dylan604 2y ago
  The same DJT that thinks he can buy Greenland
  - Aachen 2y ago
    Okay I got curious what/who thinks they can buy countries and looked it up. That answer makes sense. Why the PRC-like euphemism for Donald Trump though?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      What euphemism? It's the man's initials?
      - Aachen 2y ago
        Oh, I got some sort of stock ticker when I typed it into a search engine. Though it was his company rather than his actual name. I also haven't ever heard someone use a third word in "Donald Trump", so in that sense it seemed to introduce obscurity (not that I'd recognise DT if nobody ever uses that) similar to using the "it's just the initials" TLA for China
        dylan604 2y ago
        DJT is the symbol for the media company that owns his social platform. It's not the first time he's used his initials. He also used them for his bankrupt casino business. DJT is not an uncommon reference though. Donald J Trump is common as well.

I bet they could leverage a better deal from the EU if they get an offer from DJT first.

spiderfarmer 2y ago

Problem is, nobody takes DJT seriously. And rightfully so.

krapp 2y ago
No, the problem is too many people take him seriously and keep voting for him.
- Aachen 2y ago
  You seem to be thinking of people and corporations in the USA though. It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to. Nobody expects his influence to turn out well for the USA, the climate, the world economy, or anything
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    >It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to. Without wading into the partisan morass, I'll gently suggest that it might be worth checking in with alternative sources once in awhile. You don't have to agree, but it is always good to temper your views. If you are interested in these topics, it could be worth knowing what the stated intentions of an agenda are, as described by the proponents. When I take the time for this my underlying principles may not change, but I do find uncharitable interpretations and deliberate misrepresentations presented by both sides. It helps to diffuse some of the most egregious hyperbole. Otherwise, I find that I'm subjecting myself to the echochamber you describe.
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      One side objectively lies more though.
    - Aachen 2y ago
      I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something. Also a lot of the things I watch, read, and listen are about technology and science, new (or old) research results, and sometimes politics comes up (mainly when a party/govt does something that's not in line with the study in question or even broad consensus) but then it's not the focus of the resource; it's not "of one party" in a meaningful way As for learning the intentions behind an agenda, I think that's usually clear? Harsher punishments for crime is a common point from various parties for example, the point is to reduce crime, whereas research shows (as far as I could find) that there's a fairly low threshold beyond which it only functions as retribution while also increasing repeat offences because people lose everything after many years removed from society. But people don't do the research (not like I have time for researching everything either, so I don't have an opinion on many things) and so you get bad votes... But so like, it's not about partisanship but about what actually makes sense. Like nuclear energy, the parties I generally consider voting for are usually strongly against that, but I think they're misrepresenting (or not aware of) the facts in order to be in line with what their voters want from the party. I'm not partial to one party, I check what my options are for each election (note we don't have a 2-party system here either, so there's no big "us vs. them" besides perhaps racism parties)
      - kukkeliskuu 2y ago
        "I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something." I have no clue who Wilders is or what he represents, but if I read you correctly, just by applying logic, your second sentence seems to directly contradict your first sentence.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    Putin has some hopes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Aachen 2y ago

From what? Trying to think very hard what geographical region Iceland is in that has those initials but I'm coming up blank

pxeger1 2y ago
GP meant Donald J. Trump, i.e. the incoming US administration
dylan604 2y ago
The same DJT that thinks he can buy Greenland
- Aachen 2y ago
  Okay I got curious what/who thinks they can buy countries and looked it up. That answer makes sense. Why the PRC-like euphemism for Donald Trump though?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    What euphemism? It's the man's initials?
    - Aachen 2y ago
      Oh, I got some sort of stock ticker when I typed it into a search engine. Though it was his company rather than his actual name. I also haven't ever heard someone use a third word in "Donald Trump", so in that sense it seemed to introduce obscurity (not that I'd recognise DT if nobody ever uses that) similar to using the "it's just the initials" TLA for China
      - dylan604 2y ago
        DJT is the symbol for the media company that owns his social platform. It's not the first time he's used his initials. He also used them for his bankrupt casino business. DJT is not an uncommon reference though. Donald J Trump is common as well.