Play Nice 47th President of the United States: ████████████ - Part 23: Si buscan capitalismo, aquí está!!

[Gethelred]

<-- Part 22: 47th President of the United States: ████████████ - Part 22: Insert Blame Here

Mod Notice

Thread monitored proactively. Users who drag it down will be removed. REPORT posts. Don't exacerbate.	Specifically: reference to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), 'Trumpanzee' or similar are longer allowed.	Personal attacks are also to be kept to a minimum.
<- 2024 Election Thread	<- Kamala Harris Concedes	<-- See Part 22.

This thread is not about Covid, lockdowns, or vaccines. While Trump was in office during the pandemic and his response to Covid is relevant, there are pertinent threads for you to post your opinions on those topics.

On SRP you are responsible for backing up/verifying your claims to fact. What this means is that you will be asked time to time to support your claims with evidence, to ensure that this forum is as free of misinfomation as we can make it.

Do not post conspiracy theories on this forum. We have an entire other forum for that.

Thanks all.

 

[10571z]

Let's hope the Venezuelans can start sending American troops home in boxes sooner rather than later.

Odd thing to hope for.

 

[100action]

 

[bzparkes]

Thoughts and Prayers

 

[QuietB]

I’m devastated by this illegal capture of an elected head of state by Trump.

I live in constant fear my beloved leader, Albo who lives at 5 Adelaide Avenue, Deakin, ACT share the same fate. He’s usually home with Jodie by 9pm.

We give America all the rent free resources they want - Albo is safe.

 

[JackOutback]

Your AI vs my AI.

Take it up with either of them.

Let me guess, yours is Grok.

 

[bzparkes]

Let me guess, yours is Grok.

ChatGPT actually, as I said in my post.

 

[Gough]

ChatGPT actually, as I said in my post.

Or you could actually research it yourself.

 

[bzparkes]

Or you could actually research it yourself.

Mate, go back and read the post I responded to thanks.

 

[Financialpanther]

Blow, 'securing' classified documents - those bathrooms are getting a hell of a workout there

I thought it was the big macs doing all the heavy lifting there...

 

[Financialpanther]

Thoughts and Prayers

Why?

 

[bzparkes]

Why?

What Biden said is the equivalent of it.

 

[Financialpanther]

What Biden said is the equivalent of it.

Wasn't he senile and riddled with dementia tho?

 

[Vindicater]

China has entered the game.

 

[Financialpanther]

China has entered the game.

Ahh yes the pantomime before they take a swing at Taiwan cause the yanks condone it via their actions.

 

[bzparkes]

Wasn't he senile and riddled with dementia tho?

Well, I dunno about in 2020. Perhaps someone else had the reins of the account then?

 

[Seeds]

Ahh yes the pantomime before they take a swing at Taiwan cause the yanks condone it via their actions.

Not even remotely the same.

Taiwan is an economically strong democracy not an economic basket case dictatorship which has seen 8 million people flee the country like Venezuela.

Trump, at least publically plans on giving venezuela back to the people through democratic elections.

China plans on ending democracy in taiwan.

 

[Saint Shags]

Seeing as how you like AI for your info, here's a rebuttal from ChatGPT. I copied and pasted your entire post and added no prompting of my own. Make of it what you will.

The claim you quoted mixes rhetoric, speculation, and factual error. Let’s break it down clearly and factually.

1. Has Trump put “most of his political foes in jail”?

No.

People are not in jail because of Trump’s political opposition to them. No credible evidence exists that Trump has used the justice system to jail political adversaries.

Individuals like Joe Biden, Democrats, or public figures have not been criminally prosecuted or jailed because of Trump’s orders.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is institutionally independent, and prosecutors decide cases based on evidence and law.

So the claim that Trump has been prevented only by a “crooked justice department and a rigged Supreme Court” is baseless.

2. What about Jack Smith and the “crooked” prosecution claims?

Jack Smith is a special counsel appointed by the DOJ to oversee cases involving Trump. Claims that the judge was “illegally appointed” or that the case lacked legal basis come from partisan commentary — not credible legal analysis.
Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Judges do not resign simply because a case is “weak” — they follow the law.

Special counsels operate within DOJ rules; they do not act independently of the law.

There’s no legal consensus supporting the idea that any Trump-related prosecution is inherently invalid due to appointment issues.

3. Has Trump “gone after” many individuals/corporations/etc. in his second term (2025–2026)?

This likely refers to civil lawsuits, investigations, or threats of litigation, but:
Important distinctions
Civil lawsuits vs. criminal prosecution:

Trump could seek to sue entities himself (as a private individual) — but that’s very different from using the government to prosecute opponents.

Political rhetoric from supporters is not the same as legal action.

Official government lawsuits are typically brought by DOJ or other agencies, not by the president personally.

What we know (as of early 2026)
There is no evidence that Trump has:

Directed the DOJ to prosecute political enemies
Filed a systematic campaign of lawsuits against universities, corporations, or media organizations as part of an authoritarian purge
Used government power to “shake down” entities to make them toe a political line

There may be:
Civil suits by Trump personally (Trump has long been known to use litigation defensively or proactively)

Oversight or investigations initiated by Congress or executive agencies under his administration, but those are part of governmental authority, not personal vendettas.

But they are not on the scale claimed (e.g., hundreds of targeted prosecutions of political foes).

4. Is the DOJ “crooked” or “rigged”?
The U.S. justice system is deeply scrutinized, and critics from both sides attack it. But these points are important:

DOJ and federal prosecutors do not answer directly to the president on charging decisions.
Federal judges are appointed for life and cannot be removed easily.

Cases proceed on evidence and legal standards — not direct presidential preference.

That means:
A president cannot simply order prosecutions that will automatically stick.
Claims that prosecutions are “illegal” must be evaluated in court.

5. Has Trump targeted institutions like media, universities, corporations?

There is no verified record that Trump has:

✔ Systematically sued media companies as president

✔ Used federal power to force universities into political compliance

✔ Targeted law firms with official criminal accusations for being “political opponents”

There have been:
Public criticisms of media outlets
Comments about legal reforms
Political rhetoric against institutions perceived as unfriendly

But:
Rhetoric is not legal action
Public statements do not equate to prosecutions
Why this claim spreads

Here are the real reasons claims like this circulate:
✔ Emotional appeal
People like simple narratives such as:
“Leader X is persecuted by all enemies”

✔ Political alignment
Supporters or opponents use exaggerated claims to motivate their base.

✔ Confusion between rhetoric and reality
Criticism of “the media,” “big tech,” or “universities” gets exaggerated into legal persecution, when in reality it’s usually speech not legal action.

✔ Misinformation loops
Quotes like “he tried to sue hundreds of entities” often come from unverified social media, not documented court filings.

Bottom line (simple and factual)
No, Trump has not been jailing political opponents in his second term.

There is no credible basis to say the DOJ is illegally run or blocked him.

There is no evidence he has launched a systemic campaign of legal action against media, universities, corporations, or government departments as political enemies.

✔ Trump may engage in litigation as a private individual — but that’s different from government prosecutions.

1. “Has Trump put most of his political foes in jail?”

Assessment: The claim as stated is incorrect.

✔ What’s accurate

There is no credible evidence that Trump has jailed “most of his political foes” or launched a mass campaign of lawful imprisonments of opposition figures. Federal prosecutions still must be based on evidence and law, not political identity; federal judges serve life terms and career prosecutors (not the president) make charging decisions. Fact-checking outlets have rejected similar claims about the justice system being used to jail opponents as baseless.
PolitiFact

However — there are actions critics argue resemble political targeting

Reuters documented at least ~470 critics, government employees, institutions and perceived opponents that the Trump administration has targeted with actions that include dismissals, reviews, or legal scrutiny — though far fewer, if any, involve criminal charges and convictions against individuals simply for opposing him.
Reuters

The Pentagon initiated a review into Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, and the DOJ has pursued charges against former FBI Director James Comey, which critics interpret as politically motivated pressure.
ABC News

Argument against the flat denial:

While Trump has not jailled “most” political opponents as a mass action, there is documented evidence that his administration has engaged in a wide range of retaliatory actions — including efforts to pressure prosecutors to bring charges against political figures — that critics contend blur the line between governance and political reprisal.
IBA
+1

2. “Jack Smith and ‘crooked’ prosecution claims”

Assessment: Special counsel prosecutions were not mere partisan actions — but have been deeply politically charged.

✔ What’s accurate

Jack Smith was a DOJ special counsel appointed under the prior administration and led high-profile criminal investigations into Trump, including 2020 election interference and classified documents.
Wikipedia

Smith defended the integrity of his work, emphasizing evidence-based decisions and denying political instructions.
The Guardian

⚠ Points critics make

The classified documents case was dismissed in part by a judge citing improper appointment, and the DOJ eventually dropped charges after Trump’s election based on policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
House Judiciary Committee Republicans
+1

Congressional Republicans accused Smith of partisan motivations in oversight letters, though these are political assertions rather than court judgments.
House Judiciary Committee Republicans

Argument against the original defense:

Even if the prosecutions were lawful in procedure, there is credible reporting that some Trump officials have pressured or suggested prosecuting perceived foes — including publicly urging charges — raising concerns about political interference, even if actual convictions have not followed.
IBA
+1

3. “Has Trump prosecuted opponents in his second term?”

Assessment: No evidence of wholesale criminal prosecution of political foes — but there are impactful actions that critics classify as retaliation or targeting.

✔ What’s accurate

Civilians and corporations are not being criminally prosecuted en masse simply for political opposition.

Prosecutors and judges retain independence; the DOJ cannot be ordered to convict or imprison people at a president’s whim under U.S. law.

⚠ However:

Reporting suggests Trump has publicly pushed the DOJ to charge opponents and has criticized the department when it did not act.
IBA
+1

Active administrative reviews or removal of security clearances for critics (e.g., Senator Mark Kelly) are ongoing — even if not criminal jails.
ABC News

Argument against dismissing influence entirely:

It’s one thing to say opponents aren’t in prison; it’s another to ignore credible reporting that the president and his allies have sought to pressure prosecutors and pursue legal actions against political critics — actions that, while not resulting in mass jailings, demonstrate a pattern of retaliatory legal and administrative pressure.
IBA

4. “Is the DOJ ‘crooked’ or ‘rigged’?”

Assessment: No strong basis to say the DOJ is per se unconstitutional or rigged — but concerns about politicization are documented.

✔ What’s accurate

DOJ independence is a core constitutional value; prosecutors make charging decisions based on evidence.

Oversight mechanisms, judicial review and career prosecutors remain essential checks.

⚠ However:

Legal experts and lawmakers have publicly raised concerns that the DOJ under Trump — especially under Attorney General Pam Bondi — has shifted toward prioritising politically favorable actions and loyalty.
The Guardian
+1

Argument nuance:

While the DOJ isn’t “rigged” in the sense of openly incarcerating political opponents without due process, credible reports indicate political pressures and shifts in priorities that have alarmed legal observers and lawmakers — a real issue distinct from simplistic claims of wholesale corruption.
The Guardian

5. “Has Trump targeted media, universities, corporations?”

Assessment: No verified record of broad criminal actions, but documented government inquiries and pressure.

✔ What’s accurate

No mass criminal prosecutions of universities or media outlets have been carried out as of early 2026.

⚠ However:

Retaliatory reviews and investigations of critics — including universities and corporations — have been publicly reported and criticized.
Reuters

Weapons of government (e.g., Defense Department reviews, DOJ targeting individuals) have been interpreted by some as politically motivated even if not resulting in convictions or jail time.
ABC News

Argument against simple denial:

The absence of criminal convictions doesn’t rule out a campaign of pressure, investigations, or administrative actions against perceived adversaries — a distinction critics believe is meaningful when assessing whether Trump has used government power for political ends.
Reuters

Summary of Counterpoints

True statements that counter the original assertion:

Trump has not literally jailed most of his political foes, but his administration has taken actions critics view as retaliatory or politically motivated (pressure on DOJ, reviews of opponents, etc).
IBA

Special counsel prosecutions were based on evidence and law, but the political context and subsequent actions have fueled legitimate concerns about politicization of legal processes.
Wikipedia

The DOJ has not been proven “crooked,” yet both legal experts and legislators have publicly raised concerns about its direction under the current administration.
The Guardian

Not jailing opponents doesn’t mean there’s no political use of legal and administrative levers — critics argue that actions fall short of criminal imprisonment but still reflect targeted use of government power.
Reuters


Like all AI. Its dependent on how you frame your request.
ChatGPT didnt seem to fully agree with your ChatGPT.

 

[jatz14]

True up until around 2010.

Canada is currently the USA's major supplier of heavy crude and they also get it from Mexico. Much easier to get than Venezuela's.

Removing Maduro removes Russia, Iran and China's influence over Venezuela, which is far more important to the USA than their oil.

Of what significance is this influence? What has Venezuela done, as a result of Irans influence, that it wouldn't have done anyway? This is such a disingenuous nothing of a position. They are united in not liking the US, but like the Axis in WW@, they do not extend that to actual cooperation. Anything Venezuela has done that the US dislikes is because Venezuela opposes the US, not because its taking direction from Iran.

And they removed Maduro, they didnt remove the whole government, so nothing actually changes unless they occupy the whole place.

ps When are the rest of the now 5 million Epstein files coming out? Are they going to be able to find any of Joe, or Barack do you think?

 

[Seeds]

It's interesting how your first line kind of contradicts the last line then simultaneously agrees back in a way.

You're basically advocating for pure instrumental nihlishm here.

I advocate for anything but nihilism. I advocate for humanism. Which action is better for the prosperity, health and well being of the people regardless of Trumps intentions. What matters is outcomes.

 

[pjcrows]

Your AI vs my AI.

Take it up with either of them.

I thought before you were either trolling or had a pretty poor analysis, likely skewed by algorithms.

Your knowledge of how AI works proves you're just a bit dim.

 

[Kappa]

Come on now. Don’t play games.

He’s called Zelenskyy a dictator (helpful word in this context, if Russia was to try and remove him) and blamed him for the war.

The US has immense military strength, and is only using a tiny fraction to support Ukraine, whilst his apparatchiks continue to speak negatively about Ukraine and/or positively about Russia.

Alternatively, consider how Trump speaks about literally anyone that annoys him or goes against him. The Zelenskyy tweet/“truth” post demonstrates that. Where is that fire and disdain for Putin?
We can conclude from that that Trump most certainly tolerates, and most likely supports, Putin.

Zelenskyy is corrupt and won't have an election, that is completely fair to say and does not mean you support Putin, obviously.

The US does not want to fully enter the Russian-Ukraine war for OBVIOUS reasons, they are giving Ukraine just enough to defend themselves. Also, the US doesn't have the money to give Ukraine unlimited amounts. This does not mean he supports Putin.

Trump is trying to negotiate with Putin to end the war, Putin has a big ego. Why would publicly calling Putin bad names help negotiation?

None of these are good arguments that Trump is pro-Putin. Trump has also put on heavier economic sanctions on Russia, and has publicly said many times he is not happy with Putin, and has said Putin has killed many people.

Forget about left/right, ur arguments are really just quite weak but you act like they're concrete.

 

[Financialpanther]

Not even remotely the same.

Taiwan is an economically strong democracy not an economic basket case dictatorship which has seen 8 million people flee the country like Venezuela.

Trump, at least publically plans on giving venezuela back to the people through democratic elections.

China plans on ending democracy in taiwan.

Oh I don't disagree with what you say - just saying this may embolden them to do something.

 

[Seeds]

Oh I don't disagree with what you say - just saying this may embolden them to do something.

It probably will given they peddle in irratiomality. But it will be a poor argument.

 

[Financialpanther]

It probably will given they peddle in irratiomality. But it will be a poor argument.

Rationality has no place where imperialism beckons I guess.

 

[bzparkes]

Of what significance is this influence? What has Venezuela done, as a result of Irans influence, that it wouldn't have done anyway? This is such a disingenuous nothing of a position. They are united in not liking the US, but like the Axis in WW@, they do not extend that to actual cooperation. Anything Venezuela has done that the US dislikes is because Venezuela opposes the US, not because its taking direction from Iran.

Heavy Russian and Chinese involvement also. Maduro just met with a Chinese contingency hours before the USA snatched him.

And they removed Maduro, they didnt remove the whole government, so nothing actually changes unless they occupy the whole place.

You can't remove an entire government over night as what's left of a country will simply collapse. Will be interesting to see how they handle it after every bugled regime change in recent history though.

ps When are the rest of the now 5 million Epstein files coming out? Are they going to be able to find any of Joe, or Barack do you think?

Hopefully soon. I want the entire thing released unredacted and everyone involved in criminal activity punished to the full extent of the law. Blow everything up.

As I said numerous times earlier, I'm sure Trump is in those in a bad way, which is likely why it'll never happen. Not just him but many of the world's 'elites' also.

Someone has to properly leak them for them to get fully released IMO and that person needs to be a legitimate source.