this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
1106 points (96.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
7608 readers
2664 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really hope for once Congress does its job and MAGA actually fights him on this, since some have already been saying this is too much even for them, starting with the plane.
Let it be on the record yet again that Trump does not have a luxury plane retrofitted with millions in taxpayer money - not because he refused the bribe, but because he was barred from accepting it. Refusing a bribe =/= Having a bribe forcibly taken from your hands.
Let him not gain anything from it or this, but still have that ethic shitstain smeared all across his face as he tries to gaslight the world with his lies. Not that he wouldn't try to claim that since he doesn't have the plane, it means he "refused" it, or "it was a joke all along".
Qatar offered him a plane. This post is about Syria.
What are you on about? Are you just reading a word or two in these comments and arguing with the first thing you come up with? Because I don't see how else you could miss their intended point so hard.
It's a pro Trump .ml troll who goes into every thread and rants about liberals and Democrats.
Ok? What does it have to do with the fact that "Trump has opened the Presidency up for business/loves his bribes"? Feel free to narrow context outside of the point of my statement, as if either bribe is completely disconnected from the other, but the plane is still a really important catalyst for the rest - it's what signals "Qatar quid pro quo, then Syria quid pro quo, then somewhere else quid pro quo". I won't even say "quid pro quo with anyone", because that line is already being crossed right here with a terrorist, so that would be moot.
Way more effective to cut the whole evil right at its root, where its most blatant, in order to stop the rest from spreading.
Because it demonstrates that you're not qualified to speak about foreign policy issues if you can't even keep two very different countries straight. Much moreso when you don't apologize and own up to it when it's pointed out, but instead double down and say, "So what?" because anyone can make an error, but it only becomes a mistake when you refuse to correct it.
This whole thread is full of people who were fully on board with funding Julani to fight Assad because the news told them Assad needed to go, only, they forgot they support him and saw a random tweet calling him a terrorist and only a handful of people were actually aware enough to remember who they support and push back on it. But you really took the cake, you really went above and beyond, by not even getting the country right.
If this is the state of the American public's awareness of countries like Syria (and it is), then pro-US leaders like Jolani obviously can't rely on them, who will turn on them at the drop of a hat because they saw a random tweet calling them a terrorist. But I guess they're in luck since the public has so little influence over policy. So naturally what they do is appease the ruling class, through lucrative deals and bribes.
But who cares? So what if the post calls the US friendly leader of a precarious country a terrorist? So what if you mix up Qatar and Syria? So what if you talk nonsense grounded in willful ignorance because you can't be assed to learn basic facts about countries the US has been fucking with, yet still expect people to listen to you? The important thing is, for a wonderful moment, you got to make fun of Trump.
Liberals are approximately 10% less anti-intellectual than conservatives, which means they're still extremely anti-intellectual, but don't realize it because of how low the bar is.
But they did keep them straight, you're just misunderstanding their comment. It's a little complex but it's not unintelligible.
Their whole top comment is a non sequitor.
First of all, not american, and me "mixing" them up is entirely another assumption of yours - which you are free to make, as I can't control what you decide to think or how you interpret things, and that's a-ok with me. I'm in fact considerably closer to Syria and Qatar.
Secondly, this rather seems a personal and touchy subject to you, as your willingness to insult, dismiss and assume (ironically) indicates. This is further reinforced by your posting history, which clearly tells me you're a very combative person who loves to disagree for the pleasure of it, and doesn't mind spending a lot of time trying to one-up others disagreeing with you in any way, I assume with ego as a driving force. So with that in mind, no real point in arguing with you, right? Even though it would seem we're mostly aligned when it comes to the bigger picture.
So I hope whatever is going on gets better, but this is where I stop engaging in toxic rants, regardless of what you may think of me.
What nationality are you? Will you deny that: Qatar human rights are a significant concern, particularly regarding the treatment of migrant workers, who face exploitation, wage theft, and unsafe working conditions. Additionally, there are restrictions on freedom of expression, discrimination against women, and laws that criminalize homosexuality, which contribute to a challenging human rights environment. Is it any wonder Trump is accepting a gift from Qatar?
What? Where do I even hint that I would deny "Qatar's human rights are of significant concern"? Or that I am surprised that Trump is accepting bribes?
My statements on this matter have pretty much been: Trump openly takes bribes -> Trump should be held accountable -> Regardless of where the bribe takes place or from who it comes. And one commenter starts derailing it because "Hurr durr Qatar and Syria are not the same place", while another goes "why are you denying Qatar has a human rights problem", both of which don't even come near the point I was making. Can't we just agree what Trump is doing is wrong and not look elsewhere for excuses to nitpick and create chaos? Are the internet points for having "good obvious opinions" really that important?
Literally nothing to do with defending wrongdoing from anywhere or trying to justify it- which is just twisting words to make them seem like something else and go from there to create needless drama - which in turn is why I ignored the other commenter in the first place.
Then my point is even stronger. If American politics are foreign to you, and you've demonstrated ignorance of foreign policy, then maybe try shutting the fuck up, not only about Syria and Qatar, but also about American politics.
No investigation, no right to speak.
You're one of those people who doesn't understand what's being said but is convinced they 100% do. YATAH here.
Your downvotes mean nothing to me because I've seen what you upvote.
Like seriously, the fuck makes you think I care if you think I'm an asshole? 800+ upvoted this post, all of those 800+ people were pretty objectively wrong to do so and demonstrated that they're completely unqualified to speak about foreign policy, so I'm not at all surprised to get ratio'd in the comments or get called an asshole for pointing out that they're wrong. Genuinely, could not care less what any of those 800+ people think of me, this community has clearly demonstrated its ignorance and I'm not going to pretend otherwise and pull pinches just to farm upvotes.
Like, y'all call al-Jolani "a known terrorist" and then think your insults still carry weight when you call me an asshole?
It's insane the amount of comments about him accepting and making these bribes while the entire government for the last 50 years has been bought and sold with lobbyists and business owners. It is like he is the only one and not the entire Congress is behind this behaviour..
You are right. But here's the key difference:
A President enriching others who support him (as opposed to "doing what's best for the nation" generally speaking), while still wrong, is not the same as personally enriching himself and this blatantly. The US has always been like this and many would have loved to do what Trump is doing, but didn't dare go this far and so recklessly. Trump is merely a product of his country, and it kind of surprises me it took this long for someone like him to get his paws directly on this kind of power.
Instead of being a businessman currying favor with the President, he skips the middle man entirely and becomes President himself, to his own personal benefit.
But hasn't it been the case in many things that Trump just does more and more boastfully what others were doing before more quietly and slickly?
I mean, look at the Israeli Genocide, were Biden was actively supporting Israel with guns and ammo (including sending 2000lb bombs which even the US Military won't use "because they have a too large collateral") but decorating it all with a bit of Theatre ("we're talking to Israel about a cease fire"), or how students were already being violently suppressed by the police under Biden when they demonstrated against the Genocide, or the immigrant thing were Biden was already imprisoning and deporting the most immigrants ever (even than Trump's first term) including separating children from their parents but it was all done much more quietly, or, as others pointed out, the Democrats having been on the take as much as the Republicans (who can forget Hilary Clinton getting paid half a million dollars for a couple of hours work to go give a speech to some Goldman Sachs' traders just before the election, something which probably contributed to her loss), or the giant civil society surveillance apparatus as revealed by Snowden built-up and supported by both Republican and Democrat presidents.
In these kinds of things Trump pumped up the volume and tore down the curtains hiding what's going on in the backstage, whilst not really changing the nature of what is being done significantly, just doing more of it and being loudly about it rather than using some florid language to claim to be doing the opposite as the previous ones did.
America had already been moving towards full-blown Fascism before Trump (personally I saw the giant civil society surveillance apparatus as a massive red flag, as that's the kind of thing that Authoritarian regimes have, not Democracies),
For real.