254
Trump’s ties to ‘toxic’ far-right activist Laura Loomer are causing a MAGA civil war. But they go way back
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
254 points (96.0% liked)
politics
19102 readers
4236 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who was it that astutely called this out as the new Trump Show?
The Trump Show was getting old and tired, and now Google searches for Loomer are spiking and the news isn't covering anything but Loomer and the lies about Haitians in Springfield.
Trump won last time by dominating the news cycle and not letting any good news from the other side break through because the news only focused on him and the insanity.
I forget whose username I saw yesterday who said this, but I mulled it over, and now I believe it, seeing the spike in searches for Loomer. You were right, the more we focus on this, the more we're going to blow the election or any real coverage of right-wing election ratfuckery because the media will be hyperfocused on Loomer and Trump fucking. I actually take it back, even, they might not be fucking because they know exactly how this will look and they want to distract the media with it.
This is amping up the insanity to completely distract the media from any positive attention given to Harris/Walz, or honestly, anything that isn't Trump.
They don't have ideas, all they have is anger, frustration and distraction.
A few days ago, I thought it was just that Loomer managed to get into Trump's orbit. Now, I don't trust that this is actually "splitting" the party. They said the same things in 2016 and the party held locksteady. This is a distraction to keep the news media firmly planted right up Trump's ass.
EDIT: Found you:
@shoulderoforion@fedia.io
You were the first person I saw to make the connection, cheers.
The GOP is going to hold locksteady either way. The goal is to get the undecided.
In the debate, Harris played Trump like a fiddle. She made him go on a rant on her cue and he didn't disappoint. He ranted about Haitians eating dogs. Turns out he said this because he was manipulated by a nutjob in his circle, most likely Laura Loomer.
So Trump was goaded into doing a rant by a woman and the most memorable part of the rant was something planted into his head by another woman. Kind chips away at the "Trump is alpha" thing that might be influential to low information undecided male voters.
Also in 2016 it was Trump himself dominating the news cycle, not the nutjobs he surrounded himself with. If Trump can be convinced to rant about the dog thing, what else can the people he surrounds himself convince him to do? If Trump is portrayed as easily manipulated, that puts Project 2025 back on the table. Because no matter what he might say about it now, everyone knows the likes of Laura Loomer can manipulate him into doing it.
Anyway it all fits into the news cycle on the debate. Trump lost, ranted about people eating dogs, and showed everyone he's easily manipulated. Next week Harris will push for another debate, probably landing on "Trump is too scared to have another debate." The media will latch onto that in hopes Harris can succeed in goading Trump into another debate, because the last one had an audience of 67 million. Either there's another debate or Trump looks weak. Which is good for Harris either way.
Honestly, I don't believe that. I believe the goal is to further radicalize the base, because that's what fascists need -- paramilitary zealots, not actual majorities -- in order to undemocratically seize power.
Well I meant the goal of the Dems is to get the undecideds as opposed to trying to get the MAGA base.
But it seems to be the goal of the Trump campaign too, but their candidate doesn't have any discipline and can't stop himself from just speaking to the faithful in the dwindling crowds that go to his rallies.