News

He's not complaining. He's establishing precedent.

That seems like a dumb non-complaint that will nevertheless resonate with his paranoid base.

If you get pulled over for just rolling through a stop sign, did you know THE COP BRINGS THEIR GUN WITH THEM when they approach your car???

I have an explanation:

Propaganda works really well.

The things you listed are what someone on the left thinks of Trump.

Someone who is: Tough on Crime™, Fights for Liberty™, Cares for Children™, a Successful Business Man™, Fights Wokeness™, Highly Intelligent™, Protects Democracy™, and Fights for Christianity™, is what those on the right are made to believe Trump is.

Propagandists are why Trump will win again...

I hate propagandists with every fiber of my being.

Not only do they give cover to this piece of shit, they make the right feel as if WE are oppressing and attacking them! They literally put us all in danger by making the right feel threatened by our existence.

This is NOT the same as us saying POLITICIANS on the right putting us in actual danger and actually oppressing us... One is saying Joe schmoe liberal is the danger, the other is saying Mitch Mcfuckbag in the Senate is a danger to us all.

I mean...none of those things are disqualifying for running for office, even if he were convicted of any crimes related to them, which he hasn't been. Trump is a piece of shit, but yes he has a right to run for office. Now why people would still vote for him despite all that, is much more mysterious.

Republicans see whatever they want in their candidates. They even bend to them. I mean "who here has never paid for a prostitute?" Is now something they say to defend Trump. There are no values, their foundation is nothing but their own reflections, and there is no meeting them in the middle, they just move the goal post (which pretty much makes Democrats enablers).

I think the issue is, if we were to make laws saying you cant run for president if you are convicted of a crime or suspected or whatever, it would give incentives to politicians to try to frame or imprison their political rivals. Then there are things like our drug laws that disproportionately target certain groups. All those people would be barred from running too.

It's definitely an issue that needs to be resolved. One of so many....please help

None of those are legally disqualifying. That's the explanation.

Democrats vote for candidates they love; Republicans vote for a party they love.

It's dependent on wealth, not date.

Literally?

That man has a rabid base.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action"

What's the one millionth time...

Compare how and why people cheer for sports teams. If you're affiliated you will support any statement in favor of the team, while ignoring, suppressing, or attacking any statements to the contrary.

You won't debate a Trump troll out of supporting Trump, because it's about belonging to a group and showing loyalty regardless of facts. Honestly I'm not surprised he's doing so well, consider how techy most of us are and still get overwhelmed by what the Internet is shaping up to be. If you're in your 50's from a poor rural area, what chance have you got to stand against weaponized online propaganda?

We are all like this, by the way. The inclination to blind affiliation with groups is the result of very deep, very old, very well studied cognitive structures and behaviors.

Here's some introductory reading that might fundamentally change how you perceive people's participation in groups:

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/sociology/conformity
Sherif's autokinetic experiment - if enough people around you believe something, you'll soon believe it too

https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
A similar experiment performed by Solomon Asch

https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html
The Robber's Cave experiment - arbitrarily divide a group into two, and watch the inevitable descent into inter-group conflict (hopeful note: if you make the groups try to overcome a common obstacle, fighting goes away)

Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Tests - This is an interesting one as well, here's the idea:

Experiment: Infiltrating a doomsday cult before, during, and after the date of their supposed apocalypse, Festinger and his fellow scientists noted that instead of losing faith, members doubled-down on their beliefs after the ‘end times’ came and went — eventually believing that their work saved the world.

Conclusion: When we have two (or more) incompatible thoughts, we adjust them to minimize internal conflict, what Festinger called ‘cognitive dissonance’ — a term that explains the mind state of those unwilling to accept information that conflicts against their belief.

I mean, aren't they always? If someone starts shooting at an FBI agent they're not going to call their field office for permission to shoot back.

You mean make him more popular with the pro-russian anti-vax Qanut base? Absolutely.

She even stored them upside down. Treacherous shithead.

You might need to have read other stuff to get this joke. It's not my job to provide backstory.

“…cast the first hamberder”