Trump Elected: The True MAGA Era Begins, Now What?

There is a point many people complain about in regard to Trump, even alternative people: He tends to say the same things over and over and over again. Now I would like to ask: Isn't it sort of what most politicians do, also? If so, why do people find it so offensive when Trump does it, even though he isn't really a normal career politician? Is it because he sometimes, or even often, exaggerates? If so, why do people find it so offensive when Trump does it, even though many real politicians do it as well? Is it because he sometimes lies or doesn't appear to know what is really going on or what the real situation is? If so, why do people find it so offensive when Trump does it, even though many real politicians do it as well?

Now, why is it that people find it so offensive when Trump does it? Even though when he does it, it is not seldomly, it seems, because he really wants to do good stuff, in contrast to most real politicians? Or is it because he says it in ways that don't sound sophisticated, like a typical political robot? Or because it sounds very self-prais like or childish? If so, why do people find it so offensive when Trump does it even though most politicians do similar things, while they tend to mask it behind a facade?

Also, have you noticed that even the best politicians out there (Putin, for example) tend to say the same things over and over again? Ok, he does it quite more sophisticated than Trump, but still, it is basically the same thing.

Anyway, Trump might know it or not, but there is a pretty basic concept that seems to work almost always: If you repeat things often enough, they stick, no matter if they are true or not. Negative Propagandists all over the world have realized that simple fact long ago and used it ever since to their advantage. But if Trump is doing something similar now, WITH GOOD INTENTIONS IN MIND (positive Propaganda, if you will), it is all of a sudden very offensive?

I don't understand that.

Another thing: No matter if it is done on purpose or not, isn't it sort of skill to answer in the same way over and over again, and stay polite, patient and none aggressive towards people, when you know that you have said what you are just saying a zillion times already? Could you do it? There also might be a sort of openness involved when people of that caliber do something like that: They might know at some level that there might be someone listening to your answer right now who hasn't heard it before, or hasn't understood your point previously.
Don't know if it so much about his intentions or how he expresses himself differently than most politicians (some dislike it but others find it refreshing), than it is about his character IMO. Talking to people, the first reaction I get is disgust at his personality, about him being a narcissist and (supposedly) a misogynist and a racist who doesn't have good intentions, only personal interests and grandiose ideas that reflect his big ego.

Many people judge a person's substance based on their form so it's not surprising that they hate Trump given how he has been portrayed over the years. The media has done a great job at taking his more negative personality traits and attaching false ideas to picture him in such a way that they would still prefer Biden unfortunately.
 
Greenland is holding elections and three parties favoring independence will have a majority of about 70% (though they disagree on how fast it should happen).

One of these parties is open to joining the US and is getting about 25% of the votes:

 
Even if it should be true that the majority of people in Greenland would be for becoming part of the US, for a number of reasons, I don’t think it would be wise to do so, especially if you look at it long term after Trump is gone. I think they would be better off to stay and/or become independent and/or neutral, or, if it all, do the opposite and come closer to Russia.
 
Even if it should be true that the majority of people in Greenland would be for becoming part of the US, for a number of reasons, I don’t think it would be wise to do so, especially if you look at it long term after Trump is gone. I think they would be better off to stay and/or become independent and/or neutral, or, if it all, do the opposite and come closer to Russia.
What an excellent foresight you have! Yes, I agree. With the state of affairs as is now, we are aware the PTB is not finished with Trump yet. They have tried to terminate him already, who's to say they won't try again? Indeed, as he is there for only a 4 years term, the next president ( if there is one, who knows at this point) could be doing a complete about face and terminate the arrangement or impose something that Greenland would regret down the line. As the future is unknown and fluid, all ideas could be on the table. Their independence would be an asset, for themselves. Let's hope they can have it.
 
Trump reverses course on Gaza plan, says “nobody is expelling Palestinians”
03/14/2025

  • Trump reversed his stance on Gaza, stating "nobody is expelling any Palestinians" despite earlier comments about population removal.

  • The president's original "Riviera" plan faced widespread condemnation for promoting forced displacement of Gaza's 1.8 million residents.

  • Arab states recently proposed a $53 billion reconstruction plan for Gaza that wouldn't displace Palestinians.

  • The White House rejected the Arab proposal while maintaining Trump's vision for a Hamas-free Gaza.

  • Tensions are growing between the U.S. and Israel over direct American negotiations with Hamas
President Donald Trump made a significant policy reversal Wednesday, declaring that "nobody is expelling any Palestinians" from Gaza, seemingly abandoning his controversial proposal from earlier this year that had sparked international condemnation for what critics called ethnic cleansing rhetoric.

The president's remarks came ahead of a White House meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin, where Trump firmly stated, "We are not expelling anyone from the Gaza Strip." This statement marks a departure from his February comments alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when Trump proposed that the U.S. "take over" Gaza, saying "we will flatten it; 1.8 million need to leave."

Trump's previous vision – transforming Gaza into what he called a "Riviera of the Middle East" after relocating its population – had drawn fierce criticism from humanitarian organizations, international allies, and Arab nations. The plan was widely condemned as promoting forced displacement of an entire civilian population, which would constitute a serious violation of international law

Tension with Israel over direct Hamas negotiations​

Trump's policy reversal comes amid growing tension with Israeli officials over Washington's direct ceasefire negotiations with Hamas. These talks, led by U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler, have reportedly angered Tel Aviv.

In remarks that particularly provoked Israeli officials, Boehler told CNN, "Look, they don't have horns growing out of their heads; they're actually guys like us; they're pretty nice guys. We're the United States, we're not an agent of Israel. We have specific interests at play."

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich responded sharply on Israel's Army Radio: "[Boehler] attempted to negotiate the release of American hostages. We made it clear to him that he cannot speak on our behalf, and if he wishes to negotiate on behalf of the United States, then good luck to him."

Despite the diplomatic friction, Netanyahu has previously described Trump's Gaza vision as a "revolutionary, creative vision," suggesting the Israeli leader may have been supportive of the original displacement plan.

Trump's latest position shift has been cautiously welcomed by Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qasem, who told CNN the statement is welcomed if it represents a "reversal of the idea of displacing the people of the Gaza strip."

As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues with nearly 50,000 Palestinian deaths reported by Gaza's health ministry, Trump's policy reversal represents a significant shift away from what many international observers had condemned as a dangerous proposal that appeared to advocate for the ethnic cleansing of an entire population from their homeland. Though Israel's horrific and inhumane military operationscontinue with U.S. support, the president's latest statement suggests at least some recognition of the limits of American power to unilaterally reshape the region's demographic landscape
 

 
Even if it should be true that the majority of people in Greenland would be for becoming part of the US, for a number of reasons, I don’t think it would be wise to do so, especially if you look at it long term after Trump is gone. I think they would be better off to stay and/or become independent and/or neutral, or, if it all, do the opposite and come closer to Russia.

It's the PayPal mafia, under the name of the company Praxis, who are pushing for the neo-colonization Greenland. These technocrats see it as a great site for an experimental futuristic city project designed to 'restore Western Civilization'. They don't care what the people of Greenland think, and it looks quite a lot like a utopia that could quickly turn into a digital Gulag. That seems to be what they want for Greenland long term, after Trump is gone - another 'shining city on a hill'.


“I went to Greenland to try to buy it,” Dryden Brown posted on X a week after Donald Trump won reelection in November. “Here’s what happened.”

That sounds like the setup to a joke, but Brown is entirely serious. He is part of a cadre of iconoclastic, very-online men looking to found the city of the future, with funding tied to crypto organizations, venture capital and libertarian billionaires.

As the co-founder of Praxis, a theoretical city-state aiming to “restore Western Civilization,” Brown has had designs on Greenland as a home base since 2019, when President Donald Trump first started talking about buying the territory from Denmark. With the new administration bullying Danish diplomats on the phone and reiterating its interest in acquiring the island, Praxis finds itself in an enviable position relative to other futuristic city projects: with its goals and its financial backers aligning with the current administration.

The most prominent investor linked to Praxis is Peter Thiel. A member of the “PayPal Mafia” and erstwhile frenemy of Elon Musk, Thiel was one of the first Silicon Valley elite to support Donald Trump when he became a presidential candidate in 2016. He is also an outspoken supporter of “seasteading,” an effort to build floating city-states in international waters, and has gabbed with Joe Rogan about moving out of California to pay less taxes. So it’s no surprise that he backs Pronomos Capital, a venture which has become a hub for funding experimental cities, including Praxis.

Founded by Patri Friedman — grandson of Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist — with seed funding from Thiel, Pronomos Capital has a portfolio of city projects in countries ranging from Palau to Nigeria. The most widely known is Próspera, located on the island of Roatán in Honduras. Developed as a Zone for Employment and Economic Development, or ZEDE, with a highly autonomous administrative structure and its own civil code, Próspera is far and away the leader in the “city of the future” category for the simple fact that it actually exists.

That may not be the case for very long, however, as the city has had several disagreements with its host country. As of September, the top court in Honduras declared the legal underpinnings of ZEDEs unconstitutional. Another Pronomos investment is Itana, formerly known as “Talent City,” which is under development in Nigeria roughly 50 miles east of Lagos; it operates under a similar model as Próspera with backing from the Nigerian government.

All of the cities present some amalgam of laissez-faire principles, tech-evangelist mindsets and visions of a crypto-native economy. Lower taxes and fewer regulations, the artchitects behind them say, would promote innovation and foreign investment. Praxis goes a step further, calling itself “the world’s first Network State,” a concept developed by tech entrepreneur and former CTO of Coinbase Balaji Srinivasan. He called for a state that “crowdfunds territory around the world” before gaining recognition from existing countries. Praxis claims to have over 87,000 “Praxians” as part of its currently internet-only state.

“As the warrior-kings once sought the sacred Grail,” reads Praxis’s so-called Declaration of Ascent, “so too shall we build an empire where true power flows from heroic courage and alignment with the divine order.” Brown’s description of Praxis builds on these pseudo-mythological themes: Praxian architecture would be “hero futurism,” with their first city on Earth a stepping stone to expanding to Mars for their “Network Empire.”

While all this gravitas has yet to translate into a definite location, it has translated into strong financial backing. Their newest financing round, announced in late October, totaled up to $525 million, to be released in tranches upon the development of “the next great city”; investors include Arch Lending (crypto-backed loans), GEM Digital (digital assets) and Manifold Trading (crypto trading). That’s a far cry from their 2021 funding round, which went to the tune of $4.2 million, according to The New York Times. In that announcement, Praxis thanked Thiel-backed Pronomos Capital as early investors.

Back to Greenland: According to his tweets, Brown and his Praxis co-founder, former hedge fund analyst Charlie Callinan, landed in the city of Nuuk in the summer of 2024, at which point they jogged around the capital before promptly going “Praxis mode” by jumping into the ocean.

During the trip, he claims to have met with members of parliament and found that, despite a majority of Greenlanders desiring independence from Denmark, which has officially overseen the territory since 1953, there were several hurdles to his plan. As Rasmus Jarlov, a member of the Danish center-right party, tweeted back at Brown: “I can guarantee you that there is no way we would approve independence so that you could buy Greenland.”

For Praxis, the negative response may seem insurmountable, but there are also tailwinds: President Trump has nominated Ken Howery, another member of the PayPal Mafia, to become the ambassador to Denmark. The official response from Denmark’s governing party to inquiries from Trump has been sullen as well, but the president’s efforts have landed a request for a meeting from the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen amid attempts to ease security concerns in the region. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte B. Egede also signaled he was ready to speak with Trump, though he drew a line in the sand on the issue: “We do not want to be Americans.”

Besides a reticent Danish government, one of the major impediments to buying the country is the roughly half-billion in annual block grants the country receives from its European benefactor. If Greenland were to come under U.S. control, however, the inconceivable prospect of Praxis becoming the newest, shiniest city of the future might become much more conceivable.
 
These technocrats see it as a great site for an experimental futuristic city project designed to 'restore Western Civilization'.

While I may not disagree with your statement, there is a practical aspect at play here. The Watt to remove a Watt of heat is the biggest challenge to large datacenters. It is hard to make money when your profits are getting eaten up by power generation Utilities to power the HVAC systems.

Greenland presents the ideal opportunity of being able to create either geothermal based microgrids or small micro-reactor (SMR's) for power generation in very remote/non-inhabited locations (just incase a reactor melts down, limited liability!) And there is an abundance of cold air year round for free!

But to me that is also some level of hubris, as how do you get the packets into and back out to the rest of the world/subscribers?

Layer 1 issue that "app dev" guys never fully understand.
 
Sounds almost like some kind of deal between Trump and Israel: "The US will attack the Houthis in Yemen, but the Palestinians in Gaza can stay."
Sounds like a poor attempt to justify one violence with another. There are currently 39 dead in Yemen from US bombs, mostly women and children. It's amazing that just two days ago this guy (Trump) was asking Russia to spare the Ukrainian Nazis (who killed and raped women, killed old people) near Kursk. And today this guy (Trump) gave the order to bomb people, thousands of kilometers from US territory. Incredible liar and hypocrite.
 
Sounds like a poor attempt to justify one violence with another.
Who is justifying violence? It is simply an observation that the timing of the two decisions by Trump suggests that there is a connection, maybe some kind of deal with Israel (since he likes deals).

The Zionists may indeed become Trump's undoing if he is not careful. In some ways it seems similar to doing a deal with a devil, where Trump, "the biggest deal maker of all time", may think he can outsmart this devil and use it to fight another devil (globalists).
 
Well, I've thought for a little while now about that. There are different power factions and it seems to me that Trump understood he would need the backing of at least one faction, that going against all factions at once it would not be possible to be successful. However, recent events are most concerning. There's really no hope for a better future without free speech.

Not looking good ATM
 
Back
Top Bottom