[Politics] Donald Trump, US President

[spence]

Not exactly a landslide. Was interesting to see him getting jeered at the Superbowl.

Anyhow, we’ve four more years before he’s gone.

Not exactly a landslide. Was interesting to see him getting jeered at the Superbowl.

Anyhow, we’ve four more years before he’s gone.

Interesting because the clips I saw Trump was being cheered.

 

[A1X]

Given Musk is supposedly trying to remove Government waste, how did they approve the unnecessary expense of shipping Trump to New Orleans for a game he could have watched on TV?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

So mixed and not jeered as you said? maybe you got it confused with Tay Tay as she was booed.

If the reception was 'mixed' then clearly he is correct that Trump WAS jeered (even if it is also true that he was cheered, by others).

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

If the reception was 'mixed' then clearly he is correct that Trump WAS jeered (even if it is also true that he was cheered, by others).

he made out it was just jeering

You wouldn't post if you thought it was mixed.

 

[Simster]

Interesting because the clips I saw Trump was being cheered.

It'll be interesting to see how many people cheer him in future when all his moronic tariffs begin to bite, costing thousands of American jobs.

He's a total moron, voted for by morons. Nothing we can do about it though, except just watch aghast as he makes a mess of the economy even worse that he managed last time.

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

Well, at least they can cheer for him every Feb 9th from now on, as its now going to be known as "Gulf of America Day".
Seriously, he signed an EO just for that?

 

[carlzeiss]

Sorry, but I was watching it during the Star Spangled Banner, and the response was mixed. Which is hardly surprising when you look at this...

Overall, 47% of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 51% say they disapprove. And most of these views are strongly held: 37% strongly approve of his performance, while 40% strongly disapprove.

1. Trump’s second term: Early ratings and expectations

Americans are deeply divided over Trump’s plans and how he is handling his job as president in the early weeks of his return to office.

www.pewresearch.org

The narrative that he's popular over there is not true. He has divided a nation.

Less unpopular though then our own PM although to be fair Donald Trump hasn't had as long as Sir Kier to piss of voters this time around

Keir Starmer less popular among UK voters than Donald Trump

Keir Starmer is less popular among UK voters than Donald Trump, according to new polling for City AM by Freshwater Strategy.

www.cityam.com

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Well, at least they can cheer for him every Feb 9th from now on, as its now going to be known as "Gulf of America Day".
Seriously, he signed an EO just for that?

Performative flag-shagging nonsense, for the benefit of a gallery of absolute simpletons.

Christ alive.

 

[schmunk]

he made out it was just jeering

You wouldn't post if you thought it was mixed.

Clearly it was a mixed reception for Trump.

The mindless, the feckless and the greedy support him with gusto, whereas the rest of the country derides him with equal gusto.

 

[A1X]

Well, at least they can cheer for him every Feb 9th from now on, as its now going to be known as "Gulf of America Day".
Seriously, he signed an EO just for that?

The only Gulf of America I know is between Trump's ears

 

[Pavilionaire]

His approval rating is going up

Trump hits highest approval mark of either term in new poll as voters back agenda

Polls also contain warning for key area where voters want more administration focus

www.independent.co.uk

So mixed and not jeered as you said? maybe you got it confused with Tay Tay as she was booed.

I remember the days when Brexit was very popular, until the point at which the policy had been implemented and the disastrous repercussions became visible, even to the blindest of fools.

The same will happen in the USA, but the problem - like here - is ignorance, and a media that pushes an alternative truth that will always be more palatable to the masses than the real truth.

It was almost 3 years ago Forbes Magazine reported the top 1% in the USA held 15 times more wealth than the bottom 50%. That trajectory is only going to get worse under Trump, but with X / Facebook, Instagram all on his payroll, the media will discredit and spread disinformation until the perceived truth is the untruth.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

A president who won the popular vote and the election in a landslide? . Right

You might not like it but most Yanks are more conservative than you think.. By the way you live a a deep red state. Enjoy

Trump isn't a conservative. He's a compulsively lying, criminal, anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, quite possibly traitorous, rich man who wants to make himself and all his class even richer.

The reason why he used conservative voters to get elected is because right wingers tend to be a bit more suggestable and thus easier to manipulate. They also don't seem to mind having an authoritarian leader as they are mostly servile and like someone to tell them what to think and do.

Unfortunately, those who have been fooled will be thrown under the bus along with everyone else seeing as Trump doesn't actually give a shit about any of them.

To find real conservative politicians in America, you have to go back quite a few years.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Less unpopular though then our own PM although to be fair Donald Trump hasn't had as long as Sir Kier to piss of voters this time around

Keir Starmer less popular among UK voters than Donald Trump

Keir Starmer is less popular among UK voters than Donald Trump, according to new polling for City AM by Freshwater Strategy.

www.cityam.com

So you are basing everything on a poll printed by a Cityam who are a free market based capitalist supporting news organisation, hardly an unbiased view wouldn’t you say? A quick look at Freshwater Strategy would indicate that they are in it to maximise their clients wealth. A labour government wouldn’t suit their needs.

Don’t you check sources?

TBF Starmer is not going to be popular as he’s out of the honeymoon period and any government coming after the last lot are going to be f***ed.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Interesting because the clips I saw Trump was being cheered.

That’s because you haven’t worked out the difference between ‘jeered’ and ‘cheered’.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

It depends on the context, I think, for example, diversity is a peculiar value to venerate on the high altar of public consciousness given that if I was trying to achieve a technical task with 10 people who spoke 10 different languages it would be much less efficient than if I did it with 10 who spoke the same language. In that context homogeneity is a strength. Diversity, in other circumstances can be more beneficial that homogeneity, I can accept that without the need for it to be tattooed in my armpit.

It feels to me that when our political and institutional masters decree the “values” they support they soon are turned into unassailable orthodoxies typically protected by legislation……which is in short censorship.

If say the consequence of DEI is censorship, by say re-introducing blasphemy laws or changing historical narratives/facts to not offend certain communities then you can keep it.

The reason DEI was implemented was so people of colour and other minorities were f***ed over by white blokes who had an affinity with white pillow cases. A bit like Trumps dad ….

 

[Curious Orange]

Performative flag-shagging nonsense, for the benefit of a gallery of absolute simpletons.

Christ alive.

Indeed, it is just a bit of water, people will call it what they want - not everybody calls that stretch of water between England and France 'the English Channel', the French don't for a start!

 

[nicko31]

I remember the days when Brexit was very popular, until the point at which the policy had been implemented and the disastrous repercussions became visible, even to the blindest of fools.

The same will happen in the USA, but the problem - like here - is ignorance, and a media that pushes an alternative truth that will always be more palatable to the masses than the real truth.

It was almost 3 years ago Forbes Magazine reported the top 1% in the USA held 15 times more wealth than the bottom 50%. That trajectory is only going to get worse under Trump, but with X / Facebook, Instagram all on his payroll, the media will discredit and spread disinformation until the perceived truth is the untruth.

Trump will become unpopular again.

But there is an authoritarian take over happening in the US, the question I have is will democracy ever recover? Its incredible how fast the system is being dismantled. The country is being run by a crime syndicate

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Trump will become unpopular again.

But there is an authoritarian take over happening in the US, the question I have is will democracy ever recover? Its incredible how fast the system is being dismantled. The country is being run by a crime syndicate

And, as seems likely, the Trump administration ignore the legal system, and the juidgements coming from the courts, what happens then? The courts / judges don't have a dedicated police force, and the 'regular' police are unlikely to want to enforce judgements that reverse any of the decrees. Once you have igored the rule of law, where is the line then? Is the US consistution still in effect? Feels like we're a lot closer to a coup than we think.

 

[BiffyBoy100]

It's already bigger in that 123.7 million in America watched the Superbowl. However only 62.5 million viewers outside of the US, compared with a worldwide audience for the most recent RU World Cup Final of 94 million, so it's global impact isn't as significant. They're both way behind the cricket World Cup final, 300 million, the Champions League Final, 400 million and the actual World Cup Final 1.5 billion. (Fifa figure, so possibly shonky).

Despite the millions put into advertising and media hype, I don't think that Grid Iron Football will ever truly break out of its home country and be as significant as the world's other team ball sports. The rest of the world has no culture of participation and interest in the game and no need to develop one because it already has football, a more compelling, far simpler and more beautiful game. The organisation of the US game isn't really set up to prioritise the promotion of emerging leagues in other nations. Its all about the top league, selling the top league and keeping the cabal's profits at a maximum. As corrupt as Fifa is, it does prioritise the spread of the game to new parts of the world and new markets. World Rugby has not only the 15 aside World Cup, but the sevens tournament and women's equivalents, which are increasing worldwide participation and viewership. It seems surprising in today's world that there hasn't been a really successful women's version of the NFL/Superbowl. This also seems a very limiting factor to its potential worldwide growth.

Sorry, a bit off topic. Donald Trump Grrr. Carry on.

This is probably one for the NFL thread vs Big Donald, and you make some fair points about global reach, but let’s break this down with some actual numbers.

Super Bowl vs. Rugby World Cup Final Viewership​

You say that the Rugby World Cup final had 94 million viewers worldwide, compared to the 62.5 million international viewers for the Super Bowl. That’s not the flex you think it is. The Super Bowl happens every single year, while the Rugby World Cup final is a once-every-four-years event. If you compare the cumulative reach over a four-year cycle, the Super Bowl absolutely dwarfs it.

Plus, let’s not ignore the 123.7 million U.S. viewers of the Super Bowl. That number alone is more than the entire global audience of the Rugby World Cup final, showing how dominant the NFL is in its home country. And despite your claim that American football has no global impact, the Super Bowl is still watched by more people internationally than the Six Nations final, the Heineken Champions Cup final, or any other rugby competition besides the World Cup.

Participation & Growth​

You argue that the rest of the world has "no culture of participation" in American football. That’s outdated. Participation is growing significantly in places like:

• Germany, where over 3 million people watched the Chiefs-Dolphins NFL game in Frankfurt, and the country now has a strong domestic American football league (GFL) with growing attendance.
• Mexico, where there are over 2.5 million active participants in American football and millions of NFL fans—Super Bowl LVII had 20.5 million Mexican viewers.
• The UK, where games sell out Wembley and Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in minutes and NFL Academy programs are actively developing homegrown talent.

Compare that to rugby, which has struggled to break into new major markets. The U.S. is the biggest sports market in the world, but Major League Rugby (MLR) barely registers on the radar. Meanwhile, NFL is actively expanding into Europe, Mexico, and even Japan.

Revenue & Commercial Power​

Here’s the real kicker: the NFL is a financial juggernaut compared to rugby. The NFL generates over $18 billion per year, while World Rugby’s revenue for the entire four-year World Cup cycle is only $2.6 billion. Even the entire Six Nations tournament pulls in just €480 million annually—which is about what the NFL makes in a single regular-season week.

Sponsorship money follows where the eyeballs are. And despite rugby's claims of global reach, the NFL attracts far bigger sponsorships and TV deals internationally than World Rugby. If expansion is about business, then the NFL is already leagues ahead.

5-10 years time? ​

Real Football/Soccer is and will always will be the world’s biggest sport—no debate there. But saying the NFL "won’t break out of its home country" is ignoring reality. It’s already growing faster internationally than rugby in key markets like Germany, Mexico, and the UK. The sheer money and marketing power behind it make it inevitable that the NFL will continue to expand.

The reality? In 5-10 years, American football will overtake rugby in global viewership and commercial dominance outside of its traditional base.

 

[Stato]

This is probably one for the NFL thread vs Big Donald, and you make some fair points about global reach, but let’s break this down with some actual numbers.

Super Bowl vs. Rugby World Cup Final Viewership​

You say that the Rugby World Cup final had 94 million viewers worldwide, compared to the 62.5 million international viewers for the Super Bowl. That’s not the flex you think it is. The Super Bowl happens every single year, while the Rugby World Cup final is a once-every-four-years event. If you compare the cumulative reach over a four-year cycle, the Super Bowl absolutely dwarfs it.

Plus, let’s not ignore the 123.7 million U.S. viewers of the Super Bowl. That number alone is more than the entire global audience of the Rugby World Cup final, showing how dominant the NFL is in its home country. And despite your claim that American football has no global impact, the Super Bowl is still watched by more people internationally than the Six Nations final, the Heineken Champions Cup final, or any other rugby competition besides the World Cup.

Participation & Growth​

You argue that the rest of the world has "no culture of participation" in American football. That’s outdated. Participation is growing significantly in places like:

• Germany, where over 3 million people watched the Chiefs-Dolphins NFL game in Frankfurt, and the country now has a strong domestic American football league (GFL) with growing attendance.
• Mexico, where there are over 2.5 million active participants in American football and millions of NFL fans—Super Bowl LVII had 20.5 million Mexican viewers.
• The UK, where games sell out Wembley and Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in minutes and NFL Academy programs are actively developing homegrown talent.

Compare that to rugby, which has struggled to break into new major markets. The U.S. is the biggest sports market in the world, but Major League Rugby (MLR) barely registers on the radar. Meanwhile, NFL is actively expanding into Europe, Mexico, and even Japan.

Revenue & Commercial Power​

Here’s the real kicker: the NFL is a financial juggernaut compared to rugby. The NFL generates over $18 billion per year, while World Rugby’s revenue for the entire four-year World Cup cycle is only $2.6 billion. Even the entire Six Nations tournament pulls in just €480 million annually—which is about what the NFL makes in a single regular-season week.

Sponsorship money follows where the eyeballs are. And despite rugby's claims of global reach, the NFL attracts far bigger sponsorships and TV deals internationally than World Rugby. If expansion is about business, then the NFL is already leagues ahead.

5-10 years time? ​

Real Football/Soccer is and will always will be the world’s biggest sport—no debate there. But saying the NFL "won’t break out of its home country" is ignoring reality. It’s already growing faster internationally than rugby in key markets like Germany, Mexico, and the UK. The sheer money and marketing power behind it make it inevitable that the NFL will continue to expand.

The reality? In 5-10 years, American football will overtake rugby in global viewership and commercial dominance outside of its traditional base.

I began by stating that the viewership worldwide including America is already larger than rugby. I also don't doubt the commercial power of the NFL. However, as I said, its all about the NFL. There will never be a worldwide federal body that is not under the major control of the NFL members. There is and will not be any credible effort to produce international competition and, without that, it will always be a minority sport in World terms.

Yes the financial power of the two sports are incomparable, but in terms of worldwide competition and credibility as a competitive sport, there is, and will never be, any comparison. The organisational model of the NFL has a near total monopoly on the sport and would gain nothing from leagues of similar standard forming in other parts of the world. Its a franchise set up. It will remain a franchise set up as it is far more interested in money than it is in anything else. To say that it is growing faster in the UK market may be true, but is a bit misleading. A quick Google suggests that there are 28,600 US Football players in the UK, compared with 223,000 rugby players. It certainly has more room to grow.

The reaility? American football may have already overtaken rugby in global viewership and commercial domination outside of its traditional base, but the interest is as customers and viewers, not particpants. There is no World body like Fifa, the ICC, or World Rugby that has an interest in spreading the popularity of the game. The NFL, as the only game in town, will do nothing beyond what may line the pockets of its members. To get back on topic, there is no surprise that an organisation with those motives should be cuddling up to president Grandpa Simpson, friend of the 1%.