All I have seen is that self driving cars will decide to kill people because they cannot make decisions about life in a way that preserves it.

Do you have any examples?

Cheaper, safer and one extra seat.

We’re obviously not there yet but I haven’t heard a single good argument for why we wouldn’t be in the future.

Humans are not getting any better at driving. Self-driving cars will eventually lead to tens of thousands of human lifes saved annually. Why do you want to prevent this?

“Some of Taylor Swift Fans Are Leaving Twitter for Bluesky After Trump’s Election”

I like fast food. A steakhouse hamburger from Burger King is just as good, if not better than most hamburgers I’ve gotten from restaurants. On top of this I don’t need to wait 30 minutes to get it, I don’t need to deal with waiters and I can just leave when I’m done rather than wait for someone to bring a a check.

it’s hard to find a good trait about the guy

He’s not a warmonger for one. He’s pretty funny too.

EDIT: Also, though a bit synical, I must say that I find some enjoyment in how mad he makes the far left which I see as one of the main reasons we got Trump to begin with. He’s the reaction to wokeism and identity politics.

This implies that U.S. stopping weapons deliveries would leave them without weapons and ammunation which is not the case. It would make things a lot harder for Ukraine and make them lose more soldiers and land but it wouldn’t stop the war. They’d rather die than submit to Russia. Also, U.S. is not their only weapons supplier.

I don’t see what this has to do with what I’ve said. I haven’t claimed otherwise. I don’t even like the guy and I wouldn’t have voted for him if I lived in the U.S.

If you can’t make an argument for your view using your own words, then I’m not interested in going any further with this.

questioning morals of not endorsing genocide

That’s a somewhat skewed lens to view it through, as not everyone agrees that what we’re seeing is a genocide. I definitely don’t think it is. I’m open to hearing arguments to the contrary, but so far, everyone I’ve tried discussing it with either gets emotionally captured or doesn’t argue honestly and in good faith, so the discussion goes nowhere.

I have said what I had to say on the topic and you seem to posses such a good mind-reading capabilities that I don’t think I’m needed for this discussion. I have no interest in engaging with people who result in personal attacks and accusations. Have a good debate.

I’ve been accused of being both Trump and Kamala supporter today despite not even living in the U.S.

Nope, I’m just a dispassionate observer who doesn’t think in binary. Trump is not all bad no more than Kamala is all good. Things are nuanced and complicated.

Also no, I don’t think people either lie 100% of the time or not at all, but I also don’t think you get to arbitrarily choose which is a lie and what is not based on which better fits your agenda.

…is an absolute statement in itself.

What’s beneficial to himself and the U.S. seems like the only thing he cares about.

“Make America Great Again” is his motto, and the actions he took during his first term mostly aligned with it, even if the outcomes didn’t always turn out as intended. If you don’t believe he means what he says, then I don’t think he should be criticized for the rest of what he says either - since he wouldn’t mean that, either.

He says he wants to end the war. Ending support doesn’t do that and I don’t see how Russia winning would be beneficial to the US.

Personally, I don’t see morals as entirely subjective.

I’d say that ‘worst possible misery for everyone’ is objectively bad and any attempt to move away from that is better.

Sure, and not just that. Most, if not all people I know of whom I’d consider a ‘normal’ don’t spend time commenting on social media. By definition, everything we read on here comes from this self-selecting group of people who do not represent the majority.

Ever been to Lemmy?

YouTube is my TV. I don’t pretty much watch any movies or tv-shows.

I’m trying to summon my inner Ben Shapiro here. This isn’t my opinion but my understanding of what he has said on the subject.

While Trump lies a lot, he’s fundamentally a bullshitter, which is different. A liar knows the truth but chooses to deceive, whereas a bullshitter doesn’t care about truth in the same way. When Trump says something like, “We’re going to withdraw from NATO,” he’s often expressing a sentiment or creating leverage rather than making a literal commitment. He treats politics like business deals, where you start with an extreme offer, then meet somewhere in the middle. He has argued that in the case of NATO, for example, this approach worked: other member states did increase their defense spending (though the war in Ukraine played a role too).

So, the point is that Trump’s statements should often be taken as rhetorical posturing - ways to push for certain outcomes - rather than literal promises. From a Republican perspective, his actions during his first term ultimately aligned with their goals, which explains their relative tolerance of his exaggerations. In contrast, they see Kamala Harris (and Biden) as engaging in misrepresentation that has led to policies Republicans find harmful, so there’s a greater focus on what they see as her inconsistency between words and actions.