The claim that people would like him if he was not a republican is one of the stupider pieces of cope they’ve come up with. They also like to use the stupid “TDS“ thing to claim that people just hate Trump arbitrarily, as if we can’t list 50 different horrible things he’s done and things about him that make him completely unfit for the office.
post
These brainless morons really think this shit is team sports. JFC.
For them, it is. So they assume it is for everyone.
See also them using phrases like "believing in science". I don't have to believe in it, it's repeatable. Stop projecting your dumb worldview.
Whenever someone brings up "believing in science" remind them that science isn’t a matter of belief, it's a matter of understanding. The world is the way it is whether you "believe" in it or not. The world is the way it is whether you understand it or not, and life is a lot easier when you understand the world around you.
True.
Because they are willing to dig in their heels and reject evidence that doesn't fit their worldview, they assume that science-minded people are the same. They don't understand how "receive new data" and "refine or revise hypothesis" are important parts of the process. If they incorporated those steps, their belief system would implode.
You can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.
Issac Newton saw an apple fall and then dropped other objects to prove the existence of gravity.
God = belief.
Science = evidence.
This is the key point. It's why "every accusation is a confession" works so often. They are accusing others of the things they themselves are doing, because they assume everyone is doing it.
It's more that these morons actually behave this way. They trust anyone with an "(R)" at the end of their name.
The Democratic Party has its Gavin Newsoms and Joe Manchins and Michael Bloombergs and Anthony Weiners aplenty.
No shortage of Democrats on the Lolita Express. No shortage of liberal billionaires hungry for another war in the Middle East, another trillion dollar data center spend on public land, or another Bay of Pigs on Cuba.
None of Trump's politics are unique to Trump. We've got shitty little fascists crawling all over the country, from the bluest cities of Washington and Minnesota to the reddest oil fields of Texas and Wyoming. If anything, the latest wave of Silicon Valley "Network State" fucks have been more concentrated in liberal districts. And their money has produced a wave of horrifyingly bad liberal politicians who are as much responsible for the Obama->Trump party slump as any QAnon club.
It's easier on their hamster brains that way. Means they don't have to worry about doing any homework.
Ironically, when it comes to actual sports, they'll get on some Good Willing Hunting shit and go ultra deep into player stats and coaching strategies. Probably the only time I've ever heard one not sound like a complete idiot.
If he were a DEMOCRAT I would FORGIVE all the Blatant Corruption and CHILD RAPING!
-This is how REPUBLICANS are!
Political brain rot is believing people dislike Trump solely because he's a Republican.
That's the fundamental problem with American politics. Too many people treat it like team sports: I have to defend my side no matter what.
No, you don't.
You don't owe a political party your loyalty. Parties are tools, not identities. If your own side does something wrong, or even something you consider objectively immoral, you should be willing to say so. Blind partisanship isn't a virtue; it's the abandonment of independent judgment.
His party affiliation has nothing to do with it.Trump has always been a POS human being full stop.
He’s the archetype of the 80s movie developer who wants to tear down the old skate rink or whatever.
For you. I see Dems constantly glazing Obama. Who, while not as bad as trump, was pretty fucking bad in a "it's like Bush never left" kind of way. Affiliation is all that matters to a stunning number of people.
“it’s like Bush never left”
What's that based on?
And saying he's "not as bad as Trump" is a ludicrous understatement.
What's that based on?
He ordered almost 600 drone strikes in 7 different countries, hitting weddings schools and hospitals and killing scores of civilians. He renewed the patriot act, escalated the domestic spying program, maintained the CIA black site torture program, and persecuted the whistleblowers that told us about them. That's what "hope and change" looks like apparently. And the Dems went completely silent. "No blood for oil" turned into "awww he's charasmatic and plays basketball <3"
Ah yes whataboutism.
I'm pointing out blind partisanism isn't exclusive to one party. Pretending that it is exclusive to one party is an example of blind partisanism.
Uh ya no. What you're doing is the most typical argument tactic maga/repubs employ. Oh what about that guy that one time that isn't in power anymore more, he did a thing so its fine for us to do this now.
It's the same exact "it's ok when my guy does it" attitude that led to trump. This isn't a Republican problem. It's an American problem. We're not going to solve it by only focusing on half of the people doing it.
But yet here you are, what about Obama glazing. He's not president. He's not running again. Sure some people still glaze, most people don't give or shit or know alot of what he did. We legit just turned the entire world against the US and swept a pedo ring under the rug. So wattaboutism the glazing.
So we should ignore half the people putting party above policy and pretend that this is only a Republican phenomenon. Surely that's the way to fix it. Ok blue maga.
I never said such. I said youre a hypocrite. I said you're playing whataboutism, then you took a step back, and you went what about, what about, what about. Let summarize for you
You "WHATTTABOUT OBAMA GETIN GLAZED? ME, "WHATABOUTISM ISNT" YOU "OH SO WERE SUPPOSED TO JUST PRETEND DEMS ARE PURE"
What I said was "Dems aren't immune to this behavior, and here's an example that proves it". You are inadvertantly providing another example.
But WHATTTABOUT
Must be easy having such a narrow view of the world, only able to comprehend criticizing one group at a time. You'd make a good maga.
Okay, you really don't get it. The same shit that caused your whattabout Obama drone striking, is the same shit that allows trump to get away with all this shit. It's not whattabout its the same shit, abuse of powers, too much leniency and power for that position. You keep trying to divide that problem, into a team game. If you wanna play whattabout, whattabout which president didn't commit a warcrime? You'd have to go back like 50 years.
If he ran for president as a democrat he would not have been elected because he would not have made it through the primary process.
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
He only made it through the Republican primary because the Democrats helped him through it.
The punchline of the last decade has been how neoliberals and reactionaries within the liberal party laid the foundation for a Permanent Republican Majority. Even now, they're more interested in beating back an insurgent popular progressive movement than ousting fascists in their own backyards.
A different take: If he was a Democrat, would he have the same opinions? If he existed as current, he would not be a democrat, but maybe his experiences were caused him to develop in other directions.
If Trump espoused democratic values, and was for things like universal healthcare, higher wages, privacy and personal autonomy, hadn't been a sex pest, wasn't a grifter and on and on and on... then no, I might not despise him.
Not that Jason above was in any way being sincere in the question.
He was a democrat and I'm fairly sure that beyond being manipulated through his dementia, he has not changed any of his beliefs or values on becoming a republican.
Racist barely human garbage 40 years ago, racist barely human garbage today.
No to throw around the 'in name only' epithet, but was he a democrat? or was that convenient label at the time? As a self-serving pig, he would chose the label that got him the most attention.
Disregarding the "left" vs "liberal" vs "democrat" disambiguation, since it doesn't really matter in US politics at this moment, I'd suggest, when discussing "leadership", that a Democratic person wants what is best for society as a whole while the current flavor of Republican wants what is best for the wealthy class.
I can't think of a Mr. Trump example where he advocated for the working class without it being a transparent grift.
My point, though, is not "do I hate trump?" but instead a thought experiment of "what if trump was actually a Democrat?" If he was a wealthy-ish person advocating for the lower classes to get aid, reduce wealth inequality, improve climate management and various other "democratic" values, then yes, I would support him.
Current trump can get fucked regardless of his label.
Pennsylvania has a Democrat ogre, and we seem to have no problem saying, "fuck Fetterman"
Well tbf, he got a stroke and basically that's how he turned conservative
That's the story. I think he was always a sleeper and the stroke made him unable to walk the line.
Wasn't there an interview from like the 80s were he said if he ran for president he would run repub cause they were idiots and he could trick them easily?
you explain sinema that way too?
Pennsylvania has a Democrat ogre
Two, really. Fetterman's the one that keeps showing up on reactionary news media to talk shit. But Shapiro's been taking his own turn as an avowed Zionist, a corporate sleaze, and a reactionary fearmonger whenever he's had the opportunity.
Turns out people who are fine with Nazis don't even allow for the possibility of principles existing.
I tend to not like felon rapist pedophiles regardless of their political affiliation.
And the Democrat party pretty regulartly ousts members with scandals that dwarf in comparison to Trump's DAILY scandals.
What a silly question. Nobody likes Democrats.
I will never understand why some people will go online with their real name and photo and discuss any highly controversial topics, much less politics.
- It puts legitimacy behind their statements. You are no longer discussing with an internet no-name weirdo, the person you are writing with has a name and face.
- They weild authority in the field or bear respect assigned to them and are thus using it...or simply used to writing under their name due to that.
- They're one of "I have nothing to hide" folks. And I don't mean surveilence apologists - I mean folk who have such weirdly strong ego (without being egoists. At least most of the time) that their belief in who they are is unshakeable. They tend to rawdog the world.
Some combination of the three above is most common in my perspective.
You missed the top one
0 - they are old and or stupid and don't think of the consequences of their actions
A long time ago, when I was dating a woman who worked at Planned Parenthood, I ran afoul of a Scott Roeder supporter. I'm glad he never knew my name and what I looked like. I think my statements to him were legitimate and authoritative enough with out putting my loved ones in danger.
So, I am not an american and had to look the guy up. First of all, wtf. Second of all, wtf (but about your situation).
But at the end of the day, some people just don't compute statements without face attached to them. :| Nonetheless, staying safe is a priority. Wtf.
There's really no guarantee that people are using their real name and photo in most cases. People tying their presence to their work or something is different, but I generally never assume I'm talking to the person being presented to me. Some people also just don't care, don't realize there could be consequences, or they signed up when the internet was a different place (thinking twitter would be more like Facebook or MySpace where it might make some sense to use your real name).
If he ran as a Democrat, I'd have never voted for the Democrats again, because they would have stood up and said Trump was acceptable.
They stood up and said Hillary was acceptable. And now here we are.
Aw my two favorite things. "bOtH SiDeS": Congratulations, you found a way to insert that where it absolutely made no sense. Then we have "I kNoW ExAcTlY hOw AlL pOsSiBlE tImElInEs WoUlD hAvE gOnE!!1"
How is this "BoTh SiDeS", I fully recognize the Dems are better than the Republicans, and one of the reasons is the Democrats would never have accepted Trump.
Well tbh your comment sounded like you thought Democrats would do the same as Republicans or worse. It's possible I missed something subtle but I read it again and that's how it still reads to me.
No I said IF Trump ran as a Democrat and was successful in becoming the presidential nominee, I wouldn't vote for Democrats, because IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE they would have proven to be worse than Republicans
Some MAGoo said he wanted Trump and not miserable Republicans In Name Only.
Obviously, the MAGoo hadn't noticed that Trump was a Dem for years, except when he tried to run for President on the Reform Party ticket
I thought he was playing a character before he ran for president in 2016. Like I never watched The Apprentice, but I saw ads for it and I figured he was just playing an exaggerated asshole clown of a boss.
If Trump had run and won as a democrat in 2016, I probably would have intensely disliked him like I did Biden and HRC, but not hated him like I do now because the democratic party would have steered him in very different ways than the GOP has.
I largely now hate his voters and hope they suffer far more than I hate Trump. Nothing but antipathy for them.
I never watched The Apprentice, but I saw ads for it and I figured he was just playing an exaggerated asshole clown of a boss.
Believe it or not, I always took it as the opposite. The first time Trump wanted to run he was laughed out of the primary. He had a long history as a narcissistic con man to anyone in the northeast and there’s no way he’d be elected. The entire point of “The Apprentice” was to rebuild his image.
Maybe some people took it as playing an exaggerated asshole clown of a boss, but he was toned down from reality. His narcissism was toned down, he acted mostly morally, less of an asshole, he appeared to know something about business. They even played down his need to plaster his name in gold everywhere. His entire image was much more palatable than the previous two decades of headlines
Unfortunately it succeeded
Above all else, Donald Trump is a useful idiot. More powerful people have been using him for a lot longer than he's been president.
He'll go along with whatever, as long as he gets attention/money. He's crass, so if he was a Democrat president, he'd still be an asshole, but he would have gone along with the liberal policies.
But it would never happen because Democrats are held to a higher standard and, as an idiot, the only way he can make himself stand out is through bigotry, which doesn't fly for liberal voters. DEFINITELY flies for conservatives though.
I still think it's possible that in 2016 they told him they were signing him up to play the President in a mockumentary. And that they still haven't told him otherwise.
Although I disagree with most of his politics, that's not the reason I dislike him.
I would never support a pedophile even if they were able to achieve all my political ideals, to me that's just a non-starter and I wish more people felt the same way. At this point the evidence and proven court cases are undeniable.
Of course we would. But also, this joke of a person would've never won as a Democrat. He chose Republicans because he knew he'd have a better shot with them.
How is this a shitpost in any kind of way
It's got Trump's picture in it. That's pretty shitty.
i think we lemmites should do our due diligence and start shitposting on c/politics
Does this count as a shitpost? I mean it’s about a piece of shit, but I’m not sure it’s the same thing.
Don't be a partisan hack. Politics isn't rooting for a sport team, nor a rock concert. Don't follow a leader because they are charismatic or likeable. Instead, support policies that reflect your values. Do not follow a person. If someone presents a policy that you support, or multiple policies that you support, embrace the policy for being great. Not the person. People are not superheroes.
top 94 comments