Factually, that’s what he did during his time in office as well. I’m not sure what they thought had changed.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    What worries me is we’ll have a repeat of 2016 where everyone just assumed Hillary was going to win so they didn’t vote. Hopefully people will go out and vote regardless.

    • Macallan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I didn’t vote for Hillary because she sucked. I voted 3rd party that election. I’m definitely voting Harris/Waltz this time.

          • spongebue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Yes, I figured as much when you said you voted 3rd party. Unless we get ranked choice or some other form of voting, we are going to get a president from one of the two main parties for the foreseeable future. Until then, a vote for the person who shares 90% of your views instead of 75% will help the guy who shares 5% of your views with you. Not to mention that the 75% candidate had about a decade of being dragged through the mud prior to the election to make her seem worse than she really is.

            • Macallan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              I (and a lot of others) are not going to “Toe the line” for whoever the DNC shoves down our throats if we don’t feel like it. The DNC learned a good lesson in 2016. I’m not ashamed that I didn’t vote for Hillary just because she was “better than Trump”. I didn’t like either candidate, so I voted third party to help boost their numbers to help get away from a 2 party system. I’m not sorry for that, and whatever shit you give me isn’t going to change my opinion.

              • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                “Boosting their numbers” in the single biggest election doesn’t make them a viable party. Third party candidates got an average of 5% of the vote in the 2016 presidential election (unless you include Utah to blow the bell curve to a whopping 7%).

                Getting that party’s candidates established in local governments across the nation so they gain a following, experience, and momentum is what does make them viable. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way. Zero people care who didn’t win the presidential election or why - it’s winner take all. No message is received.

                • Macallan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I don’t care. I didn’t like either candidate and voted accordingly. 2016 wasn’t my fault. Put up a better candidate and I would have voted for them.

              • cheesebag@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. How did that “help get away from a 2 party system”? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m curious.

                What “lesson” do you think the DNC learned in 2016?

                What’s your plan to institute ranked voice voting & national popular vote?

                • Macallan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I wasn’t old enough to vote in the 1992 election. I was only 15.

                  I think the DNC learned that pushing a candidate that wasn’t well liked isn’t going to win them an election, just because that’s who they wanted to put in the spotlight. (Anecdotal based on my personal conversations. I haven’t researched it.)

                  Reducing the 15% National electorate requirement by the FEC for presidential debates would be a start. This allows lesser known parties and candidates a voice on the national stage and gives them more national coverage.

                  I’m just a random person. I personally don’t have a plan how to institute ranked choice voting, but I would absolutely vote for a ranked choice voting system rather than keeping the current 2 party system.

    • forrcaho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Young people need to get enthusiastic to vote; and Hillary didn’t do that for them. Hillary didn’t do that for me-- because she’s best buds with Jamie Dimon and his ilk, and would only be joining a picket line when hell froze over-- but I still got out and made the only realistic vote against Trump because I’m a grownup.

      It’s different this time because Democrats are finally being convincing that they’re not aligned with the billionaires, and because we’ve seen what a Trump presidency was actually like now. I think that will get more of the youth vote (with lots of GOTV effort, of course).

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      thats not entirely accurate. Yes there was not as much enthusiasm behind Hillary as there was behind Obama, and she had a lot of (mostly invented) baggage, but she lost beacause she didnt campaign in a meaningful way lost a few swing states by a small margin (because yes, most reasonable people assumed she’d be the next president—and so many reasonable people assumed that eventuality that she won the popular vote by a wide margin).

      Trump is noise and makes money for media outlets so they give him a massive and constant boost of brand recognition. They could’ve all been even mildly responsible in 2020 and just stop talking about the out of office former president but instead they kept him in the zietgeist which allowed him to run again this year.

      I am still finding hope in the fact he did not win reelection the first time against a walking corpse elder statesman, and has not won elections for most of his endorsed down-ballot candidates in the past X years.

      Anyway, people who do not want him in office should go and vote against him.

      (and people who do want to see him in office again, sorry you shouldn’t vote for a lot of reasons but the biggest one being they’ll know who you are and that’s how they get you and also vaccines are mandatory for the polls so you should stay away and they’ll also forcibly swap your genitals and ITS REALLY TRUE FOLLOW ME ON FACETUBE)

    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The possibility worries me, but this situation seems closer to Obama’s campaign than Hillary’s. Somewhere inbetween for sure, but people are enthusiastic.

    • Cranakis @lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Absolutely. When I saw the headline I thought the same thing. Bad actors will try to sew exactly that thought in liberal circles as long as Dems have the momentum.

      We can’t buy into it and need to resolve ourselves to fight like hell until election day, regardless of what “the polls” or “the experts” say. We need to make Kamala win in an indisputable landslide. We need to send a message that will make Trump and his acolytes political pariahs from now on.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Even if she had won I’d be pissed at them, you don’t celebrate a candidate’s victory if you don’t even bother voting for them.

  • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    He is expecting a house contingency vote after his 70+ swing state sycophants deny Harris the 270 threshhold when he’s under by delaying to certify. that’s why he doesn’t care

  • hrschultz15@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Haha! You have Trump confused with Dementia Joe. He’s only awake for 6 hours a day. Trump works round the clock. And he gets things done. Only a fool and an idiot would deny this fact.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s because he only cares about when the election happens. He has plans in place to deny the results and to send his chud army out to terrorize. That’s all he is waiting for.

    • bluemellophone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah… this feels right. He seems to have checked out because the real campaign starts once he has lost. They’d rather use their dollars shielding him from further judicial consequence and preparing to set the country on fire once he loses.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, the whole “Dems cheated by pulling a switcheroo with candidates” line seemed to feed into that, but I also feel like there was a bit of slack-jawed “well we didn’t see this coming” panic in the Republican party as well

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I think there’s also a panic of nothing they tried before is working anymore and now without Biden trump’s age related degeneration is becoming really obvious

    • rainynight65@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Thing is though, if that’s his plan, he still needs to keep his base energised. If all they see him do now is slack off and visibly not care, they may just think he’s given up, and not turn up on election day. Fraud will be harder to argue with meagre turnout of his voters. They may also be harder to mobilise in November if they got disenchanted with him in September.

      So in a way, by stewing, sulking and slacking off, he may just not be doing himself any favours.

  • norimee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I can imagine that this is a combination of his mental decline, his thoughts of grandeur that the people vote for him regardless and the knowledge that they won’t accept any negative election results and they have a better, bigger plan in place invalidating the results and a Jan. 62

    I really hope officials are better prepared this time for the GOPs shady business. Because they basically publicly announced it several times. Believe them when they say they’ll fight the results, you don’t have to vote anymore and they’ll make the US an autocracy.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I really hope officials are better prepared this time for the GOPs shady business.

      Jan 6, 2021 had a lot to do with who was President at the time. On Jan 6 2025 it’s not going to be Trump in the Whitehouse.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I really hope officials are better prepared this time for the GOPs shady business.

      They have a bunch of poll workers to gum up the works. People who think that 2020 was stolen, so they’re volunteering for “election integrity”. They really think they have an ace in the hole with this. Be prepared for reports of “anomalies” in swing states.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    His advisors keep trying different approaches and new sales pitches. But the problem with Trump isn’t the marketing- they are selling an outdated, inferior and defective product.

  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is an interesting article - thanks for sharing! I found this snippet noteworthy:

    According to one former aide who served in the White House under the former president, Trump has lost the plot.

    “The stakes for Trump this election are arguably the highest they’ve ever been. His criminal cases don’t go away if he loses. Yet he seems to be phoning it in, running a remarkably low-energy, undisciplined campaign,” explained Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump spokesperson. “From spending days off the campaign trail golfing to coming up with frankly weak nicknames like ‘Kamabala,’ it feels like he’s lost his mojo.”

    That is a good point about the criminal cases not going away if he loses, right? It’s interesting how it’s openly stated by the former aide.

    I’m unable to muster any sympathy for the felon’s perpetual state of stewing.

    • anon6789@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      If he loses, I’m very curious to see if people in power still support him. I don’t think he will be very viable again in 4 years, physically or mentally.

      He may become more useful if they let him get eaten by the legal machine. Then they’re able to invoke his image like they do with Reagan all the time, but with some martyrdom thrown in about how those mean libs kicked a former president when he was down, nevermind he got away with the crimes he’d be charged with for about a decade by then.

      He might not ever serve time, but having everyone ignore him as useless as he sunsets might be an almost fitting punishment. We know the right struggles with empathy, so he could be facing some very frosty cold shoulders.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        If he loses, there will be another Jan 6 with both sides being more ready for it, maybe even the supreme court tries to forcefully install him, then the cognitive decline will be so severe he no longer needed for the GOP, then global fascism goes from moderate decline to steep decline, with currently far-right parties pulling the “let’s pretend we’re moderates” game like Fidesz and many others will actually have to become moderate.

        • anon6789@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I just don’t feel the same energy. I see much less Trump signs and so on, though it’s picked up a little, it’s nowhere near what it used to be. The MAGA relatives aren’t going on about it at get-togethers, and when they do, it’s much less passionate than prior years.

          I think any gathering in DC is not going to be met with the same light hands as before. There’s no one there to whip them into a frenzy, and with a Dem president and potential future president in charge, win or lose, I don’t feel they would go out sitting idle. Last time was the guy in the oval office trying to stay. Now he’s got to try to get in, and that seems to be a much steeper hill to climb.

          Don’t get me wrong, even if Dems were to sweep everything, the fascists aren’t going to go quietly. Plenty of Americans have always been monarchists, and plenty supported the literal Nazis up until bombs fell. Then they just didn’t like those Nazis.

          A large portion of this country still seems pissed the North won the Civil War, and until that gets resolved, the need to guard our country isn’t over.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah maga round here aren’t pro trump anymore they’re “Kamala is four more years of this economy”. It’s definitely a different energy than in the past

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        The best thing that could have happened for Republicans was trump got assassinated and Biden refused to step down.

        Now they’re stuck with trump and Dems cut all their baggage by dropping their elderly infirm candidate.

        trumps only real shot is stepping down to. Letting someone else run, and counting on them to pardon everything possible and the SC to take care of the rest.

        That has a chance at least, but he can’t beat Kamala.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The best thing that could happen for Republicans and Trump is that they manage to fuck with the election enough that it doesn’t matter who wins the vote, either the Senate or the Supreme Court awards the election to Trump.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Senate

            I mean, if Mike Pence wouldn’t do it, I don’t know if Chuck Schumer will…

            Supreme Court

            It’s really not that easy for them. It worked on Gore because party leadership was telling Gore to concede, if he won he’d have put progressives in charge of the DNC.

            But even if the SC tries to hand it to trump, it doesn’t mean much. They can say it till they’re blue in the face, it only matters if the Dem candidate goes along with it and concedes. The DNC won’t push Kamala to “do the right thing to unite the country” because Kamala ain’t going to significantly change the course of the DNC or the personal at it’s helm.

            That’s the big difference, and why I don’t think we have to worry about the SC this time installing a republican.

            We would likely see some civil unrest and strife if they tried, but hopefully that would at least convince Kamala to actually do something about the SC instead of just fucking ignore it like Biden did.

            • cogman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              I don’t have this much faith. What lost gore the election is the fact that it was a terribly close election that the supreme court could swing one way or another (and they swung it for bush). If this is a close election for trump and there’s 1 or 2 cases that would make him win, I definitely see the supreme court swinging in his favor. This is quite obvious if you look at the recent case that granted him full immunity. The SC is more than willing to bend of over backwards if it furthers rightwing ideals.

              As for what the house/senate can do to swing the case, that loophole was mostly closed after the 2020 election. There’s not the same room that trump was trying to exploit to steal an election from congress. I worry a lot more about election laws in swing states stealing the election for Trump. There were more than a few laws passed in republican controlled swing states that gave republicans more discretion in figuring out “legitimate” votes.

        • anon6789@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m glad he put in as much effort into this as he did to stopping Covid. I think I’d have preferred Biden to Kamala, but Joe just stopped bringing it, so I was getting nervous. Without years of Sleepy Joe and Brandon memes, Trump just can’t figure it out lately, and barely seems to be trying.

          I’m in Pennsylvania, so I’m going to be voting the hell out of this election, and hopefully we’ll reach Jan 7 without drama. Then we can start getting on Kamala for her less than great positions, but until then, we got bigger things to deal with and I’m not going to crap much on the better of the 2 options. Post election is another story.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Without years of Sleepy Joe and Brandon memes,

            Fuck man…

            Are neoliberals doing that thing again where they insist their candidate is perfect and if anyone tries to point out that there are valid flaws with neoliberal politicians it’s because they fell for Republican misinformation?

            Anyone that was or is going to vote D doesn’t care what Republicans say.

            Dem voters didn’t want Biden to run against trump, Republicans did

            That should tell you all you need to know about how good of a candidate Biden was.

            • anon6789@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I don’t believe any of it swayed any votes, but I do believe it got a significant amount of people that either wouldn’t vote or wouldn’t promote a candidate to do so. From a hype and marketing viewpoint, I don’t think one could argue MAGA has not been a tremendous success for Republicans. I don’t recall a candidate of either party owning the media or having so much merch-aganda as Trump, and it’s going to hurt them when he’s gone. No one’s going to be sporting I’m going HAM for Lindsey Graham stuff.

              I said in my original comment I’m all for getting in any candidate not doing the best thing. There were things I didn’t like about Biden, and there are a number of things about Kamala I’m not excited about, but that is hopefully next January’s problem.

              The concept of Biden as a candidate was viable, but the man himself no longer was. The Republican average Joe that was the real mass behind the MAGA movement no longer knows what to do though now that the Lock Her Up, Sleepy Joe’s Got To Go, etc is gone. It’s not just Trump with the wind knocked out of his sails, but a lot of supporters as well. Trump spoke their language, but now he’s at a loss for words, and I’m happy to see it.

              EDIT: Not me that downvoted you. I don’t downvote for disagreeing, just for misinformation or bigoted crap and you haven’t done anything like that.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                but I do believe it got a significant amount of people that either wouldn’t vote or wouldn’t promote a candidate to do so.

                No, Biden flaws made people not want to vote for him or promote him

                Harris doesn’t have that baggage, so as soon as she took over people were willing to do those things for the Dem candidate.

                They say the same shit about Kamala as Joe.

                It’s just when they said stuff about Joe, some of it was true and what anyone could tell from his incredibly limited public appearances.

                He did the lowest amount of press conferences as any president since Reagan…

                https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/us/politics/biden-public-appearances-media.html

                Do you really need me to tell you what common trait president Reagan and President Biden share?

                • anon6789@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The Rs fired up for Trump and the Ds bummed at Biden are 2 separate groups. Whoever minimizes the damages from their own respective group is going to come out on top. I don’t see undecideds as a factor with as divergent as both parties are. They both had sagging bases, but the Kamala swap got one group fired up, but the other side just seems caught unprepared, and that’s why polling is flipping.

                  Whoever doesn’t think Kamala has baggage isn’t paying attention. There’s reasons she was hardly anyone’s choice last time around, and anyone reading any articles other than the kiss up ones now is already getting a reminder of those reasons. Lemmy was full of articles about dropping the anti-death penalty stance from the platform this week, for example. But there isn’t any good to come out of beating up on her about that unless she’s elected first.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The Republicans couldn’t even elect a House Speaker, you think they’ll be able to agree on a new Presidential candidate this late in the game? Trump is the only thing holding the GOP together. Without him they’ve got nothing.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Seriously?

            The one defining feature of Republican voters is their willingness to fall in line and vote for anyone with an R by their name.

            There’s some diehard Trumpers who are voting specifically for trump, but Republican turnout is fairly steady (obviously population changes in four years). What decides elections is how good a candidate Dems put forward.

            We’re the party that needs a good candidate to vote for and has to keep it’s voters happy

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Between criminal charges, a reinvented and reinvigorated Dem campaign and havi g been grazed by a bullet… I think he he’s cratered.

      To say nothing of his noticeable cognitive decline.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      He must think that “his” SC will protect him regardless, so he has an out if he loses. Or, he knows about the plan to ratfuck the election regardless of the outcome.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        A. Win it. (Looking increasingly unlikely)

        B. Steal it. Most of the fake electors are still in place, they’ve had four years to hire a new sleepers

        C. Coup 2.0 historically the Democrats haven’t been very smart about things and it’ll totally blindside when you pull it again only this time with more people. All those people that got locked up in serious consequences we’ll just tell them that we’ll pardon them again

        D. Civil War 2.0. if he doesn’t win it, and can’t steal it, and if there’s actually military protection around the Capital for 2.0. he’ll just openly call for the south to rise again. Only this time it’s not the south, it’s the rural areas, hell plan a Vietnam style offensive where the rural armed people lay siege everywhere.

        My real actual best guess is he’s tired. He’s old, he’s out of shape, he’s stressed to the nines and he’s just trying to blow off the stress, he probably does have a plan b in a plan c. His actual plan d is probably two take a flight to Russia.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          C and D might be slipping away from him, and possibly even B. They require a base that’s fired up to support him. He’s starting to lose that. They’ll still vote for him, and his best chance is to take a straight electoral college victory without the popular vote, but nothing extraordinary to subvert the system. If he doesn’t make that, though, he’s probably done.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            He wouldn’t be able to succeed at C without military backing. In fact I don’t think he has much of a chance of any of it succeeding. But go ahead and put it on your bingo card for trying. I suspect he’s going to take a good shot at each one of those before it’s over.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          For D the winning strategy for the United States needs to be to treat them as harshly as we treat eco terrorists. The viet cong had experienced Japanese and French occupation and so were more willing to engage in prolonged conflict. The confederacy had a lot of build up to prepare the common rabble for war. Martyrless crackdowns with a propaganda campaign can remove the will to fight.

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I think the civil war one is actually the best case scenario.

          Imagine a tired con man, not ready to fight, barely any energy. Calls for his die hard supporters to show up en masses and then a very tiny group show up and get arrested by the army (assuming the army doesn’t side with them).

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t think he ever wanted to be president, but now he has no choice.

          Russia is probably plan B or C.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m not too worried either. But The average age of the rural Texan is not 60. The guys that own the farms might be 60.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Yeah this is more just an indicator of the boomer monopolies that heavily exist.

              They don’t pass on their wealth or business they hold onto it until they die and look at how big some of those parcels of land are.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Even the recent movie “Civil War” didn’t touch on how and why such a thing started, because it just doesn’t make sense. There may be regional conflicts and riots, I don’t doubt that, but there’s no single organization to pull off a new Confederacy or whatever it would be. People watching the film even laughed at the union of Texas and California…what? Maybe that was a subtle message by the writers to not take the overall thing seriously, the movie wasn’t about the background events but about the characters in a hypothetical situation.

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The movie is a counter point to the romanticism of political conflict. It intentionally doesn’t go into the specifics of politics that lead to the war as that would be saying “this political side is bad” which wasn’t the point. The far right romanticizes a civil war, the far left romanticizes a revolution. What you see in the movie is what it would look like if there was a wide spread political conflict. It shows the gory details to ask people on both extremes “is this what you really want?”

              For a lot of people the best case scenario is to end up in that refugee camp in the football field. Worst case is to end up in a mass grave because some psychopath decided you’re from the “wrong America”. Does the politics matter to people that wind up in those outcomes? Does it even matter to the soldiers storming the Whitehouse? Just seemed like they had a mission to accomplish, the politics aren’t all that relevant anymore at that point.

              People sometimes feel like using violence may achieve a better political outcome. But the reality is everyone is just worse off because of it. That was the point.

              • eran_morad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                IMO, “war bad” is just so fucking pedestrian as to be a complete waste of the capital that goes into a film.

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Methinks you have a romanticized notion of a civil war (or revolution) and don’t like having that bubble burst.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Also a good point that a critical measure for the leader of the free world in the mind of a Trump staffer is how strong the nickname game is.

  • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Dementia DonOLD the weird racist rapist with 34 felonies that can’t complete a coherent sentence knows he’s a huge loser and is going to lose again.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Oh! I’ve seen this one! This is a classic!

    Let me guess, he’s “growing increasingly isolated” yeah?

  • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Tbf, this is basically him being presidential. Good on him for showing the people what he’s really about. Nothing.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Trump since the 80s has gotten away with deplorable crimes and was still liked. He doesn’t know how to handle hate and reality that only freaks like him. Then you add a black women kicking his ass, chief kiss.

  • ryrybang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump is ranting about crowd sizes.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump’s skin is orange.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump only cares about himself.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump is living in the past.

    Trump aides alarmed that Trump is a convicted felon.

    Like, who are these aides? Where were they the last 20 years?

    • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      These are probably new people who, like the old aides, can’t say anything honestly to anyone surrounding the campaign for fear of being fired, or outed (they’ve done this to their own people expect fanatic followers to do them harm). So these new folks realized this pretty quickly, and now just leak to the press like the entire old group of aides and confidants did. It’s pretty fucking pathetic.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Still: Where were they the last 20 years? They existed in the same world as Trump. They knew what they were signing up for. This isn’t shocking to anyone. They don’t get to pretend that helping a fascist seize power is a job they stumbled into out of the classifieds.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not relevant what Trump did last 20 years. It’s only relevant what Trump did during close campaigns in the last 20 years, which is maybe one year in total, or two years, depending how you measure.

          Which is to say, just because most people would predict it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it and report on it now when it’s actually happening. Because Trump could have woken up. There was always a chance that at some level he realized that he doesn’t want to face what’s coming to him if he loses.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        And then sell a book detailing all the crimes they could have done something about a year later when they quit the administration.