I'm still gonna vote for him over the genocider in chief.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
23 points (92.6% liked)
People Twitter
4975 readers
1095 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lol whatever kiddo.
Explanation provided below, was responding to a trasnphobe and response was misdirected. Think he deleted his comment.
When I actually talk with Trump supporters, it's very clear to me that many don't actually support trump. Or, at least, not the trump we see. It's usually a case of leading a busy life and making the mistake of trusting a news org to tell you the truth of the matter when you have five minutes to catch up. And if you pick one that supports trump ...well you see where this goes. It is admittedly clear that people don't understand the gravity of the situation—but as a result, the 'crime' is usually ignorance, not maliciousness. As always, the fact that this is a 'political' topic muddies the water, and no one understands what the other side actually wants. We do agree on most things, it's just silly tribalism that makes us call a large portion of the population a "piece of shit".
There are always those outliers that are genuinely evil, but I do believe they're outliers.
Glenn Greenwald actually talked about how Trump supporters are famously distrustful of (a) the Security State and (b) corporate media, and so there's only like two news sources that they show positive numbers for trust in - Fox and Newsmax.
What doesn't help is that they do lie about Trump, and make him out to be a literal insurrectionist... Think what you want about him in terms of his politics being colored by racism and Islamophobia (his Muslim ban was pretty nuts), but you can't call the guy an insurrectionist unless you greatly modify what an insurrection is and what it means to insight one. Things like this plus upgrading frivolous financial misdemeanors that megacorporations routinely violate to federal crimes in an effort to remove him from the ballot have a radicalizing effect...
But yeah, IDK, I'd vote for Trump over Biden because he is antiestablishment and his foreign policy is better in the long run.
Where do you get your definition of insurrection? I'd have thought that attempting to overthrow a democratically elected government to install yourself as dictator meets just about any definition.
That's a mere interpretation of what happened that would never stand up in a court of law, hence why no formal charges have been brought. It's completely speculative.
Which is exactly why we can't remove him from ballots or refer to it as an insurrection.
Remember the Iraq War? We referred to the opposition after Hussein fell as terrorists (not very accurate, very lame Zioconservative take), or as insurgents, which is accurate.
Insurgency implies some long term armed resistance. It can't refer to some impromptu riot on the police lines.
You didn't answer my question - where do you get your definition of insurrection?
Trump has already been found to have incited insurrection in court, and was disqualified from the ballot in Colorado for just that reason.
The stacking of the senate, failure of democracy and abandonment of the rule of law makes bringing federal charges pointless (see his multiple impeachments). This is a strange standard to try (and fail) to apply under the circumstances.
I suppose my definition is the one from the Oxford dictionary:
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
J6 cannot meet such a burden since it was not an organized attempt and it certainly wasn't violent in the way that a real move to overthrow the government would be, only violent in the sense that any disorganized protest can be.
... And while some people can toss around the word insurrection, you notice that there is no serious charge against Trump on this, because there can be no charge, since he said nothing nor does any other evidence exists which show he incited anyone to any illegal act, let alone an attempt to overthrow the government. This is only possible through assumption & interpretation of what happened that it was even an 'insurrection.'
An organised attempt by a group of people
✅ Pre-planned by several groups - remember the criticism Pelosi was facing because it was well known ahead of time that this attack was planned? Several organisations were involved - Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, NSC-131, Qanon... Yep.
to defeat their government and take control of their country
✅ A transparent attempt to seize the capitol by force and overturn the election after loudly and consistently rejecting the results, coercing electors, posing as fake electors - not to mention decades of gerrymandering and voter suppression, but that's straying from insurrection into rigging elections... Yep.
usually by violence
✅ Aside from using force to achieve what they did, don't forget that there were caches of weapons and that Trump was trying to have the mag detectors removed. The insurrectionists were calling to hang members of parliament while forcing their way on to the floor, ransacking congressional offices, injuring cops... Yep.
What part of your definition do you think hasn't been met, again?
Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection because the Democrats are cowards and the Republicans and their appointed judges are corrupt. I'll rely on the dictionary for my definitions over relying on liberal cowardice and conservative corruption, thanks.
This is what's called "cherry picking". It was an insurrection, even Fox News calls it that. Bro...
Nah, an insurrection is what was happening in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (and happening rightfully so).
If what occurred on J6 was an insurrection, it would have been explicitly violent or had a real organized plan for the literal overthrow of the government.
Even the ridiculous plan organized by the Proud Boys was not really an insurrection even though it involved demanding a re-vote (or a re-vote after a recount) because it ultimately wanted to preserve democratic norms, and the fools who came up with it sincerely believed that democracy was completely undermined by the last election... Which, arguably, it was.
Employing non-lethal means to occupy a place as a protest seems reasonable, doesn't it? This is what people did after the killing of George Floyd.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself in order to feel like you're not a piece of shit for supporting Trump and/or the GOP
I would suggest that we have always wanted uprisings against the government which is ruled by corrupt, "middle of the road" people, right, so there should be a loose alliance between the grassroots right wing and the grassroots left wing that fight for policies that are ideological and based on principle.
It's the centrists, who govern through practicality and concerns of the immediate future, that are the greatest stumbling blocks to change. They have obligations to the elites - the ideological left/right do not have any such obligations.
I disagree vehemently with Trump on his views of Muslims and his ideas about Israel, of course, but the guy certainly is an enemy of the establishment and floats out ideas that are radical and haven't been talked about in decades, like his 10% tariff tax plan.
These are real starting points for change.
BTW, I am not really a conventional leftist - I am a Libertarian, and you probably got that from some of our arguments, but I want to come out and say it... I do nto want to be seen here like PRETENDING to be a conventional leftist and thus undermining discussion.
I as a Canadian just don't get the appeal. He's not handsome by any stretch so there's no ascetic attraction.
He's not nearly as wealthy as he claims he is so it can't be admiration for his success.
He's got zero charisma so it can't be his charm.
He's as dumb as a pile of rocks so it can't be they admire his intelligence.
He's got the athletic prowess of a half dead goldfish and the skin tone of one so it can't be his physical ability.
I honestly just can't fathom the appeal.
He reminds them of themselves because he has all the same "qualities" as them. He normalizes autocracy, xenophobia, sexism, racism, moral and ethical hypocrisy, and those are standard "qualities" of conservative Americans.
A big part of it that few are willing to look at is the that it is a reaction to the rapid, forceful acceptance of transgender issues in our society and i totally get it. Im not willing to support fascism though just cause i want things to change... im also not willing to argue about this with anyone cause people on both sides of this issue are as closed minded as it gets. edit: i've indulged this more than i planned on. i'm now done responding. I'd be happy to explain myself further, even arguing, but the LGBTQ agenda has taken over the internet and anything i have to say that goes against it gets removed because i'm "being a bigot."... this is fascism guys. MAGA is fascist, LGBTQ is fascist... go ahead and take my words down now. Have a nice day.
You know, just placing "being a bigot" in quotation marks doesn't make you not a bigot. You are very much a bigot. Like, the very definition of one. So if you've got a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster.
rapid, forceful acceptance of transgender issues in our society
Oh! How terrible for you! How can you possibly manage to live your life now that you're aware of other people's hardships? This is totally unfair for you!
It's less about trans people existing, and more about catering our society around a tiny subsection of people taking drugs to modify their appearance.
It's controversial to say men have penises these days because people are immediately jumping down our throat saying that's not the case.
What part of our society is catering to them? The part where we decide it's wrong to attack them because they are transgender? The part where we think it's okay for them to have the same rights as everyone else? Please tell.
Why is it any time there's the smallest opposition to anything trans it immediately swings to the extreme?
I never mentioned anything about denying their safety or talking about limiting rights.
It's legal in America, they can already do what they want. Which is far better than a majority of the world, where you can't even be gay.
People are pushing back on the rewriting of deeply entrenched societal norms. Latinx and all that other bullshit.
Be trans, don't force us to participate in your delusion with you.
You know you sound like a nazi and yet you keep repeating the same nazi propaganda.
Do you complain about accommodation for anyone else? 🤔 All you have to do is literally not say something offensive to a trans person. That's it. You don't have to like trans people, you don't have to like gay people. Hell, you don't even have to like black people if you're a racist. BUT YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THEM ALONE. That is literally all you're required to do. If leaving people alone is a problem I'm afraid it's a you problem.
This shit right here
You're blurring the line between actual extremists who seek to physically harm and completely erase trans people, and moderate people with mild criticisms.
Because we don't want exactly what you want, we're Nazi's.
You're welcome to delude yourselves, you are allotted that freedom. Don't call us transphobes because we don't want to date you. Don't call us transphobes because we don't want to remove all form of gender from language (Latinx). Don't call us transphobes because we misgendered you on account of your massive fucking adams apple and deep voice.
I've been nice to every trans person I've come across in my life, and don't voice my opinions to them.
I'm not the problem. Go after the radicals who seek to erase freedoms.
You can't keep your mouth shut. I'm sure this isn't the only place you harass trans people online and I'm sure you do it in real life too.
All you have to do is leave people the fuck alone, that's it. If all you lot Just. Left. People. Alone. There wouldn't be a problem but you can't even do that. That's why trans people, hell, any person from a marginalized community has to fear for their safety. You just can't leave them alone.
Have a nice day.
I'm not allowed to talk?
You guys sound more like Nazis than you claim.
These intolerant people don't want people who aren't like them to even exist, much less accept them as a normal part of society. They are happy to ignore sex chromosome differences they can't necessarily see like YY, XXY, XXX, chimeras with multiple sets of genetic information, etc., while placing their own ignorance over the consensus of scientists, doctors, and psychologists. It's not much different than racism, really. Just another way of othering.
you're projecting... have a nice day.
"...im also not willing to argue about this...cause closed minded as it gets"
I didn't say im not willing to change my mind, i said im not willing to argue about it... with people on the internet
Hate to tell you but I'm non binary. I'm 49 and knew in 1978 that I was the wrong gender.
I'm also neurodivergent and there is compelling evidence that there is a connection between gender dysphoria and neurodivergant disorders like adhd and autism.
Maybe accepting trans people is simply learning to accept that people are built different and that something that is part of a person's disability should be accepted because people with disabilities should be accepted.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe but i don't believe you and i'm not going to argue about it. Have a nice day.
Why do you say "have a nice day" when you obviously don't mean it? You completely othered their existence/identity/personhood immediately before saying, "have a nice day." Is it easy for you to do that, to depersonalize someone?
This is a belief that people have, i do not share their belief but i still hope they have a nice day. take it or leave it, im not going to explain any further.
That's an interesting way to say "I'm a bigot."
label me however you want, it doesn't mean you're right... have a nice day
I feel like your last sentence should inspire some introspection for you haha
I didn't say im not willing to change my mind, i said im not willing to argue about it... with people on the internet
I get that people are super emotional about the upcoming election, i am too. But this kind of emotion, and the feelings i see posted on this thread have no use to anyone.
Why do we hate the people who are easily fooled rather than the people who are doing the fooling?
Will openly hating them and showing superperiority to them make them change or just make us feel better?
How long and how loudly will "left wing" voices need to be (voices like this tweet i mean), how open will their distaste for right wing (citizens) have to be, before we on the left start wondering whether the party we believe in has the "moral superiority"it claims to?
I am starting to feel like you could just switch a few words around and then the shit we believe about them and the shit they believe about is identical, in a fun house mirror kinda way
Why do we hate the people who are easily fooled rather than the people who are doing the fooling?
The problem is willful ignorance. A lot of Trump supporters knew better from day 1 and chose to be easily fooled. I had a friend when I was a kid who used to cheer on the defendants in court cases when he thought they were guilty of heinous crimes because they got to "fuck with the system" if they got off. People like that grew up to vote for Trump because he would "fuck with the system".
I think it's ok to hate someone who voted for Trump BECAUSE they wanted to elect an enemy of the majority. It might not be productive to hate them, but it's okay to.
How long and how loudly... how open will their distaste for right wing
We're dumb evil immoral pedophiles who are going to hell, and every time we try to cooperate with them in any way they backstab us and then blame us. What exactly are we losing standing up to them when they're going to punch us whether or not we do?
I am starting to feel like you could just switch a few words around and then the shit we believe about them and the shit they believe about is identical
The concept is assymetry. The most obvious (Godwinian) example is to take virtually any anti-Nazi quote and intersperse the word "Jew". All of a sudden it becomes horrible and bigoted. You can absolutely then take any anti-Jew bigotry and say the word "Nazi", and it suddenly becomes just and true.
Why? Because Trump Supporters and Democrats ARE fundamentally different. The best answer to the paradox of tolerance says that tolerance is a social contract - we are to be tolerant to those others who accept to follow that contract, but it can be open season (in terms of intolerance, not violence) for those who do not.
Why? Because Trump Supporters and Democrats ARE fundamentally different.
I don't think that's true, at all. I've been lucky enough to have some conversations with Trump voters and they have indeed said some dumb ass shit. But nothing unexpected, they're all from fox n shit
After we get past the fox talking points and bullshit we are the same.
view more: next ›