277
Revenge: analysis of Trump posts shows relentless focus on punishing enemies
(www.theguardian.com)
Oh punishments coming, just not from him or his minions
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
277 points (98.3% liked)
News
23311 readers
3574 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This article touches on important: what are the Democrats in Congress doing to prepare for another Trump presidency?
He's been pretty vocal about his vindictive he wants to be so you would expect them to say least be trying to push laws to restrict the abuse that he, or any other president could on political enemies.
The article mentions a bipartisan bill that passed the house but couldn't get through the Senate. Why aren't Democrats talking about that bill more publicly to get it passed?
Lock him the fuck up. Traitor shitcunt.
He has no sense of humour, or sense of care for others. All he has is greed and the ability to screech negativity.
In short, if your aren't one of his obedient, adoring, loyal, sycophants, you are his enemy, even then if you screw up you go to his enemies list.
I was born after Watergate, but I've read enough about the era to know that when it was revealed that Nixon has an 'enemies list,' it was a massive scandal. There seemed to be a general consensus that was not something a president should have.
Fast forward to 2024 and Trump.
I guess when your enemies list isn't a secret one, it's fine?
The issue is that society has degraded to the point where fucktards are coddled.
Hot take: I also think that such a list is not something a president should have.
Then again I think having a president with so much power is a silly idea in the first place.
Honestly with the internet, we might be able to live in the first technologically viable direct democracy. I’d be curious to see a proposal for how that could be implemented.
I don't know if I would trust an internet where a guy played a long con with xz Utils development to engineer a back door into Linux systems with accurately tabulating votes.
Direct democracy sounds like a horrible system for national governance, though. The average person has nowhere near the capacity to be informed enough on a wide range of issues to make good decisions. You need specialists with deep domain knowledge to guide policy decisions, not lots of laypersons.
Our elected representatives aren’t specialists with deep domain knowledge either. Ideally you have specialists in a specific role as drafters of legislation, administrative people appointed to filter through the bills, but the final vote goes to the people instead of Congress. That way you don’t get fiascos like abortion rights where you have a small group of people controlling us despite overwhelming support.
No they aren't, but at least they'll typically be working with and advised by people who do have that domain knowledge. And yeah, I could see a system working where there's basically a veto vote for the people.
Yeah I’m not pretending I’ve thought deeply about my proposed system. But the people at very least deserve the ability to have a direct hand in legislation. Politicians are not scared enough of their electorate.
I used to agree that people should be able to vote directly on issues. Not sure where I land anymore. We seem way more vulnerable to propaganda than one would have expected.
If the status quo somehow carries on for another decade I wouldn't be surprised if the 20% to 30% of extremist nuts becomes 50% or higher.
Wish I had a solution.
Unfortunately, all the problems that exist in the population also exist for legislators. Turns out they are extremely vulnerable as well!
If you think a president has too much power now, if Republicans get their way, you ain't seen nothing yet...
If Trump wins, it may well be the last free election the US will see
Even if he doesn't, if there isn't a massive landslide for Democrats, it's still looking shaky.
True, it's not like conservatives will stop being conservatives
Not sure we need any type of analysis.
Skimming provides sufficient proof.
It's good to have this stuff be official for the sake of future historians.
Hitler wouldn’t be so romanticized if he had a shitter account. Probably plenty of juicy quotes his advisors/confidants decided to not write down and broadcast.
Is "romanticised" the word, though?
Well, depends on your social circles growing up perhaps, then. He certainly wasn't described in any idealised terms when I grew up
Kind of? Look at Charlottesville.
He wasn't exactly coy about his intentions in his public speeches.
No, but his true pettiness wasn't revealed until we found out things from people who were around him before and during the war.
Because he has nothing, policy-wise. It's just what his 'best' hires tell him and he just goes with it, without any comprehension of the issue at hand, nor the consequences of his choice. You might as well be flipping a coin, weighted on the side that benefits him, as an imbecil, and now convicted felon, the most.