For years, Donald Trump has leaned on all-caps social media posts to grab attention online.

His Truth Social feed often reads like a never-ending shouting match. However, that changed after Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) began mocking the president’s style in dozens of posts interspersed among his regular missives.

This has been going on for the better part of a week, and seems to have gotten to Trump’s ego, as his latest Truth Social posts aren’t in his classic all-caps style.

top 79 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 179 points 1 year ago (44 children)

Mocking Fascists; Making them look foolish and ridiculing them, works. It's even more effective than just holding their feet to flame like Kamala.

This is probably why Jon Stewart is looking at running. Someone like him or Jordan Klepper is the worst case scenario.

  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The best strategy the democrats had was calling republicans weird, but then it just got cut off as it was gaining traction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago

    It’s been telling seeing how quickly many news sources abandoned any semblance of honesty when their owners tightened up on the reins.

    In the last two years I completely changed which sources I get news from, now I’m paying for more smaller sources and completely avoiding aggregators like Google or Apple news.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh no it’s alienating the (mythical and fictional) centrist voters!!! We don’t want to offend the republicans! Let’s stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    This is probably why Jon Stewart is looking at running.

    Is he? I thought it was just other people saying he should

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    He explicitly implied he was considering running on Charlemagne's show. Wouldn't mean much for most people but Jon has always aggressively shut down any such suggestion and here he brought it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Go watch the clip. In the context of Jon Stewart it's weird. He hasn't given the idea serious thought since the rally to restore sanity in ancient times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Even Jon Stewart cannot defy the rules of logic.

    Either he explicitly said "I am running for president" or he implied it by saying something other than "I am running for president."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    "I'm not saying I'm running for president but I'm not not saying that, if you know what I mean"

    (haven't seen the clip, just postulating)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    That's not explicit. At most, it strongly implies he's running.

    Pretty much whenever someone ends a sentence with "if you know what I mean", they are implying something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's not explicitly saying X, it's explicitly implying X. Really being explicit that they're implying the thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You can't explicitly imply something. You can either imply or be explicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Our understanding of how words work is different and that is ok. We've clearly communicated how we each interpret the phrase, so there's no misunderstanding in this case and we are unlikely to encounter the same phrase together again in the wild.

    edit: root disagreement is that you believe the adverb "explicitly" cannot modify the verb "imply", whereas I believe it can. I doubt either of us will convince the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    "Explicit" is literally defined as "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication"

    Which makes sense, because "explicit" and "implicit" are antonyms. Do you think that something can "explosively implode"?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    He clearly implied. Leaving no room for confusion or doubt that he implied what he implied.

    The implication was explicit. He’s considering running. No one thinks he was implying he would run for a spot on Sesame Street, or as Chief of Staff, or any other position.

    You don’t think that works well enough, especially in the context of Jon’s relationship with the subject in the past?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If you must interpret the meaning of his words based on additional context, then he was implying.

    If there is no need for interpretation, then he was being explicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    By explicitly implied, you mean he laughed and didn't explicitly deny it when asked, then changed the subject. Also keep in mind he's been asked this question publicly probably once a week for the last 20 years.

    I mean, it's possible. I'll just wait until he actually confirms he's exploring it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's weird that you're implying you know he's answered the question weekly(going hard with the hyperbole) but have obviously never seen him give said answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    He's been asked all the time since the George W. Bush administration. Incidentally the comments sections for The Daily Show have been filled with comments about it since their videos were first put on YouTube. Here's a random time he was asked. I found it in 5 seconds.

    https://youtu.be/RQMDZTAQsYE

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Mocking Fascists; Making them look foolish and ridiculing them, works

    I once heard "There's a reason neo-nazis idolize the nazi brother from American History X and not the Nazis in Springtime for Hitler." One takes the neo-nazi ideology seriously and provides counter arguments. The other is making Nazis look lame.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'd rather Stewart continue with his activism. Colbert on the other hand...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Look I can see that comment being made in person, but this is a pretty easily researched question being posed asynchronously.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert

    He was born in Washington, D.C.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago

    it’s like watching a 5 yr slapping everyone and then gets a slap back and goes ‘ouch that hurts!!’

    ANYWAYS: EPSTEIN FILES. WHERE THEY AT?

  • source
  • [+] 66 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's good knowing the leader of the most influential and powerful nation on the planet is easier to manipulate than a child.

    So, basically, like all conservatives.

    If you haven't already, make sure to grift your local conservatives. Get them in on a pyramid scheme. Tell them you're a Nigerian prince and need a small donation that you'll return with interest once you've retaken your kingdom. Swindle them in any way you can. They're stupid and they will fall for it. These are traitors to our nation and the less money they have, the less financial support they can provide to their favorite felon rapist pedophile.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    I know it’s gonna sound like beating a dead horse but this is what the democrats should have been doing since 2016. We all know how thin skinned and stupid trump and the GOP are and that they will always fall for meme and troll posts. Idk if it will help but this needs to be adopted by everyone who thinks they have a chance of winning against this republican regime.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    this is what the democrats should have been doing since 2016

    I kinda thought they should have prosecuted Trump and his known associates for their litany of criminal actions.

    But I guess making fun of them online from the office of the largest and most influential state in the country is also cool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fwiw i agree, however also: why not both?

    Im a little tired of the high horse shit, and see the democrats as enablers of facism (doesn't matter if it's intentional or not really, the result is the same)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wasn't he impeached him twice but the Senate didn't convict? How else should prosecution have been done?

    I'm a non-USian, so I'm genuinely curious what the actions you feel should have been taken instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • He should have been cuffed and arrested as he stepped out of the Whitehouse when his first term ended. Instead Biden called him a legitimate threat to democracy while doing absolutely jack shit to protect his citizens from said threat. And guess what? HE TURNED OUT TO BE A LEGITIMATE THREAT TO OUR MOTHERFUCKING DEMOCRACY. WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    How else should prosecution have been done?

    Merrick Garland's DOJ had four full years to build a case and prosecute it. Instead, he let Alvin Bragg do all the heavy lifting from the NYC DA's office, in a case that couldn't even wrap up before the election was over.

    I’m genuinely curious what the actions you feel should have been taken instead.

    There are people in Guantanamo Bay who have been imprisoned for over twenty years without a trial. People who have been cooling their heels through five different Presidential Administrations. If Joe Biden had seriously wanted to flex the muscles of the police state, if he truly believed Donald Trump was an existential threat operating on behalf of a foreign power on par with Muhammad Rahim or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al-Bahlul, he'd have been tried in a military court for treasonous acts in cooperation with a hostile military power.

    I got over eight fucking years of people saying he was in league with everyone from the FSB to the Italian Mafia and they all had a Steele Dossier full of evidence to prove it. That's before you even get on the Epstein stuff (and Epstein's ties to Mossad, which we all know Biden wasn't going to touch).

    The least you could do was nail him the way we did Martha fucking Stewart and lock him up on insider trading while in office.

    The sky was the fucking limit with this guy. He stunk to high heaven with the sheer volume of crimes. High Treason, Espionage Act, any number of white collar crimes, take your fucking pick. The FEC took Sam Bankman-Fried from free man to locked up inside nine months. Don't tell me that same agency couldn't have had Trump as quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    By the criminal justice system. For his actual crimes. Congress need not be involved. Alternatively, Biden could have "Whatever the president does is legal as long as it's an official act"ed him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They would've lost either way. People were blaming democrats for covid-related inflation and ignored any positive thing biden admin might have done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Reverse psychology...tell them the dems are trying to make it illegal to allow states single payer healthcare? Can we start there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why don't the Dems get together and do a single payer health program agreement that all blue states can opt into and tell them that the red states need not apply?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    That could be regarded as a form of Interstate Compact, and Interstate Compacts requires congressional approval (and probably subject to presidential veto), and it can get challenged in courts and we know what the supreme court composition looks like right now. And we don't know if congress can revoke a previously authorized compact, maybe the supreme court just make a ruling that allows permission to be revoked by the next congress.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Please enlighten me: what has Gruesome Newsome accomplished with regards to actual policy and legislation by adopting the same trolling methods of the far right?

    He’s just pushing the Overton window further into insanity territory. You realize if everyone adopts gerrymandering it essentially just erodes another aspect of our representative democracy?

    Fuck neoliberals. I didn’t vote for Kamala and I’m sure as hell not voting for Gavin “let’s have a chat with Nazis on my podcast” Newsome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    I'm not even surprised that "cyber bulling the president" is in this timeline. Cards Against Humanity needs to be taking notes.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    Bully the bully into submission!

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Its hilarious that rump did not realize how long people have been laughing at him for this.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hallmark of the troglodyte republican. All caps rants and conspiracies, then when questioned and present contradictory fact, FOLLOWS WITH THREATS AND INSULTS FOLLOWED BY A SIMLEY FACE 😁.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Im not a huge fan of Newsome but you got to give it to him. It took too long but someone is finally hitting Trump where it hurts. That is all anyone wanted to begin with. Had Kamala done this she would have won the election.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Republicans in Texas attempted to push through a mid-decade redistricting map

    Past tense? I thought this was going ahead.

    Edit: So...not past tense. It just went through. Guess this is just another shit writer in journalism who never learned English.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Trump is dismantling the country and here we are nitpicking about him using CAPS LOCK. My fellow Americans, you will have much to answer for when this is over.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Why is he able to continue dismantling the country? Because a significant number of people support what he is doing in some way or another.

    Why do they support him? Because his messaging, as inane as it is, resonates with a lot of people who genuinely see him as a strong, confident leader.

    Why do they see him as a strong confident leader? Because he talks and acts like a schoolyard bully, and a lot of people mistake overcompensating for insecurity as confidence.

    It's not going to work on all of his supporters, but just like with the Epstein Files (WHICH HE STILL HAS NOT RELEASED), if some chunk of his supporters see the emperor is naked, it erodes the mystique. Fact-checking him is useless because Trumpism is all about feelings--at least SOMEONE is realizing this and taking advantage of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)

    Next he should post about buying an island where dozens of hot young girls will entertain rich men with his business partner Chastain Boswell, ending with, "I DEFY THE LAW AND ORDER PARTY TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS! THEY PRACTICALLY ENDORSE IT!"

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Leave it to a Dem to compare himself (even sarcastically) with a genocider like Columbus.

  • source