Who has the worst case of Trumpanzee-ism….rank them

We know about Trumpanzee-ism, the real sufferers of TDS

1. Draad. He loves Trump. We are back in ancient Egypt, and Moses (Trump) is leading him to the promised land, to save him from persecution and make them the rightful Kings of the world. Basically, God's people, his chosen few. Wants to be the persecutor rather than the persecuted, and ideally return the world to the dark ages with an all-bevellant ruler and one religion to rule them all. Dogmantic only sees the views he supports as the truth, a tribal mentality of good versus bad.
2. Mozart: Looks at the stock market and shareholder profits—no consideration of how the majority see the economy, or a path for future generations. (e.g. monopolies are short-term profit, offshoring is fine if share values are boosted). An original cause of MAGA's problems.
3. DumbMike: Totally brainwashed, even if Fox News is increasingly critical of Trump's economic policies. A loyal servant to Trump, also a great fan of Putin.
4. Beeno: The original proponent of Trump. Likes Strongmen leaders - such as Trump or Putin
5. Fartt_AJ; As with Beeno, a major fan of Trump. Seems to see Trump as a role model.
6. ButtPlug; Despite being very anti-American in the past (e.g. wars and how they have fixed the global economy), has now warmed to Trump. Also, seeks to crawl up Mozart's arse at every turn. Also likes Crypto, like Trump. Claims Trump is helping Iran, and not American trade interests. Wants to see Trump release the UFO files.
7. Devil's Advocate: Will seek to accommodate and justify any of Trump's actions, but condemns any other politician for the very same actions.
8. Pakie: Might not like Trump much, but sees him as better than any alternative

Actually maybe Trump's not so bad.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/24/global-oil-crisis-changed-fossil-fuel-industry-for-ever-iea-chief-fatih-birol

Be hilarious if Trump may have through sheer incompetence inadvertently ushered in the death knell of the fossil fuel industry.

Hahaha… the man who is advocating for alternative energy sources claims this crisis ends fossil fuels. Meanwhile in the real world:

The right hand column shows the Exxon stock price change by year. Amazing how in a ‘doomed’ industry investors are bidding up the price of the worlds biggest oil company.

But this Turk will continue to be the “world’s leading energy economist’ as long as he stays on his Woke message.

Remember, peeps, the market is the smart way to vote.

Which is very funny.

Liberalism is collapsing. Because liberals have no attachment to liberal tenets.

If you are going to quote….use quotation marks. And quote correctly. Here is the comment you are referencing:

MozartHall Of Famer

49,488 posts

Apr 25, 2026, 17:06

And yet the economy is doing well and the market, the smart form of vote, is at record highs

……..

‘The smart ‘form of vote’ ie the vote backed by masses of research….not ‘way to vote’ which has an entirely different meaning.

"He loves Trump. We are back in ancient Egypt, and Moses (Trump) is leading him to the promised land"

Nah, I love Trump because he's funny and he trolls you lot like a master gangsta...he lives rent free in y'all's heads...funny AF...gonna miss it when it's gone though ...what a phenomenon he turned out to be ...never in my wildest dreams.

Th e symndrome started by the b braimnwashing media causinn total inabity to think by site idiots. Th eym now suppo/rt crude suppoprts the vicious Ayatrollah Regime like they used to support tjhe Maduro dictatorship. A nceafr armed Iran is wqhat th eys u,pport - no/t rfealizing hteir ha tredc of Trump taskes precedence over anything .

Hahaha… the man who is advocating for alternative energy sources claims this crisis ends fossil fuels. Meanwhile in the real world:

The right hand column shows the Exxon stock price change by year. Amazing how in a ‘doomed’ industry investors are bidding up the price of the worlds biggest oil company.

Hahaha... you think that's a rebuttal?

At some point are you perhaps going figure out what's good for stock value isn't necessarily good for the world and the people who live on it.

Twice now in recent years the world economy has been pummelled due to it's dependence on fossil fuels as it was several times last century, but unlike last century there is now viable, cleaner and cheaper alternatives. Of course countries will want to break that dependence, they can't keep having their economies getting wrecked when there is disruption to fossil fuel supplies due to the actions of man baby Presidents, dictators and rogue regimes.

At some point are you perhaps going figure out what's good for stock value isn't necessarily good for the world and the people who live on it.

Never said it was, I said stock market valuations are based on solid research, not the hysterical rants of woke fools like you, The world will not turn away from fossil fuels, it can’t there are many needs eg flying that can’t be solved any other way.

And the world’s economy is based on more than a 100 years of investment in oil. You don’t change that infrastructure in a hurry with alternatives that can’t be economically stored or even delivered without random fluctuations….sun and wind.

Nuclear is the real alternative. But instead of building nuclear plants countries like Germany are closing them. And many countries that won’t build new, much safer nuclear plants are running older much riskier ones.

You couldn’t make this stuff up….people are going to be forced into electric cars 10 years from now…..whereas you could have everybody in hybrids mow with 90% of the supposed benefits right now. But that doesn’t actually kill fossil fuels which is the real objective.

Your ‘leading energy economist’ is just another politically correct voice encouraging dangerous solutions to man’s biggest need. Fortunately as Exxon’s share price shows, in the real world plans still include a big role for our only current option to keep 8 billion people fed,

Yes, nuclear is the only viable alternative for the quantity needed...

not the hysterical rants of woke fools like you

LOL, so much for keeping it civil. But yeah keep using the word woke, like if that's an actual argument.

The world will not turn away from fossil fuels, it can’t there are many needs eg flying that can’t be solved any other way.

It will, the die is already cast. Solar powers growth over the last few years has been exponential. It's unstoppable now. Get with the times instead of having this bizarre affinity with a single use 19th century technology, come join us in the modern world.

And the world’s economy is based on more than a 100 years of investment in oil. You don’t change that infrastructure in a hurry with alternatives that can’t be economically stored or even delivered without random fluctuations….sun and wind.

Again get with the times, this is an outdated view, there is already cost effective means of storing energy from renewables and that's only likely going to improve overtime.

You couldn’t make this stuff up….people are going to be forced into electric cars 10 years from now…..whereas you could have everybody in hybrids mow with 90% of the supposed benefits right now. But that doesn’t actually kill fossil fuels which is the real objective.

This one of those maybe arguments you can't prove one way or another. The opposite could be argued that focusing on hybrids may have short terms benefits but been worse overall delaying the development of EV for longer resulting in higher overall CO2 omissions but again impossible to say either way, but that's the whole point of global warming/climate change sceptics arguments, obfuscate the issue as much as possible, throw as many delaying roadblocks out as possible.

Your ‘leading energy economist’ is just another politically correct voice encouraging dangerous solutions to man’s biggest need.

No he's just correct. And he's far from the only one. It's your ideology that's dangerous.

Fortunately as Exxon’s share price shows, in the real world plans still include a big role for our only current option to keep 8 billion people fed,

Exxon's share price is simply a reflection of the present reality that the situation in Hormuz has reduced fossil fuel supply, driving the price of it up making Exxon much more profitable, it's got nothing to do with long term plans for energy, all the present situation has done is highlight the dangers of being over reliant on fossil fuel and is just going to accelerate the move away from it. As for talking about keeping people fed, don't make me laugh...your supporting a blockade of the Straights... that's going push millions of people into food insecurity if it lasts for any significant length of time.

Yes, nuclear is the only viable alternative for the quantity needed...

Don't suppose you have any evidence for that?

DbDraad

Hall Of Famer

25,951 posts

Apr 26, 2026, 05:48

Nah, I love Trump because he trolls you lot like a master gangsta...he lives rent free in y'all's heads...funny AF...gonna miss it when it's gone though ...what a phenomenon he turned out to be ...never in my wildest dreams.

-------------------------------

See the backwardness of Abrahamic Religions. They claim they want God to save them from persecution, but that really means they are allowed to persecute others who are not part of the same Kool-Aid gang. Just like how Arabs struggle to live with each other, as soon as there is another sect, they want to persecute each other.

LOL, so much for keeping it civil. But yeah keep using the word woke, like if that's an actual argument.

You reap what you sow

It will, the die is already cast. Solar powers growth over the last few years has been exponential. It's unstoppable now. Get with the times instead of having this bizarre affinity with a single use 19th century technology, come join us in the modern world.

Oh I have, with a nice starting position in First Solar. There are still plenty of incentives around especially in Red Neck Florida which has lots of sunshine. But here’s the projection 10 years out:

Central estimate (~2035)

1. Oil: ~27–30% (still largest single source)
2. Natural gas: ~24–26%
3. Coal: ~18–20%
4. Renewables (all types): ~20–25%
5. Nuclear: ~5%

?? Fossil fuels still dominate but decline from ~80% ? ~65–70%

?? Coal is the only major fuel clearly in structural decline (? ?0.3%/yr long-term)

Short answer: mostly yes over the next ~10 years — the drop in percentage share of fossil fuels is largely offset by growth in total energy demand, so absolute fossil fuel use is flat to slightly rising (or only marginally declining depending on scenario).

……

Do you prefer I use the more civil ‘schooled’ or ‘owned’ which you use? The growth in energy demand over the next 10 years is expected to be taken up by renewables, but carbon fuels will be flat to modestly up.

This one of those maybe arguments you can't prove one way or another. The opposite could be argued that focusing on hybrids may have short terms benefits but been worse overall delaying the development of EV for longer resulting in higher overall CO2 omissions but again impossible to say either way, but that's the whole point of global warming/climate change sceptics arguments, obfuscate the issue as much as possible, throw as many delaying roadblocks out as possible.

EVs are fine for those who can afford 2 cars, so they can take trips. Actually they are more than fine because of the low maintenance. Poorer folk tend to buy one car to cover all needs and demand is lagging prior growth estimates. That car could be a hybrid….so the benefits could be way higher than where we are today. But I take it you have an EV?

Exxon's share price is simply a reflection of the present reality that the situation in Hormuz has reduced fossil fuel supply, driving the price of it up making Exxon much more profitable

Er no. There may be a small short term squeeze component, but the value of a stock is the discounted value of its future cash flows over the life of the company. The market tends to over correct on the multiple in times of crisis, always a good speculative opportunity, but never to the extent that current events are moronically projected forever.

Don't suppose you have any evidence for that?

Well clouds and calm days and the huge capital cost to store beyond a few hours?

"See the backwardness of Abrahamic Religions. They claim they want God to save them from persecution, but that really means they are allowed to persecute others who are not part of the same Kool-Aid gang. Just like how Arabs struggle to live with each other, as soon as there is another sect, they want to persecute each other."

Horse sh!t...trolling you lot is not the same thing as persecuting you...and religion has got absolutely nothing to do with that...

LOL, so much for keeping it civil.

It’s no surprise that Kumbaya didn’t last long.

@Draad.

Prompt for ChatGPT:

"The underlying theme of the Abrahamic religions is being saved from persecution. However, do they really want to persecute others who are not part of their own religion?"

Response Output:

The Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — all contain strong themes of suffering, exile, oppression, rescue, covenant, judgement, mercy and salvation. But whether followers “want to persecute others” depends far more on interpretation, power, politics and social context than on a single shared religious essence.

The core distinction

A religion can teach:

“God saves us from oppression.”

without necessarily teaching:

“Therefore, we should oppress outsiders.”

In fact, all three traditions contain teachings that can be read as restraints against persecution, including justice, mercy, hospitality, care for strangers, and accountability before God.

Why persecution still happens

Persecution usually appears when religion becomes fused with:

state power, ethnic identity, fear of outsiders, claims of exclusive truth, social control, revenge, empire, or insecurity.

When a group sees itself as divinely chosen, uniquely saved, or under threat, some leaders may weaponise that identity against others.

The uncomfortable truth

Each Abrahamic tradition has historical examples of both:

persecuted communities seeking survival, and powerful communities persecuting others.

So the honest answer is: the religions themselves are not simply “about persecuting outsiders”, but they can be interpreted or used that way when combined with power and fear.

A useful way to frame it

The deeper pattern may be:

“When a persecuted group gains power, it faces a moral test: will it remember persecution as a reason to protect others, or as a justification to dominate them?”

That tension runs through much of religious and political history.

So you pulled it out you're arse, thanks.

"Prompt for ChatGPT:

"The underlying theme of the Abrahamic religions is being saved from persecution. However, do they really want to persecute others who are not part of their own religion?""

In case AI ever decides to kill us all, just know that it is retarded queries like this that will be to blame.

New level of completely missing the point...by a looong way .!!

@ButtPlug,

I put fact check at the start, e.g. (Fact check: This Prompt).

This is making a statement or opinion, and then assessing the validity.

The Happy Clappies sure are egotistical if they think that God is looking out for them, above the rest of the universe. After the original sin, the original Nazi was a believer who thought they were God's chosen person.

So you pulled it out you're arse, thanks.

No. Liberals on this board do not seem to grab how a LLM answer is generated. And the question is poorly worded.

The bot gives the answer though.

Persecution usually appears when religion becomes fused with:

state power, ethnic identity, fear of outsiders, claims of exclusive truth, social control, revenge, empire, or insecurity.

Without even noticing that Abrahamic religions trigger essentially the conditions for persecution.

All these conditions are triggered by Abrahamic religions, they are not fused with them, they are driven by them.

By putting the emphasis on persecution and a divine salvation from it, believers are driven to stack up all these conditions.

1. State power: historically, there may not even be one single example of people being persecuted when have state power. The path out of persecution is to grab state power.
2. ethnic identity is a poor wording: religion based groups as this is what those religions lead to. People do not mix with people from other religions.
3. Fear of outsiders: in those religions, persecution does not come from within, it has external sources. Other groups are oppressive. The fear of outsiders is stirred as they are potential oppressors.
4. Claims of exclusive truths: a core tenet of those religions, they detain the truth and other religions are from the devil.
5. Social control: another obvious tenet.
6. Revenge: common occurrence.

So the bot lines up conditions for persecution without even noticing that believing in those religions will automatically trigger the very same conditions.

The bot's mistake comes from assessing the question as separate parts, without connecting them.

The bot has generated an answer to check the text to see if they can oppose persecution while in parallel generating an answer for causes of persecution. When it synthesises, it does not even notice that the way to escape persecution through a divine leads to the conditions of persecution.

So yes, by this bot's answer: to save themselves from persecution, the believers are corralled toward a framework that drives persecution. It is a vicious circle.

It's out of ou Maaik and Draad.

AJH and Baboon-ou would also be contenders but they don't post here anymore.

Pin it on me, I don't mind, give Oom Maaik a break for a change.