politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
view the rest of the comments
It's so weird that this is the statement that makes some of his supporters question his sanity or ability to form and communicate coherent thoughts...I would say there's a trail of breadcrumbs of much more damning statements going back as far as you're willing to look, but it's more like a trail of roach-infested bakeries.
Turns out that even mental gymnastic experts who can rationalize an imsurrection attemt as simultaneously benign and a false flag attempt, while saying that Trump did nothing wrong AND trying to say "why didn't media care as much about the BLM protests", have to admit that this MF ain't no Elvis
I mean, look at him. Is that supposed to be a...face? It's just plain tragic.
When the road is made of breadcrumbs, you can't really make them out anymore
Where are you getting this from?
Oh I see. I guess I figured these were plenty of non supporters on truth social. Even if just these to troll. So I didn't read that as supporters attacking him for it.
Biden is on Truth Social. And, at least at one point, he had more followers on it than Trump.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/18/biden-truth-social-followers-trump
And yes, Biden uses it to troll Trump.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-campaign-ridicules-donald-trump-truth-social-1866030
The Trump fans mostly follow Trump’s personal account which is automatically added to your follow list when you sign up there, they don’t have much reason to seek out the Team Trump campaign account. Biden’s audience is tiny on that platform compared to Trump’s audience.
So, basically, interpreting that comment as saying supporters are attacking him for this doesn't hold water.
I mean it may be true. That person who asked where Ivanka is and why she isn't doing anything about it sounds like a Trump supporter.
How so? I don't see it.
Does that really sound like someone who isn't planning to vote for Trump?
No, not at all. "Politics aside" is used when you disagree with someone on politics.
So you think a Biden voter would want Ivanka to step in to make Trump a better candidate?
Why would she want that?
No, I think it's just an insult.
So a Biden voter is insulting Trump by begging his daughter to help him with his campaign?
She didn't say anything about his campaign. If we're talking about him having dementia, which is what this whole thing is about, then Jil is probably telling her to get help with that. But the reality is that Jil probably doesn't care and this is just an insult.
I just don't understand how asking Ivanka to "do something FFS" is either an insult or a request for medical help. Neither of those claims make any sense to me.
The whole thing is about him having dementia. It's the context. How can that not make sense? How does making up it being about the campaign make more sense?
She didn't say anything about dementia. If she wanted to insult him about having dementia, why didn't she mention the dementia?
It makes more sense for it being about the campaign because, again, she is begging Ivanka to help Trump. It doesn't matter if she says "politics aside." Only a Trump supporter would want that rapist seditious wannabe dictator to get help. Because helping him helps him win. That should be blatantly obvious.
If she wanted to help his campaign, why didn't she mention the campaign? We're both inferring what she was referring to, so the double-edged nature of this question should be patently obvious. I'm a little shocked it was even asked.
This is included as an example in an article that starts with "Donald Trump on Saturday was hit with an avalanche of criticism." The author of the article pretty clearly agrees with me. Additionally, you are ignoring the "politics aside" part of the comment which strongly implies there is a differing of politics here that Jil wants to transcend. You are required to infer both the context and the content of the post itself for your position to be true, so it certainly does not make more sense.
It's facetious. She doesn't expect it to happen.
...
How can you state that as if it is fact after saying the above?
I figured it was safe from the context that I wouldn't have to repeat what we were talking about every time. But I guess I should have seen super pedanticism coming in this debate, rather than working together to try and get to the truth.
You seem to believe you already know the truth.
Yes, obviously I do. Which is why I took a position. The fact that you nit-picked my language, and are now trying to make this about me, makes it pretty clear your goal is simply to get a win at this point.
I see, you know the truth but I can only infer things and I am definitely wrong but am defending my position because I want to "get a win."
Interesting.