Trump Administration II Frustrations

[Duneranger]

Trump up +4/5 across all polls.

Vance gloriously ripped into the complacent Europeans in Munich the day after (yet AGAIN) another Islamofascist terror attack following their failed immigration policies. The dude is going to be president in 2028, he made them look so weak and pathetic. A shell of their former selves.

Big SHOCK the AfD is up to 22%....oh wait.

Productive end of the week.

[NotJoeBiden]

Trump up +4/5 across all polls.

Vance gloriously ripped into the complacent Europeans in Munich the day after (yet AGAIN) another Islamofascist terror attack following their failed immigration policies. The dude is going to be president in 2028, he made them look so weak and pathetic. A shell of their former selves.

Big SHOCK the AfD is up to 22%....oh wait.

Productive end of the week.

Up where? Not a single recent poll has Trump’s approval above 49%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...ald-trump/

We had a terrorist attack from a US citizen last month on US soil unrelated to immigration, yet the right said not to politicize it. So what is it? Do we not politicize mass casualty events when they go against the narrative of scary immigrants?

As for JD Vance, even Trump doesnt see him as his predecessor.

The AfD is a white supremacist party. They are at 21%, but that is down 1% from where they were same time last year.

Anyways, eggs are up at $7.78/ dozen and gas is up 3% since January.

So. Much. Winning.

[Vle045]

Politics is always a deeply personal and divisive topic, and people support candidates for a variety of reasons. While many strongly oppose Trump, others believe he represents their values, whether on economic policies, border security, or foreign relations. Dismissing all of his supporters as "idiots" oversimplifies a complex political landscape where voters weigh multiple factors before making their decision.

Every political leader has strengths and weaknesses, and the same can be said about their supporters. Some people may appreciate Trump’s direct approach and policies, while others may find his leadership style and rhetoric problematic. At the end of the day, democracy thrives on open discussion and understanding different perspectives, even if we don’t agree with them.

I hear you, but to be honest, I just can’t accept or excuse support for MAGA. To me, it represents values and rhetoric that feel rooted in hate or willful ignorance, and I can’t separate that from the people who align with it. I know it’s a divisive issue, but that’s where I stand.

Here's a summary of notable events from 2025 that have raised significant ethical and legal questions:

• Threats of Annihilation in Yemen: President Trump issued an ultimatum to Houthi rebels in Yemen, stating they would be "completely annihilated." The subsequent airstrikes resulted in casualties, including children, raising concerns about the humanitarian impact and the aggressive nature of the rhetoric. 
  AP News
  
  
• Expulsion of Democratic FTC Members: The President expelled Democratic members Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. This move aligns with a pattern of dismissing officials from independent agencies, challenging legal precedents that protect such positions from arbitrary removal. 
  Politico
  
  
• Public Attack on Federal Judge: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly criticized federal judge James Boasberg, labeling him a "Democrat activist" amid his review of deportation cases. Such direct attacks on the judiciary undermine the separation of powers and could be seen as attempts to intimidate the judicial branch. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Ban on Transgender Military Service: The administration issued executive orders banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military, prompting multiple lawsuits. Critics argue this policy discriminates against transgender service members and violates constitutional protections. 
  Them
  
  
• Repeal of Anti-Segregation Protections: A recent executive order rescinded protections that explicitly banned segregated facilities for federal contractors. While other laws against segregation remain, this repeal removes explicit prohibitions, signaling a potential rollback of civil rights advancements. 
  People.com
  
  
• Threatened Tariffs on EU Alcohol Imports: In response to a 50% tariff imposed by the EU on bourbon whiskey, President Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU wine and champagne. Such retaliatory measures can escalate trade tensions and harm international relations. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Derogatory Remarks About Canada: The President referred to Canada as "nasty" and suggested it was "meant to be the 51st state," comments that have strained diplomatic relations and prompted retaliatory actions from Canada. 
  Newsweek
  
  
• Proposal for Aggressive Policing: President Trump advocated for "one real rough, nasty" and "violent day" of police action to eradicate crime, a stance that raises concerns about endorsing excessive use of force and potential civil rights violations. 
  Politico
  
  
• Sanctions Against South Africa: The administration imposed sanctions on South Africa, citing policies that allegedly dismantle equal opportunity and fuel violence against certain landowners. Critics argue this action is based on a mischaracterization of South Africa's domestic policies. 
  The White House
  
  
• Surveillance of LGBTQ+ Individuals: The Department of Homeland Security removed policies prohibiting surveillance based on sexual orientation or gender identity, raising alarms about potential targeting and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities. 
  Wikipedia
  
  

These actions have sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many viewing them as departures from established norms and protections.  Every day brings more chaos, and this list could be 100 times longer. 

[Duneranger]

Politics is always a deeply personal and divisive topic, and people support candidates for a variety of reasons. While many strongly oppose Trump, others believe he represents their values, whether on economic policies, border security, or foreign relations. Dismissing all of his supporters as "idiots" oversimplifies a complex political landscape where voters weigh multiple factors before making their decision.

Every political leader has strengths and weaknesses, and the same can be said about their supporters. Some people may appreciate Trump’s direct approach and policies, while others may find his leadership style and rhetoric problematic. At the end of the day, democracy thrives on open discussion and understanding different perspectives, even if we don’t agree with them.

I hear you, but to be honest, I just can’t accept or excuse support for MAGA. To me, it represents values and rhetoric that feel rooted in hate or willful ignorance, and I can’t separate that from the people who align with it. I know it’s a divisive issue, but that’s where I stand.

Here's a summary of notable events from 2025 that have raised significant ethical and legal questions:

• Threats of Annihilation in Yemen: President Trump issued an ultimatum to Houthi rebels in Yemen, stating they would be "completely annihilated." The subsequent airstrikes resulted in casualties, including children, raising concerns about the humanitarian impact and the aggressive nature of the rhetoric. 
  AP News
  
  
• Expulsion of Democratic FTC Members: The President expelled Democratic members Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. This move aligns with a pattern of dismissing officials from independent agencies, challenging legal precedents that protect such positions from arbitrary removal. 
  Politico
  
  
• Public Attack on Federal Judge: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly criticized federal judge James Boasberg, labeling him a "Democrat activist" amid his review of deportation cases. Such direct attacks on the judiciary undermine the separation of powers and could be seen as attempts to intimidate the judicial branch. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Ban on Transgender Military Service: The administration issued executive orders banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military, prompting multiple lawsuits. Critics argue this policy discriminates against transgender service members and violates constitutional protections. 
  Them
  
  
• Repeal of Anti-Segregation Protections: A recent executive order rescinded protections that explicitly banned segregated facilities for federal contractors. While other laws against segregation remain, this repeal removes explicit prohibitions, signaling a potential rollback of civil rights advancements. 
  People.com
  
  
• Threatened Tariffs on EU Alcohol Imports: In response to a 50% tariff imposed by the EU on bourbon whiskey, President Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU wine and champagne. Such retaliatory measures can escalate trade tensions and harm international relations. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Derogatory Remarks About Canada: The President referred to Canada as "nasty" and suggested it was "meant to be the 51st state," comments that have strained diplomatic relations and prompted retaliatory actions from Canada. 
  Newsweek
  
  
• Proposal for Aggressive Policing: President Trump advocated for "one real rough, nasty" and "violent day" of police action to eradicate crime, a stance that raises concerns about endorsing excessive use of force and potential civil rights violations. 
  Politico
  
  
• Sanctions Against South Africa: The administration imposed sanctions on South Africa, citing policies that allegedly dismantle equal opportunity and fuel violence against certain landowners. Critics argue this action is based on a mischaracterization of South Africa's domestic policies. 
  The White House
  
  
• Surveillance of LGBTQ+ Individuals: The Department of Homeland Security removed policies prohibiting surveillance based on sexual orientation or gender identity, raising alarms about potential targeting and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities. 
  Wikipedia
  
  

These actions have sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many viewing them as departures from established norms and protections.  Every day brings more chaos, and this list could be 100 times longer. 

Glad to know you are pro terrorist and anti environment. The Houthis are destroying international trade and are bloodthirsty terrorists preying on trade ships and have launched hundreds of missiles at patrolling US Navy ships. They should be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

People like you are wild.

[LevelUP]

Politics is always a deeply personal and divisive topic, and people support candidates for a variety of reasons. While many strongly oppose Trump, others believe he represents their values, whether on economic policies, border security, or foreign relations. Dismissing all of his supporters as "idiots" oversimplifies a complex political landscape where voters weigh multiple factors before making their decision.

Every political leader has strengths and weaknesses, and the same can be said about their supporters. Some people may appreciate Trump’s direct approach and policies, while others may find his leadership style and rhetoric problematic. At the end of the day, democracy thrives on open discussion and understanding different perspectives, even if we don’t agree with them.

I hear you, but to be honest, I just can’t accept or excuse support for MAGA. To me, it represents values and rhetoric that feel rooted in hate or willful ignorance, and I can’t separate that from the people who align with it. I know it’s a divisive issue, but that’s where I stand.

Here's a summary of notable events from 2025 that have raised significant ethical and legal questions:

• Threats of Annihilation in Yemen: President Trump issued an ultimatum to Houthi rebels in Yemen, stating they would be "completely annihilated." The subsequent airstrikes resulted in casualties, including children, raising concerns about the humanitarian impact and the aggressive nature of the rhetoric. 
  AP News
  
  
• Expulsion of Democratic FTC Members: The President expelled Democratic members Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. This move aligns with a pattern of dismissing officials from independent agencies, challenging legal precedents that protect such positions from arbitrary removal. 
  Politico
  
  
• Public Attack on Federal Judge: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly criticized federal judge James Boasberg, labeling him a "Democrat activist" amid his review of deportation cases. Such direct attacks on the judiciary undermine the separation of powers and could be seen as attempts to intimidate the judicial branch. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Ban on Transgender Military Service: The administration issued executive orders banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military, prompting multiple lawsuits. Critics argue this policy discriminates against transgender service members and violates constitutional protections. 
  Them
  
  
• Repeal of Anti-Segregation Protections: A recent executive order rescinded protections that explicitly banned segregated facilities for federal contractors. While other laws against segregation remain, this repeal removes explicit prohibitions, signaling a potential rollback of civil rights advancements. 
  People.com
  
  
• Threatened Tariffs on EU Alcohol Imports: In response to a 50% tariff imposed by the EU on bourbon whiskey, President Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU wine and champagne. Such retaliatory measures can escalate trade tensions and harm international relations. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Derogatory Remarks About Canada: The President referred to Canada as "nasty" and suggested it was "meant to be the 51st state," comments that have strained diplomatic relations and prompted retaliatory actions from Canada. 
  Newsweek
  
  
• Proposal for Aggressive Policing: President Trump advocated for "one real rough, nasty" and "violent day" of police action to eradicate crime, a stance that raises concerns about endorsing excessive use of force and potential civil rights violations. 
  Politico
  
  
• Sanctions Against South Africa: The administration imposed sanctions on South Africa, citing policies that allegedly dismantle equal opportunity and fuel violence against certain landowners. Critics argue this action is based on a mischaracterization of South Africa's domestic policies. 
  The White House
  
  
• Surveillance of LGBTQ+ Individuals: The Department of Homeland Security removed policies prohibiting surveillance based on sexual orientation or gender identity, raising alarms about potential targeting and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities. 
  Wikipedia
  
  

These actions have sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many viewing them as departures from established norms and protections.  Every day brings more chaos, and this list could be 100 times longer. 

Glad to know you are pro terrorist and anti environment. The Houthis are destroying international trade and are bloodthirsty terrorists preying on trade ships and have launched hundreds of missiles at patrolling US Navy ships. They should be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

People like you are wild.

Yeah, ChatGPT and other LLMs are wildly biased. (That response was clearly from an LLM starting from "Here's a summary of notable events from 2025.")

I got into an argument with ChatGPT about whether we should be eating insects instead of animal meat. Lol.

[NotJoeBiden]

I got into an argument with ChatGPT about whether we should be eating insects instead of animal meat. Lol.

Did you at least win the argument?

[Vle045]

Politics is always a deeply personal and divisive topic, and people support candidates for a variety of reasons. While many strongly oppose Trump, others believe he represents their values, whether on economic policies, border security, or foreign relations. Dismissing all of his supporters as "idiots" oversimplifies a complex political landscape where voters weigh multiple factors before making their decision.

Every political leader has strengths and weaknesses, and the same can be said about their supporters. Some people may appreciate Trump’s direct approach and policies, while others may find his leadership style and rhetoric problematic. At the end of the day, democracy thrives on open discussion and understanding different perspectives, even if we don’t agree with them.

I hear you, but to be honest, I just can’t accept or excuse support for MAGA. To me, it represents values and rhetoric that feel rooted in hate or willful ignorance, and I can’t separate that from the people who align with it. I know it’s a divisive issue, but that’s where I stand.

Here's a summary of notable events from 2025 that have raised significant ethical and legal questions:

• Threats of Annihilation in Yemen: President Trump issued an ultimatum to Houthi rebels in Yemen, stating they would be "completely annihilated." The subsequent airstrikes resulted in casualties, including children, raising concerns about the humanitarian impact and the aggressive nature of the rhetoric. 
  AP News
  
  
• Expulsion of Democratic FTC Members: The President expelled Democratic members Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. This move aligns with a pattern of dismissing officials from independent agencies, challenging legal precedents that protect such positions from arbitrary removal. 
  Politico
  
  
• Public Attack on Federal Judge: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly criticized federal judge James Boasberg, labeling him a "Democrat activist" amid his review of deportation cases. Such direct attacks on the judiciary undermine the separation of powers and could be seen as attempts to intimidate the judicial branch. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Ban on Transgender Military Service: The administration issued executive orders banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military, prompting multiple lawsuits. Critics argue this policy discriminates against transgender service members and violates constitutional protections. 
  Them
  
  
• Repeal of Anti-Segregation Protections: A recent executive order rescinded protections that explicitly banned segregated facilities for federal contractors. While other laws against segregation remain, this repeal removes explicit prohibitions, signaling a potential rollback of civil rights advancements. 
  People.com
  
  
• Threatened Tariffs on EU Alcohol Imports: In response to a 50% tariff imposed by the EU on bourbon whiskey, President Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU wine and champagne. Such retaliatory measures can escalate trade tensions and harm international relations. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Derogatory Remarks About Canada: The President referred to Canada as "nasty" and suggested it was "meant to be the 51st state," comments that have strained diplomatic relations and prompted retaliatory actions from Canada. 
  Newsweek
  
  
• Proposal for Aggressive Policing: President Trump advocated for "one real rough, nasty" and "violent day" of police action to eradicate crime, a stance that raises concerns about endorsing excessive use of force and potential civil rights violations. 
  Politico
  
  
• Sanctions Against South Africa: The administration imposed sanctions on South Africa, citing policies that allegedly dismantle equal opportunity and fuel violence against certain landowners. Critics argue this action is based on a mischaracterization of South Africa's domestic policies. 
  The White House
  
  
• Surveillance of LGBTQ+ Individuals: The Department of Homeland Security removed policies prohibiting surveillance based on sexual orientation or gender identity, raising alarms about potential targeting and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities. 
  Wikipedia
  
  

These actions have sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many viewing them as departures from established norms and protections.  Every day brings more chaos, and this list could be 100 times longer. 

Glad to know you are pro terrorist and anti environment. The Houthis are destroying international trade and are bloodthirsty terrorists preying on trade ships and have launched hundreds of missiles at patrolling US Navy ships. They should be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

People like you are wild.

I’m not pro-terrorist or anti-environment. My concern is with how we respond. Calling for ‘complete annihilation’ or promoting extreme retaliation can have devastating consequences, including harming civilians and worsening instability. I think it’s fair to question whether certain actions go too far without endorsing the other side.

---

Yeah, ChatGPT and other LLMs are wildly biased. (That response was clearly from an LLM starting from "Here's a summary of notable events from 2025.")

I got into an argument with ChatGPT about whether we should be eating insects instead of animal meat. Lol.

Yep, I used ChatGPT to help pull together that list…. specifically so I could avoid going off on an angry tirade and instead focus on finding credible sources. I’d rather back up my concerns with facts than just vent emotionally.

[Duneranger]

Politics is always a deeply personal and divisive topic, and people support candidates for a variety of reasons. While many strongly oppose Trump, others believe he represents their values, whether on economic policies, border security, or foreign relations. Dismissing all of his supporters as "idiots" oversimplifies a complex political landscape where voters weigh multiple factors before making their decision.

Every political leader has strengths and weaknesses, and the same can be said about their supporters. Some people may appreciate Trump’s direct approach and policies, while others may find his leadership style and rhetoric problematic. At the end of the day, democracy thrives on open discussion and understanding different perspectives, even if we don’t agree with them.

I hear you, but to be honest, I just can’t accept or excuse support for MAGA. To me, it represents values and rhetoric that feel rooted in hate or willful ignorance, and I can’t separate that from the people who align with it. I know it’s a divisive issue, but that’s where I stand.

Here's a summary of notable events from 2025 that have raised significant ethical and legal questions:

• Threats of Annihilation in Yemen: President Trump issued an ultimatum to Houthi rebels in Yemen, stating they would be "completely annihilated." The subsequent airstrikes resulted in casualties, including children, raising concerns about the humanitarian impact and the aggressive nature of the rhetoric. 
  AP News
  
  
• Expulsion of Democratic FTC Members: The President expelled Democratic members Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. This move aligns with a pattern of dismissing officials from independent agencies, challenging legal precedents that protect such positions from arbitrary removal. 
  Politico
  
  
• Public Attack on Federal Judge: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly criticized federal judge James Boasberg, labeling him a "Democrat activist" amid his review of deportation cases. Such direct attacks on the judiciary undermine the separation of powers and could be seen as attempts to intimidate the judicial branch. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Ban on Transgender Military Service: The administration issued executive orders banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military, prompting multiple lawsuits. Critics argue this policy discriminates against transgender service members and violates constitutional protections. 
  Them
  
  
• Repeal of Anti-Segregation Protections: A recent executive order rescinded protections that explicitly banned segregated facilities for federal contractors. While other laws against segregation remain, this repeal removes explicit prohibitions, signaling a potential rollback of civil rights advancements. 
  People.com
  
  
• Threatened Tariffs on EU Alcohol Imports: In response to a 50% tariff imposed by the EU on bourbon whiskey, President Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU wine and champagne. Such retaliatory measures can escalate trade tensions and harm international relations. 
  The Guardian
  
  
• Derogatory Remarks About Canada: The President referred to Canada as "nasty" and suggested it was "meant to be the 51st state," comments that have strained diplomatic relations and prompted retaliatory actions from Canada. 
  Newsweek
  
  
• Proposal for Aggressive Policing: President Trump advocated for "one real rough, nasty" and "violent day" of police action to eradicate crime, a stance that raises concerns about endorsing excessive use of force and potential civil rights violations. 
  Politico
  
  
• Sanctions Against South Africa: The administration imposed sanctions on South Africa, citing policies that allegedly dismantle equal opportunity and fuel violence against certain landowners. Critics argue this action is based on a mischaracterization of South Africa's domestic policies. 
  The White House
  
  
• Surveillance of LGBTQ+ Individuals: The Department of Homeland Security removed policies prohibiting surveillance based on sexual orientation or gender identity, raising alarms about potential targeting and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities. 
  Wikipedia
  
  

These actions have sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many viewing them as departures from established norms and protections.  Every day brings more chaos, and this list could be 100 times longer. 

Glad to know you are pro terrorist and anti environment. The Houthis are destroying international trade and are bloodthirsty terrorists preying on trade ships and have launched hundreds of missiles at patrolling US Navy ships. They should be dealt with with extreme prejudice.

People like you are wild.

I’m not pro-terrorist or anti-environment. My concern is with how we respond. Calling for ‘complete annihilation’ or promoting extreme retaliation can have devastating consequences, including harming civilians and worsening instability. I think it’s fair to question whether certain actions go too far without endorsing the other side.

---

Yeah, ChatGPT and other LLMs are wildly biased. (That response was clearly from an LLM starting from "Here's a summary of notable events from 2025.")

I got into an argument with ChatGPT about whether we should be eating insects instead of animal meat. Lol.

Yep, I used ChatGPT to help pull together that list…. specifically so I could avoid going off on an angry tirade and instead focus on finding credible sources. I’d rather back up my concerns with facts than just vent emotionally.

Yeah bro, instead of precision air strikes we should totally talk it out with them. That would surely work!

They seem like a reasonable and level headed bunch!

Rule #1, don’t F with our ships!

[NotJoeBiden]

Big tough guy here

[ifomonay]

Here is what is mind-boggling. So all this evil stuff we knew about Trump, that he's a convicted felon, he's a fascist, and so forth. We knew this on Election Day in 2024. 80 million registered voters did not vote. If Trump is so horrible, why didn't they go out and make sure Trump would not get elected? Methinks the following. Democrats wanted Trump to get elected so they can go on forums and discussion boards and complain and gripe. Trump promised tariffs before the election. So people acting all shockedElection Day is the day to make your voice heard. Making your voice heard now doesn't count. Democrats wouldn't have to spend hours and hours on the Internet complaining about Trump, when they could've spent one hour or less mailing in a ballot, or going to the poll. Carry on, I guess.