Conservative; tending or inclined to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional
curuinor · 2026-08-27 17:47:49 UTC
"Reactionary" is your vocab word, therefore
spacedcowboy · 2026-08-27 17:55:54 UTC
I was thinking more "dickhead", or "tosser", or ... well the choice is legion
tocs3 · 2026-08-27 18:10:00 UTC
I was listening to a math podcast a while back and someone said "I am a conservative" and then was quick to add "with a small c". That might be an important distinction.
goatlover · 2026-08-27 20:12:47 UTC
What is actually conservative about Trump or MAGA? The principled conservatives got kicked out of the party for not bending the knee.
adverbly · 2026-08-28 13:16:38 UTC
I hate that framing when used politically because it is a complete cop-out.
For one: Conservatives don't want to maintain - they often want to "go back". Trump isn't "doing nothing": He's doing way more than any recent president!
So its traditional in the sense of trying to go back in time to traditional values... But here is the thing: What point in time? They never say! They just try to say "the good old days"! What does that even mean? Be specific about what policies you want? What were the good days? Do you want to farm by hand? Are you looking to bring back slavery or segregation? Do you want to stop women from voting? What specific traditional policy do you think is so great, and tell us why you think its great! Absolute weasels...
/end rant
rsynnott · 2026-08-28 15:44:45 UTC
Seem like probably about 400CE; this is very much late-stage Roman emperor behaviour.
IANAA and IANAL, but AFAIK the procedural vote requirement for 25the amendment isn't any lower than it is for impeachment.
cosmicgadget · 2026-08-27 21:42:10 UTC
And 21st Amendment if that doesn't work.
kccoder · 2026-08-27 18:49:20 UTC
So refreshing to see a president who knows what the people really want and is brave enough to venture into uncharted waters to achieve those goals. Kamala would never have had the courage to address such an important issue, as a matter of fact she wouldn't even have started a trade war with Canada to take back what is ours(!), which is what led to this heroic act to protect our land, people, national pride, and prosperity from the rabid communists which we currently allow sovereignty just a stones throw across the Lake of America (eagle cry). You and your family can feel secure at night knowing that we have a president who will fight, fight, fight for you and your loved ones. America was already the hottest country in the world, but the temp just keeps on rising! How does he do it?!
Embarrassing.
speak_plainly · 2026-08-27 19:12:40 UTC
Google, Apple, etc.: impose this renaming on Canadian maps at your own reputational risk. You will invite a backlash.
techblueberry · 2026-08-27 19:19:37 UTC
"Lake Ontario is more in Canada than in the United States, with Canada holding roughly 50% to 62% of the lake's surface area depending on the specific boundary line, and the U.S. holding about one-quarter to 50%." (Google summary)
drtz · 2026-08-27 20:59:22 UTC
Unless there's a third country controlling part of Lake Ontario that I don't know about, something is off with Google's math.
62+25 = 87%
fragmede · 2026-08-28 03:56:46 UTC
At the other end, 62 + 50 is 112, so there's a range/depends on who you ask. 50 + 50 + 50 = 100 tho
joshuat · 2026-08-27 19:20:30 UTC
For the Gulf of Mexico they changed it to "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" for Canadian traffic, I can't imagine they take the same approach for this.
TiredOfLife · 2026-08-27 21:03:32 UTC
Maybe try not electing lunatics first?
joshuat · 2026-08-27 19:14:31 UTC
"He's just trolling"
What a cool and appropriate thing to be at 80 years old, as a sitting President.
goatlover · 2026-08-27 20:14:29 UTC
Remember that Biden was forced to not run again because he was aging poorly so we get this instead.
krapp · 2026-08-27 20:30:56 UTC
You make it sound as if Trump was the only choice, but there was an alternative to Trump on the ticket. Biden's age isn't the reason Americans voted for Trump, and it isn't the reason Americans didn't vote for Kamala Harris.
fragmede · 2026-08-28 03:55:35 UTC
I had someone tell me that Harris was going to make it illegal to be a Christian, so that's why she voted for Trump.
data-ottawa · 2026-08-27 20:30:05 UTC
I would be lying to say this doesn’t piss me off. I’m very angry.
My wife made a great point: this is a wake up call for me to channel my frustration into local activism. So I’ll be doing that.
If any other angry Canucks are reading this, consider doing the same. Use that anger to make our beautiful country stronger.
krapp · 2026-08-27 20:36:22 UTC
Americans should do the same.
Stop believing that nothing matters, stop believing the propaganda that leads to empty cynicism and learned helplessness. The only reason we are where we are is because of who stepped up and who stayed home.
verzali · 2026-08-27 19:40:47 UTC
Every time he does something petty like this I am reminded that Americans voted for him twice. Not just because he was 'the other guy'. He got through primaries. Twice. Millions of people adore him. America is deeply deeply unwell, and the rest of the world needs to do whatever we can to keep ourselves safe from whatever madness is coming next.
Pxtl · 2026-08-27 19:44:34 UTC
A little under half of American voters picked him three times... a huge chunk of those ultimately regretted it after the Iran war created inflation (not about the dead Iranians though).
Many of the same people also voted for GWBush twice and regretted that too, for similar reasons.
Those people probably still have their own driver's license and power of attorney.
throw0101d · 2026-08-27 19:58:39 UTC
> Twice.
I was led to believe he actually won 3 times. /s
roncesvalles · 2026-08-27 20:39:50 UTC
He was just very entertaining. I don't think there's anything deeper than that.
avidruntime · 2026-08-27 20:51:46 UTC
There are no simple explanations in this arena. All campaigns min/max messaging for sought after demographics to maximize votes. One could argue that the collaboration brought on by Elon/X gave the Trump 2 campaign some of the most sophisticated frameworks for data driven, atomized political messaging/monitoring ever seen in federal electoral history. That is a monumentally effective effort to convert and acquire voters-- I advise avoiding such simplistic explanations, especially when they double as thought terminating cliches.
verzali · 2026-08-27 21:13:14 UTC
Isn't that a huge problem? Who picks their leader because he is entertaining?
preg_match · 2026-08-28 00:47:04 UTC
Nobody, but maybe it's a similar phenomena of how people choose brands. Where, people tend to buy brands they recognize most, even if they don't actually know much about said brand or it's quality.
Trump was the name on everyone's lips. Could it be possible that introduced an implicit bias in his favor? Is this a case of "any publicity is good publicity"?
f30e3dfed1c9 · 2026-08-28 05:02:34 UTC
Every US presidential election is baseline 50/50 and ends up decided by a small number of people who are as fickle as all get out and dumber than dirt. They don't vote for anything recognizable as a "reason."
cosmicgadget · 2026-08-27 21:29:48 UTC
It's not that. Maybe some voted based on entertainment value but it was an ad hoc alliance of:
People who only ever vote GOP
Pro lifers
People who thought he was somehow being unfairly prosecuted for Jan 6 and having crates of classified documents in his pool house
Podcast listeners (people who are heavily influenced by Joe Rogan, Tim Poole, and the like)
People who are ideologically aligned with Stephen Miller
And, drumroll...
Centrists who believed the GOP talking point that Biden was the sole or primary cause of inflation. To their discredit, the dems seemed to have no interest in refuting it.
AnimalMuppet · 2026-08-28 01:39:49 UTC
Dems seemed to be running on a platform of "We're not Trump". That was enough in 2020, after four years of Trump. It was not enough in 2024, after four years of Biden.
roncesvalles · 2026-08-28 02:48:57 UTC
Also, Trump just had to say "I'm not Biden".
cosmicgadget · 2026-08-28 04:45:07 UTC
Which shows how remarkably easy it is to manipulate the American electorate.
TiredOfLife · 2026-08-27 21:01:46 UTC
I think every tv show (your newscasts, SNLs, late nights and analytical ones) every reddit/twitter/other site constantly going "trump, trump, trump" are partially responsible.
fifilura · 2026-08-28 07:12:08 UTC
Including this post.
JohnFen · 2026-08-27 22:32:22 UTC
> I am reminded that Americans voted for him twice.
Americans voted for him once. He lost the popular vote in 2016 and only became president because of the electoral college.
krapp · 2026-08-28 01:22:21 UTC
Americans voted for him twice. The electoral college is how American presidents are elected. If Americans wanted the popular vote to matter in their elections, they've had two centuries to change the system. They haven't, which means they accept the system and its results as representative of the will of the American people.
JohnFen · 2026-08-28 11:59:27 UTC
Americans voted for him once. You're redefining what "winning the vote" means.
krapp · 2026-08-28 13:05:59 UTC
"Winning the vote" means winning the electoral college, it always has. The popular vote has never been relevant. The states elect the president, the people don't (not directly) and never have.
Don't try to revise history here. Like it or not - and I personally hate it - and barring actual evidence of fraud, Trump won two elections under the same rules as every other president.
JohnFen · 2026-08-28 13:25:48 UTC
Yes, Trump won both elections. I never said otherwise. I said that he only won the popular vote in one of them (Americans only voted for him once). In the other one, he was selected by a small group, not by the citizenry.
sillystuff · 2026-08-28 00:30:39 UTC
People withheld their votes from Harris because of her complicity in genocide, and her pledge to continue to enable genocide. It is the number one reason people who voted for Biden gave for withholding their votes from Harris. Genocide is a red line.
Withholding votes from Harris does not mean these voters then voted for Trump. Many boycotted the election. A smaller number voted 3rd party.
Harris probably would have won if she had renounced the pro-genocide policies of Biden and pledged to cease arms transfers to Israel. She only had to win a few swing states, and swing states like Michigan with a sizable population of Palestinian diaspora were undeniably lost due to her doubling down on genocide. Heavily Jewish Zionist "blue" states like New York weren't going to swing Republican, and heavily Christian Zionist "red" states were never going go to the Dems anyway.
iJohnDoe · 2026-08-28 03:25:39 UTC
It’s a sound theory and would make logical sense. It’s based on how we would hope people would react to such things and actually vote based on what they believe in. However, that’s a very small minority. In reality, most people don’t think that deeply about a candidate.
If anyone thought deeply about Trump, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
I wouldn’t doubt Harris was supporting Israel in exchange for money or returned favors. Trump let Israel do whatever they want. Israel has their hand up every US politician’s ass for decades. Israel certainly won either way.
adverbly · 2026-08-28 13:10:54 UTC
> In reality, most people don’t think that deeply about a candidate.
> If anyone thought deeply about Trump, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
You said it yourself here: The problem is that one side has more people thinking deeply than the other, and the idiots who vote regardless end up staying unified as a result.
This has "introduction of idiocracy" vibes where the smart people are overthinking things and getting completely overwhelmed.
iJohnDoe · 2026-08-28 16:24:32 UTC
Great point. One political side hurts itself by thinking too much and disagreeing internally, while the other side benefits from blind loyalty. Very true, because the republicans always get out and vote. The democrats need to do the same, including women voters.
iJohnDoe · 2026-08-28 03:15:19 UTC
Some of the poorest people voted for Trump. He returned the favor by making their life hell.
Yes, America is deeply unwell.
You also have a lot of people with really odd ideals and a lack of common sense. For example, you could have a brilliant coworker that’s very smart and be an excellent developer, and absolutely love Trump.
Ontario is named after the lake. The lake isnt named after the province.
cosmicgadget · 2026-08-27 21:38:42 UTC
Well Ontario can't become "America". "North North America" is available though. "Lake of America, the Province"?
beloch · 2026-08-28 03:30:57 UTC
Ontario can totally become America. If that's how Trump really wants it, the U.S. can find a new alternate name. Trumpland maybe? Donnyville? Epsteinia?
cosmicgadget · 2026-08-28 04:36:32 UTC
Dammit maybe that is the play. Bait Ontario into renaming itself America so we have to become "Magastan".
throw0101d · 2026-08-27 19:53:34 UTC
Someone remarked that "Niagara Falls" should be renamed "Trump's Tears".
Or perhaps "Lake Michigan" to either "Lake Obama" (since Chicago is on its shores) or "Lake Epstein".
throw0101d · 2026-08-27 19:55:19 UTC
The official text for anyone interested (Executive Order 14420):
This is really the dumbest shit imaginable and just makes Trump into more of a laughingstock than he was before, if possible.
f30e3dfed1c9 · 2026-08-28 05:21:55 UTC
> This is really the dumbest shit imaginable
Oh just wait.
beloch · 2026-08-27 21:08:09 UTC
"Last year, Trump signed an executive order to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
It only applies to U.S. federal documents and geographic services, but some online map services also made the change."
--------------
Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico, but nobody listened. Google's exec's were brown-nosing at the time, so they changed it on their maps, depending on the user's location. Outside of the U.S., it's "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)". Even that will likely be dropped once Trump leaves office. There's no point in having a name that nobody uses on a map.
Americans should honestly ask their president, "Don't you have something better to do?".
This won't help negotiations with Canada. It will probably harm them in fact. Trump used massive tariff threats in an attempt to extort Canada into a deal before the mid-terms. His own last minute demands (self-admitted[1]) scuttled the works. Now Americans are paying new taxes and Trump is calling Canadians "nasty" (again) while trying (but failing) to rename things like a petulant child whose binky has been taken away. It's, frankly, embarrassing for Americans, and it confirms Carney's side of the story to any Canadians who might have had doubts. We are not dealing with reasonable or competent people.
Trump just reduced any pressure Carney might have been under to compromise Canada's position in order to restart talks. Why even try to strike a deal with unreasonable, unserious people who don't respect their own signed agreements? It's better to just rag the puck and wait for them to be gone.
> There's no point in having a name that nobody uses on a map.
Unless you're empire that has expressed the desire to annex a neighboring country. It's not a good omen, but this administration will stand by it regardless.
cosmicgadget · 2026-08-27 21:32:04 UTC
Should be obvious by now he has little appetite for an occupation. He has a big appetite for talking about an occupation, but that is entirely in-character.
beloch · 2026-08-27 22:33:28 UTC
We can only hope that the midterms change the dynamics of things and maybe, just maybe, Congress reclaims its constitutionally enshrined power over taxation and commerce. I won't hold my breath though. When the Democrats are determined to lose, they're very good at it.
This is not a serious suggestion. It would be foolish to stoop to Trump's level... It would be hilarious, though, if Canada officially renamed Lake Michigan to "Lake Trump is in the Epstein Files".
AnimalMuppet · 2026-08-28 01:44:32 UTC
> Why even try to strike a deal with unreasonable, unserious people who don't respect their own signed agreements?
Absolutely. Almost everything about this administration screams "deeply unserious". And throwing away previous agreements (that Trump made)... yeah, what's my incentive to strike a new deal? They can expect Trump to throw that one away too.
> It's better to just rag the puck and wait for them to be gone.
Um... could you translate that for me?
crystaldecanter · 2026-08-27 21:16:35 UTC
loser behaviour
thiht · 2026-08-27 22:34:46 UTC
What a joke of a country
rsynnott · 2026-08-28 15:41:48 UTC
Very big senile post-Soviet dictator energy. I give it six months before he’s renaming the months.
Comments
For one: Conservatives don't want to maintain - they often want to "go back". Trump isn't "doing nothing": He's doing way more than any recent president!
So its traditional in the sense of trying to go back in time to traditional values... But here is the thing: What point in time? They never say! They just try to say "the good old days"! What does that even mean? Be specific about what policies you want? What were the good days? Do you want to farm by hand? Are you looking to bring back slavery or segregation? Do you want to stop women from voting? What specific traditional policy do you think is so great, and tell us why you think its great! Absolute weasels...
/end rant
Embarrassing.
62+25 = 87%
What a cool and appropriate thing to be at 80 years old, as a sitting President.
My wife made a great point: this is a wake up call for me to channel my frustration into local activism. So I’ll be doing that.
If any other angry Canucks are reading this, consider doing the same. Use that anger to make our beautiful country stronger.
Stop believing that nothing matters, stop believing the propaganda that leads to empty cynicism and learned helplessness. The only reason we are where we are is because of who stepped up and who stayed home.
Many of the same people also voted for GWBush twice and regretted that too, for similar reasons.
Those people probably still have their own driver's license and power of attorney.
I was led to believe he actually won 3 times. /s
Trump was the name on everyone's lips. Could it be possible that introduced an implicit bias in his favor? Is this a case of "any publicity is good publicity"?
People who only ever vote GOP
Pro lifers
People who thought he was somehow being unfairly prosecuted for Jan 6 and having crates of classified documents in his pool house
Podcast listeners (people who are heavily influenced by Joe Rogan, Tim Poole, and the like)
People who are ideologically aligned with Stephen Miller
And, drumroll...
Centrists who believed the GOP talking point that Biden was the sole or primary cause of inflation. To their discredit, the dems seemed to have no interest in refuting it.
Americans voted for him once. He lost the popular vote in 2016 and only became president because of the electoral college.
Don't try to revise history here. Like it or not - and I personally hate it - and barring actual evidence of fraud, Trump won two elections under the same rules as every other president.
Withholding votes from Harris does not mean these voters then voted for Trump. Many boycotted the election. A smaller number voted 3rd party.
Harris probably would have won if she had renounced the pro-genocide policies of Biden and pledged to cease arms transfers to Israel. She only had to win a few swing states, and swing states like Michigan with a sizable population of Palestinian diaspora were undeniably lost due to her doubling down on genocide. Heavily Jewish Zionist "blue" states like New York weren't going to swing Republican, and heavily Christian Zionist "red" states were never going go to the Dems anyway.
If anyone thought deeply about Trump, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
I wouldn’t doubt Harris was supporting Israel in exchange for money or returned favors. Trump let Israel do whatever they want. Israel has their hand up every US politician’s ass for decades. Israel certainly won either way.
> If anyone thought deeply about Trump, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
You said it yourself here: The problem is that one side has more people thinking deeply than the other, and the idiots who vote regardless end up staying unified as a result.
This has "introduction of idiocracy" vibes where the smart people are overthinking things and getting completely overwhelmed.
Yes, America is deeply unwell.
You also have a lot of people with really odd ideals and a lack of common sense. For example, you could have a brilliant coworker that’s very smart and be an excellent developer, and absolutely love Trump.
Or perhaps "Lake Michigan" to either "Lake Obama" (since Chicago is on its shores) or "Lake Epstein".
* https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/08/hono...
Oh just wait.
It only applies to U.S. federal documents and geographic services, but some online map services also made the change."
--------------
Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico, but nobody listened. Google's exec's were brown-nosing at the time, so they changed it on their maps, depending on the user's location. Outside of the U.S., it's "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)". Even that will likely be dropped once Trump leaves office. There's no point in having a name that nobody uses on a map.
Americans should honestly ask their president, "Don't you have something better to do?".
This won't help negotiations with Canada. It will probably harm them in fact. Trump used massive tariff threats in an attempt to extort Canada into a deal before the mid-terms. His own last minute demands (self-admitted[1]) scuttled the works. Now Americans are paying new taxes and Trump is calling Canadians "nasty" (again) while trying (but failing) to rename things like a petulant child whose binky has been taken away. It's, frankly, embarrassing for Americans, and it confirms Carney's side of the story to any Canadians who might have had doubts. We are not dealing with reasonable or competent people.
Trump just reduced any pressure Carney might have been under to compromise Canada's position in order to restart talks. Why even try to strike a deal with unreasonable, unserious people who don't respect their own signed agreements? It's better to just rag the puck and wait for them to be gone.
___________
[1]https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tariffs/2026/08/27/prairie-provi...
Unless you're empire that has expressed the desire to annex a neighboring country. It's not a good omen, but this administration will stand by it regardless.
This is not a serious suggestion. It would be foolish to stoop to Trump's level... It would be hilarious, though, if Canada officially renamed Lake Michigan to "Lake Trump is in the Epstein Files".
Absolutely. Almost everything about this administration screams "deeply unserious". And throwing away previous agreements (that Trump made)... yeah, what's my incentive to strike a new deal? They can expect Trump to throw that one away too.
> It's better to just rag the puck and wait for them to be gone.
Um... could you translate that for me?