he's a billionaire, which makes him the richest president, and he's a president which is often called the most powerful person in the world, and he's in charge of the us militiary, which is bigger than the next ten militaries combined along with almost the most nukes in the world second only slightly to russia. also the usa economy was the strongest it had ever been under trump. of course, putin has access to more wealth that is hidden and russia is a strong country, just not as strong as the usa, so putin is only a close second. also, this is all based on just what we know, as as of now we dont know if there are other living intelligent beings in the universe.
trump is the most powerful living thing in the history of the universe
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@n8nrgmi
the position of U.S. president can give a sitting president great power. But it has to be used and used correctly. For instance trade deals and not getting into pointless wars. In many ways Trump has used that power wisely if you look at foreign dealings. If the position of U.S. president is to have any power/authority it make the country first priority not globalism. (imo)
the dependence on medicines and medical products from other countries should terrify ever citizen.
-->
@n8nrgmi
he's a billionaire, which makes him the richest president, and he's a president which is often called the most powerful person in the world, and he's in charge of the us militiary, which is bigger than the next ten militaries combined along with almost the most nukes in the world second only slightly to russia. also the usa economy was the strongest it had ever been under trump. of course, putin has access to more wealth that is hidden and russia is a strong country, just not as strong as the usa, so putin is only a close second. also, this is all based on just what we know, as as of now we dont know if there are other living intelligent beings in the universe.
Donald Trump is "powerful" but not the most powerful. He, as president, is nothing more than one of many global managers. The pope is the most "powerful"--or to be more apt, "influential"--"living thing in the history of the universe."
Trump may be president, but he has proven he doesn't actually know how to use that power. He is so stupid that he just ends up thrashing in random directions accomplishing very little other than corruption and infighting. That is why he couldn't accomplish anything meaningful in the 1st 2 years of his presidency while the republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency.
So while a smart person in charge of the US right now might conceivably be the most powerful person in the world. Because trump is also an idiot, he very much is not.
-->
@Athias
The pope is the most "powerful"--or to be more apt, "influential"--"living thing in the history of the universe."
Current pope, or historical?
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is why he couldn't accomplish anything meaningful in the 1st 2 years of his presidency while the republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency.
Ever heard of a filibuster?
-->
@ILikePie5
Ever heard of a filibuster?
I have, what is your point? He was offered deals by the democrats. All he had to do what bend a little on issues he didn't actually care about and he could have gotten stuff done. Certainly not everything he wanted, but at least decent chunks of it. He chose throw tantrums and act like a giant man baby and ended up accomplishing very little.
-->
@HistoryBuff
He was offered deals by the democrats. All he had to do what bend a little on issues he didn't actually care about and he could have gotten stuff done.
I would love to see examples. “Bend a little” means passing a liberal wishlist and nothing more.
Certainly not everything he wanted, but at least decent chunks of it. He chose throw tantrums and act like a giant man baby and ended up accomplishing very little.
Compromise defeats your whole purpose of claiming oh they were ineffective even when they controlled HoR and Senate. 8 Democrats don’t grow on trees
-->
@ILikePie5
“Bend a little” means passing a liberal wishlist and nothing more.
lol of course it means giving the other side some of the things they want. That is how politics works. The fact that trump doesn't know that shows how stupid he is.
Compromise defeats your whole purpose of claiming oh they were ineffective even when they controlled HoR and Senate. 8 Democrats don’t grow on trees
trump didn't accomplish very much. That is, by definition, ineffectiveness. If he were effective, he would have accomplished things. He ran on being a negotiator, a deal maker. He said he would get things done and make deals to "make america great again". Then he got elected, managed to make no deals because he doesn't actually know how to do that. He knows how to screw people over, slander them and then sue them. Those skills are not very useful as president though.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Promises Made. Promises Kept.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Obama was and still is the most powerful president in the history of America.
Never since Stalin has one man controlled state propaganda so absolutely.
Even more than FDR, and that's a high authoritarian bar to hurdle.
-->
@ILikePie5
It's amazing even with a strong state propaganda industry behind the Dems, they still can't beat Trump.
I'm wondering if it is even possible at this point for the Dems to fix themselves. It's been how many years since Bill Clinton? Affirmative action president doesn't count.
-->
@ILikePie5
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there was the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It was easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that was what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter was absent he could barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama was constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It was embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president was a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
Three reasons why Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action.
1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?
2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:
"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"
3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance?
To me it all adds up to affirmative action.
-->
@Athias
The pope is the most "powerful"--or to be more apt, "influential"--"living thing in the history of the universe."
The subject is not concerned with "influence" though is it? It is about P_O_W_E_R. Stop moving the goalposts and the trying to build an argument about what you say instead of what the OP ACTUALLY and clearly states.
You mentioned a religious figure head as being the "most powerful". I would consider the leader of the whole Muslim faith to be much more powerful. This is A leader who has in the past, and still does, head what is considered to be the biggest threat to Western culture and society. You really need to choose your words when speaking about powerful and influential religious leaders. "Some 22 percent of the world’s population is Muslim today, and 85 percent of all Muslims are Sunnis, while 13 percent are Shias". 15.6 billion Muslims. That is a lot of people that can be influenced with a simple the nod of the head and a wave of the hand. Even if one says only a "tiny minority" follows the Islamic ideology ` religiously'.
Have you forgotten "the power" shown and the "influence" displayed by the Ayatollah over a simple novel. He stirred the Islamic world and Muslims around the world into a frenzy and most of the ignorant Muslims of the east couldn't even read never mind read English. Over a book!!! Now that is power!
This is not to mention that one of these ideologies teaches, love, peace and tolerance towards everyone while the other teaches war , violence and intolerance towards anyone not Muslim.
-->
@ILikePie5
Promises Made. Promises Kept.
lol, he promised to make deals. he made no deals. but your TDS makes you see that as a promise kept... somehow.
-->
@Stephen
The subject is not concerned with "influence" though is it? It is about P_O_W_E_R. Stop moving the goalposts and the trying to build an argument about what you say instead of what the OP ACTUALLY and clearly states.
influence is power. If you have the ability to get people to do things, that is power.
You mentioned a religious figure head as being the "most powerful". I would consider the leader of the whole Muslim faith to be much more powerful.
Is there a single leader of the Muslim faith similar to the Pope? To my knowledge there is not since the end of the caliphate in 1924. But I admit I'm not an expert on Islam.
-->
@Athias
Only if the Pope is the vicar of himself. Last I checked... nope.
-->
@Stephen
@PressF4Respect
@HistoryBuff
@fauxlaw
@PressF4Respect:
Current pope, or historical?
The papacy itself especially after the 13 century.
@Stephen:
The subject is not concerned with "influence" though is it? It is about P_O_W_E_R. Stop moving the goalposts and the trying to build an argument about what you say instead of what the OP ACTUALLY and clearly states.
Definition of power
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a(1) : ability to act or produce an effect
(2) : ability to get extra-base hits
(3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect
b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
2a : possession of control, authority, or influence over others
b : one having such power specifically : a sovereign state
c : a controlling group : establishment —often used in the phrase the powers that be
d archaic : a force of armed men
e chiefly dialectal : a large number or quantity
"Some 22 percent of the world’s population is Muslim today, and 85 percent of all Muslims are Sunnis, while 13 percent are Shias". 15.6 billion Muslims. That is a lot of people that can be influenced with a simple the nod of the head and a wave of the hand. Even if one says only a "tiny minority" follows the Islamic ideology ` religiously'.
Your numbers are incorrect. How can there be any data informing an amount of 15.6 billion Muslims, when population censuses inform a world population of 7.6 billion? Last I remember, 14% of the world's population practices/adheres to Islam. Do your research again.
Have you forgotten "the power" shown and the "influence" displayed by the Ayatollah over a simple novel. He stirred the Islamic world and Muslims around the world into a frenzy and most of the ignorant Muslims of the east couldn't even read never mind read English. Over a book!!! Now that is power!
You unwittingly informed my point.
@HistoryBuff:
influence is power. If you have the ability to get people to do things, that is power.
Thank you. And according to the last statement of his I quoted, he agrees with you.
@fauxlaw:
Only if the Pope is the vicar of himself. Last I checked... nope.
He need not be his own vicar--only the vicar; Lucifer's vicar.
-->
@Athias
"Some 22 percent of the world’s population is Muslim today, and 85 percent of all Muslims are Sunnis, while 13 percent are Shias". 15.6 billion Muslims. That is a lot of people that can be influenced with a simple the nod of the head and a wave of the hand. Even if one says only a "tiny minority" follows the Islamic ideology ` religiously'.Your numbers are incorrect. How can there be any data informing an amount of 15.6 billion Muslims,
I took two different quotes. I didn't make that clear. I apologies. But the overall population of Muslims in the world is said to be
1.9 billion Muslims
There are approximately 1.9 billion Muslims in the world, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world behind Christianity. The Islam population is mainly split between 1.5 billion Sunni Muslims and 240-340 million Shia Muslims with some others belonging to smaller denominations.
Muslim Population By Country 2020 - World Population Reviewhttps://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1DSGK_en-gbGB437GB453&sxsrf=ALeKk00ovWacwcFfEobGJDdR5v9Xv5StWw%3A1589993923585&ei=w2HFXqKoI4aT1fAP-_26sAg&q=how+many+muslims+in+the+world+2019&oq=how+many+muslims+in+the+world+2019&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDICCAAyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeOgQIABBHOgQIIxAnUKt9WKmFAWCSlAFoAHABeACAAYoBiAHgA5IBAzAuNJgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjilYr49MLpAhWGSRUIHfu-DoYQ4dUDCAw
And said to be the fastest growing.
-->
@Athias
The papacy itself especially after the 13 century.
Akin to the British Monarchy, the power that the pope wields today is mostly symbolic, rather than real. While the papacy itself is still influential in the lives of many Catholics, I don't think the papacy of today is anywhere near as powerful/influential as it was during the middle ages. For example:
- The popes of the middle ages were the sole religious leaders of Western Europe. Literally everyone in Western Europe in the middle ages acknowledged the pope as their spiritual leader. While the papacy today presides over 1.2 billion Catholics (which is more people than lived in the world at any point in the middle ages), the percentage of Christians who follow the pope is way lower than it was before the Protestant Reformation.
- The popes of the middle ages wielded a significant amount of power, to the point where even kings would cower before them. They frequently played power politics, and the threat of ex-communication scared even the boldest and most defiant leaders into obeying them. Pope Francis doesn't wield nearly as much power, and outside of the Vatican, he doesn't have the power to directly affect policies.
- The popes of the middle ages could raise an army of tens of thousands to fight his holy wars. Pope Francis would have a very difficult time doing this.
- The papacy was so sought after, and the power that came with it so great, that there would often be rival claimants ("anti-popes") challenging the pope's position. There hasn't been such a thing since 1450.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Oprah and Pewdiepie are the most powerful.
-->
@Greyparrot
Pewdiepie
The WSJ, T-series, and Twitch bois go
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-->
@Greyparrot
repent, ye. repent unto Our Lord and Savior, Donald Trump.
-->
@n8nrgmi
which is bigger than the next ten militaries combined
USA is not more powerful that Russia,China,India,Egypt,UK,and France COMBINED
-->
@n8nrgmi
spending isnt all of it, the usa spends on missions and wars, china doesnt wage wars
-->
@n8nrgmi
The people that control Trump obviously have a greater influence than Trump does himself.
I would suggest that there are currently other Presidents that wield greater absolute power.
Though the collective power of technology and media is somewhat superseding the power of the individual.
It could also be argued that the Corona Virus is currently the most powerful thing. (Though the jury is out on whether a Virus is actually living or not).
Universally...Who knows?....What about this supposed god bloke?
As for the Pope....Well I think that the power of the Catholic Church has always been fragmented and also that the Pope is only a nominal Head.... Nice guy though.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Akin to the British Monarchy, the power that the pope wields today is mostly symbolic, rather than real. While the papacy itself is still influential in the lives of many Catholics, I don't think the papacy of today is anywhere near as powerful/influential as it was during the middle ages. For example:
- The popes of the middle ages were the sole religious leaders of Western Europe. Literally everyone in Western Europe in the middle ages acknowledged the pope as their spiritual leader. While the papacy today presides over 1.2 billion Catholics (which is more people than lived in the world at any point in the middle ages), the percentage of Christians who follow the pope is way lower than it was before the Protestant Reformation.
- The popes of the middle ages wielded a significant amount of power, to the point where even kings would cower before them. They frequently played power politics, and the threat of ex-communication scared even the boldest and most defiant leaders into obeying them. Pope Francis doesn't wield nearly as much power, and outside of the Vatican, he doesn't have the power to directly affect policies.
- The popes of the middle ages could raise an army of tens of thousands to fight his holy wars. Pope Francis would have a very difficult time doing this.
- The papacy was so sought after, and the power that came with it so great, that there would often be rival claimants ("anti-popes") challenging the pope's position. There hasn't been such a thing since 1450.
You're thinking in the context of Theocracy. But when one shifts the context to the financial dealings of the Vatican, then the argument that the pope is the most powerful living being on this earth becomes more clear. Consider their investments with the Rothschild banks in Britain, the U.S., and France, the Credit Suisse in Zurich and London, JP-Morgan Chase Bank in Manhattan, The First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, the Centurion Global Fund, not to mention that the Vatican has its own Bank (manages $64 Billion worth of assets) and hedge fund. Consider their real estate investments--owning land all over the globe. ("Queen" Elizabeth may on paper have the most land in sheer size, but the Pope has lands and properties, not to mention "embassies" in several more countries.) Consider the Vatican's shareholdings in international giants like Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, etc. Consider the Vatican's transactions with the Federal Reserve, both buying and selling millions of dollars worth of gold at a time. I believe that the Federal Reserve holds about $20 Million worth of gold for the Vatican.
Consider the nearly 1.3 billion people who essentially serve as the pope's army and generally offer the Vatican 10% of their income. Even if every one of them gives just $1 in tithes, that's $1.3 billion dollars. Now if they do this every week, that's about $68 Billion a year. And all of that is just the beginning. If one considers that the pope is the head Luciferian, the predominant religion of the Earth, his influence spans even further especially as it concerns Hollywood and Child Sex Trafficking.
-->
@Athias
You're thinking in the context of Theocracy. But when one shifts the context to the financial dealings of the Vatican, then the argument that the pope is the most powerful living being on this earth becomes more clear. Consider their investments with the Rothschild banks in Britain, the U.S., and France, the Credit Suisse in Zurich and London, JP-Morgan Chase Bank in Manhattan, The First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, the Centurion Global Fund, not to mention that the Vatican has its own Bank (manages $64 Billion worth of assets) and hedge fund. Consider their real estate investments--owning land all over the globe. ("Queen" Elizabeth may on paper have the most land in sheer size, but the Pope has lands and properties, not to mention "embassies" in several more countries.) Consider the Vatican's shareholdings in international giants like Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, etc. Consider the Vatican's transactions with the Federal Reserve, both buying and selling millions of dollars worth of gold at a time. I believe that the Federal Reserve holds about $20 Million worth of gold for the Vatican.Consider the nearly 1.3 billion people who essentially serve as the pope's army and generally offer the Vatican 10% of their income. Even if every one of them gives just $1 in tithes, that's $1.3 billion dollars. Now if they do this every week, that's about $68 Billion a year.
If we're talking about financial power, then the pope would face some serious competition from powerful billionaire tycoons, moguls, and oligarchs for the title of "most financially powerful person in the world". Sure, the pope is rich, but I'm pretty sure he isn't THE most financially powerful individual in the world.
And all of that is just the beginning. If one considers that the pope is the head Luciferian, the predominant religion of the Earth, his influence spans even further especially as it concerns Hollywood and Child Sex Trafficking.
I know the pope has had several controversies regarding possible cover-ups, but that isn't nearly enough to amount to a global child sex trafficking ring. This is something I'm going to have to look further into. Also not sure about the extent of the Pope's influence in Hollywood (if there is indeed any).