Okay I got curious what/who thinks they can buy countries and looked it up. That answer makes sense. Why the PRC-like euphemism for Donald Trump though?
Oh, I got some sort of stock ticker when I typed it into a search engine. Though it was his company rather than his actual name. I also haven't ever heard someone use a third word in "Donald Trump", so in that sense it seemed to introduce obscurity (not that I'd recognise DT if nobody ever uses that) similar to using the "it's just the initials" TLA for China
Back when US presidents had long names we had JFK and LBJ. For whatever reason, the names have gotten shorter, and nobody's worried about fitting the name in an actually printed newspaper headline.
DJT is the symbol for the media company that owns his social platform. It's not the first time he's used his initials. He also used them for his bankrupt casino business.
DJT is not an uncommon reference though. Donald J Trump is common as well.
You seem to be thinking of people and corporations in the USA though. It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to. Nobody expects his influence to turn out well for the USA, the climate, the world economy, or anything
>It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to.
Without wading into the partisan morass, I'll gently suggest that it might be worth checking in with alternative sources once in awhile. You don't have to agree, but it is always good to temper your views. If you are interested in these topics, it could be worth knowing what the stated intentions of an agenda are, as described by the proponents.
When I take the time for this my underlying principles may not change, but I do find uncharitable interpretations and deliberate misrepresentations presented by both sides. It helps to diffuse some of the most egregious hyperbole.
Otherwise, I find that I'm subjecting myself to the echochamber you describe.
I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something. Also a lot of the things I watch, read, and listen are about technology and science, new (or old) research results, and sometimes politics comes up (mainly when a party/govt does something that's not in line with the study in question or even broad consensus) but then it's not the focus of the resource; it's not "of one party" in a meaningful way
As for learning the intentions behind an agenda, I think that's usually clear? Harsher punishments for crime is a common point from various parties for example, the point is to reduce crime, whereas research shows (as far as I could find) that there's a fairly low threshold beyond which it only functions as retribution while also increasing repeat offences because people lose everything after many years removed from society. But people don't do the research (not like I have time for researching everything either, so I don't have an opinion on many things) and so you get bad votes... But so like, it's not about partisanship but about what actually makes sense. Like nuclear energy, the parties I generally consider voting for are usually strongly against that, but I think they're misrepresenting (or not aware of) the facts in order to be in line with what their voters want from the party. I'm not partial to one party, I check what my options are for each election (note we don't have a 2-party system here either, so there's no big "us vs. them" besides perhaps racism parties)
"I've said it before and people here don't seem to believe it, but there isn't as much "partisan" news where I'm from. No reputable newspaper will report positively when Wilders talks about banning the muslims if he makes it into the coalition or something."
I have no clue who Wilders is or what he represents, but if I read you correctly, just by applying logic, your second sentence seems to directly contradict your first sentence.
