The New York Times downplayed his racist, sexist and violent rhetoric and doing "both sides" shit for the last 8 years (the best word I have heard to describe this is "sanewashing")... and now they are coming out with this?
Fuck the New York Times.
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
~ Douglas Adams
"I'd never be a member of any club that would have me"
You know what I would do if I was president?
Curl up under the desk in the oval office and cry because I have no idea how to run a country.
You'd be doing better than some past presidents at least
Wasn't there one that died, like, a week into office because he was too cool to see a doctor or something dumb like that?
Nah, he saw a doctor, but because it was 1841 the treatment for his flu/pneumonia/septic shock from the White House having tainted water was: bloodletting, forced vomiting, opium, laudanum, and brandy.
Just say yes to 75% of things, read from the prompter, and shake hands
What about a little insurrection? You know, as a treat?
Because of the original commenter's pfp and instance, I'm now picturing a furry insurrection and its kinda terrifying.
If I was President I’d be taking so much anxiety medication and sobbing regularly over how difficult it is to do it ethically and to create lasting improvements to the country while everyone demands my soul in exchange for their vote in favor of necessary changes to our society, especially of the environmental sort.
Absolutely everyone believes him. The people that say that he means something other than what he's saying believe him but don't want to be stuck with the image that they're okay with it.
And to clarify to you specifically and the three-ish people that upvoted me, on a weekly basis he helps a 40 year old dude with multiple sclerosis do history homework, and they were covering the second world war. He read the Wikipedia of fascism, and he literally said that he had no idea it was a right wing ideology.
What can I glean from that? I have no fucking clue. Fuck Nazis, fuck republicans. I can only hope that there is a large group of people voting conservative who dont understand the consequence of this next election. Because if you're right than like 40% of the country are bigots, and even if the Democrats win, we're *still fast tracking to collapse
You can always take solace that you weren't down voted.
When you're talking about a set as large as 40 to 50% of the US there will always be exceptions. This exceptions will be numerous yet statistically and significant.
When someone says absolutely every one of the US is X, it's almost always going to be a representation of the truth rather than the actual truth.
Imagine having to even respond to that....
"Yeah he means it and I'm voting for all that shit!"
Or
"He doesn't mean that, he just lies to us to get our votes and I'm voting for him!"
Either way you're a fucking moron... Those dumb fucking people are going to set us back so much further than we already have been...
That's very not true. And it's honestly scarier. I work about ten minutes from Trump's first assassination attempt.
My boss is a good Christian who didn't know that fascism is a far right ideology.
They're in their own echo chamber, just like we are. They just don't understand that their echo chamber leads to a Hitler 2.0.
Let's be honest. There is litterally no situation where you should ever believe a thing trump says.
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
The New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The New York Times:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/25/opinion/what-trump-says.html
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High
I find this very funny. Can we get an Obama awarding himself meme in here?
Especially with the context from the wiki saying the opposite lol
Well thats confusingly transparant.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News