Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

You have to dialogue with the other side

Elected Republicans disagree, including your party leader.

and accusing them of cheering brown protesters or homeless literally shot and killed is performative nonsense and flaming.

It is neither. It is accurately describing events.

This is also called othering and dehumanization

Projection, be thy name.

since it’s always the other guy who is the moral monster not possessing human empathy, and not the speaker.

Do drop the pearls and take a step back and look at things objectively.

Or you know, continue asserting that you're just following the law by demanding that the Juden get on the trains for deportation as the law says.

[Kathandira]

That's not how Constitutional Amendments work.

The 2/3 supermajority is just to propose an Amendment. Also, that's both chambers of Congress, and gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate.

But more importantly it requires 3/4 of the states (38 of 50) to ratify, which simply isn't going to happen.

A man who uses the government as a weapon would put the oppositions backs to the walls and force them to side with him. Either by withholding, or incarceration for whatever reason he decides. Trump doesn't care about how things work, or how they are supposed to, he only cares about how he can make it work for his own needs.

[Endus]

You have to dialogue with the other side,

When that "other side" is pushing a fascist agenda of fear and terror inflicted on vulnerable minorities?

No the fuck you don't. You're not owed shit, and if your political views are intolerable, all they deserve is open opposition, to the maximum extent that is effectively achievable.

Consider luring law enforcement officers into a dark alley or a patch of woods so you can kill them and hide the bodies. Seems horrible? You're gonna protest that's way too far? What if we're talking about the heroes of the French Resistance under Nazi occupation, and those LEOs were Nazis? Because that shit actually happened, and we celebrate those who did such things to those Nazis.

and accusing them of cheering brown protesters or homeless literally shot and killed is performative nonsense and flaming.

The fuck it is. They're actually doing that. Trump openly cheered about abusing the homeless himself, sparking off this police state approach to DC.

This is also called othering and dehumanization, since it’s always the other guy who is the moral monster not possessing human empathy, and not the speaker.

That's not what "othering" means, nor "dehumanization". You're using words incorrectly, and it's either because you're dishonest or because you legitimately don't understand them.

Pointing out that Hitler and the Nazis were monstrously amoral is not "dehumanizing". They were very much human beings. Their individual and collective actions/behaviour were intolerable, and that's what gets them judged as "evil".

Anyone believing terrible things like that can just . . . stop. Any second that they want to. They are bad people by willful choice, not anything inherent to their person, their culture, their faith, none of that. They opt in to evil, every single individual one of them.

What they do is "othering" and "dehumanization", of those they target, calling them "animals" or "vermin" or the like. Which Trump and many of his supporters absolutely do. That's not what the anti-fascist arguments are. But I don't believe for a hot second you don't know that. You're projecting, because all you can do is presume that everyone else lacks the same moral character you lack.

We don't want you purged from society. We just want you to stop being abusive, sadistic, violent assholes. Just stop. That's literally all anyone's ever asked of conservatives. Stop targeting vulnerable groups because you get a kick out of making them suffer. It shouldn't be a big ask, but here we are, because that's the entire conservative movement; they have no other tentpoles to their ideology.

[Doomcookie]

You have to dialogue with the other side, and accusing them of cheering brown protesters or homeless literally shot and killed is performative nonsense and flaming. This is also called othering and dehumanization, since it’s always the other guy who is the moral monster not possessing human empathy, and not the speaker.

Then, why are you known for running away from dialogue that calls you out on your lies?

[tehdang]

Elected Republicans disagree, including your party leader.

Nothing in my post implied that such flaming is particular to one political side. If you hadn’t noticed, the national political scene is full of flaming, and I don’t think making this forum reflect that would be an improvement.

It is neither. It is accurately describing events.

The original poster framed that as a hypothetical “it would get cheers,” so I didn’t trouble to ask him to quote where I said it. Now that you’re taking away the hypothetical, you’ll have to show where I cheered shooting and killing brown protesters and the homeless, since at least that would be factual and not a subjective opinion. We could go rounds in the worst derogatory insinuations about what the other would theoretically support, and it would still be off topic and flaming, unless you have some novel exception to the forum rules to point to.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That's not how Constitutional Amendments work.

The 2/3 supermajority is just to propose an Amendment. Also, that's both chambers of Congress, and gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate.

But more importantly it requires 3/4 of the states (38 of 50) to ratify, which simply isn't going to happen.

1. At this point do we really think MAGA cares that much about laws beyond a thin façade of following theme while breaking every single one? One big issue is Congress having the power of the purse, and them deciding to hand that power over to the executive along with other law-making authorities would still be extremely damaging.

2. Do we really think that MAGA doesn't also have a plan for the Senate when the plan to rig elections for MAGA, hand power to the president, and make him president for life was all laid out in Project 2025?

- - - Updated - - -

You have to dialogue with the other side

The time for dialog is long past. MAGA has reveled in "owning the libs" and completely disrespects any kind of authority (doctors, scientists, academics, etc) that's inconvenient to their belief system. We've attempted dialog for the last 10 years, appealed to their intellect, their humanity, their morals and even their fundamental belief in human rights. MAGA doesn't have any of those things.

MAGA is the side that killed peaceful dialog, because the only thing they ever cared about was bringing people to their side, not understanding the opposition.

[Edge-]

Nothing in my post implied that such flaming is particular to one political side. If you hadn’t noticed, the national political scene is full of flaming, and I don’t think making this forum reflect that would be an improvement.

Oh look a "both sides" argument. How unexpected.

Not interested in engaging with this kind of casual dishonesty, thank you.

[Moralgy]

"You must be civil with people who have spent 20 years calling you demons that are subhuman."

Nty, a swift fuck you and a keep yourself safe is all they deserve.

[tehdang]

"You must be civil with people who have spent 20 years calling you demons that are subhuman."

Nty, a swift fuck you and a keep yourself safe is all they deserve.

Yes, here I am again proposing nuance. If you think all Republicans by party membership necessarily would cheer at any protesters or homeless that are shot in the streets, then it’s basically declaring that no conversation is possible and you’re better off ignoring Republicans. If you’re wrong and some half the country aren’t such moral monsters, then you’re cutting off dialogue and establishing a bubble of opinion that can’t look outward. If there was something specific that you think is “calling you demons that are subhuman” about my posting, then I’m all ears here or in private message.

It shouldn’t need saying that both political sides routinely justify dehumanization and othering based on accusing their opposite of doing it first or as a practice over some timeframe. I don’t find such argument persuasive, and I believe the default position is that only some fringe of left and right would wish to cheer a class of people being shot. Let’s regard each other as human beings with empathy. Whenever someone is shot it is a tragedy, even in the case of self defense or to protect someone else. Maybe it’s politically advantageous to know that, but lie and say some “other” actually desires and cheers it. But you don’t have to do it here, and you don’t have to be the kind of person that excuses and justifies dehumanization today based on a wide or general political critique of other people in past decades. Or, a hypothetical, would you hear and accept if somebody accused you of a similar charge, and feel it necessary to declare that you are human, and death is tragedy, and dehumanization isn’t ok? Does it change if that person says they only accused you because of 20 years of your behavior? I don’t find it persuasive, and I don’t think you’d feel a need to argue in favor of your basic humanity.

[Edge-]

Yes, here I am again proposing nuance. If you think all Republicans by party membership necessarily would cheer at any protesters or homeless that are shot in the streets, then it’s basically declaring that no conversation is possible and you’re better off ignoring Republicans. If you’re wrong and some half the country aren’t such moral monsters, then you’re cutting off dialogue and establishing a bubble of opinion that can’t look outward. If there was something specific that you think is “calling you demons that are subhuman” about my posting, then I’m all ears here or in private message.

It shouldn’t need saying that both political sides routinely justify dehumanization and othering based on accusing their opposite of doing it first or as a practice over some timeframe. I don’t find such argument persuasive, and I believe the default position is that only some fringe of left and right would wish to cheer a class of people being shot. Let’s regard each other as human beings with empathy. Whenever someone is shot it is a tragedy, even in the case of self defense or to protect someone else. Maybe it’s politically advantageous to know that, but lie and say some “other” actually desires and cheers it. But you don’t have to do it here, and you don’t have to be the kind of person that excuses and justifies dehumanization today based on a wide or general political critique of other people in past decades. Or, a hypothetical, would you hear and accept if somebody accused you of a similar charge, and feel it necessary to declare that you are human, and death is tragedy, and dehumanization isn’t ok? Does it change if that person says they only accused you because of 20 years of your behavior? I don’t find it persuasive, and I don’t think you’d feel a need to argue in favor of your basic humanity.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...-rating-slips/

Donald continues to have 85% approval rating with Republicans.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...handle-issues/

83% also support his immigration policies and use of military force - which includes domestically I imagine

81% approve of his handling of law enforcement and criminal justice issues

and as a casual reminder Kyle Rittenhouse remains a Republican celebrity because he *checks notes* killed protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...me-gun-culture

i mean these things aren't exactly difficult to connect the dots on my friend

let's not go into the consistent conservative celebration of police violence against people of color and protesters, either.

critical thinking is anathema to conservative propaganda

[Mayhem]

US deploys warships near Venezuela to combat drug threats, sources say

U.S. warships to sail off Venezuela as tension soars between Trump and Maduro regime over cartel accusations

Nothing says Nobel Peace Prize like starting a war.

Also had to look up the list of nominees for this year, and fuck me, that list is just what what what.

Pope Francis - probably for almost addressing child abuse within the church
Daniella Weiss - for being the godmother of illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza
Donald Trump - for fuck it, take your pick, preventing nuclear holocaust, bringing peace to India and Pakistan, and Cambodia and Thailand, and hostage releases in Gaza (lulwhat?), and for being very special
Elon Musk - for his consistent fight for freedom of expression (I'm not kidding)

list

I seriously wonder how 2026 will top this.

[Edge-]

can't anyone submit a nomination or whatever? IIRC donny's been nominated multiple times already

- - - Updated - - -

did you know?

grass has a life

did you know that?

grass has, a life

deep stuff

big brain stuff

[alach]

US deploys warships near Venezuela to combat drug threats, sources say

U.S. warships to sail off Venezuela as tension soars between Trump and Maduro regime over cartel accusations

Nothing says Nobel Peace Prize like starting a war.

Also had to look up the list of nominees for this year, and fuck me, that list is just what what what.

Pope Francis - probably for almost addressing child abuse within the church
Daniella Weiss - for being the godmother of illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza
Donald Trump - for fuck it, take your pick, preventing nuclear holocaust, bringing peace to India and Pakistan, and Cambodia and Thailand, and hostage releases in Gaza (lulwhat?), and for being very special
Elon Musk - for his consistent fight for freedom of expression (I'm not kidding)

list

I seriously wonder how 2026 will top this.

That's horrifying, but reading how can be nominated it was obviously done by his own people by his order. I doubt the organization will seriously consider him at all. Elon Musk's name there is actually more strange, as the rules don't allow nominations by fellow billionaires, Twitter followers, or ex baby mama's to count.

Jan 6th commitee and the ICC are also there, in direct objection to trump and his people.

[Gabriel]

Yes, here I am again proposing nuance. If you think all Republicans by party membership necessarily would cheer at any protesters or homeless that are shot in the streets, then it’s basically declaring that no conversation is possible and you’re better off ignoring Republicans. If you’re wrong and some half the country aren’t such moral monsters, then you’re cutting off dialogue and establishing a bubble of opinion that can’t look outward. If there was something specific that you think is “calling you demons that are subhuman” about my posting, then I’m all ears here or in private message.

It shouldn’t need saying that both political sides routinely justify dehumanization and othering based on accusing their opposite of doing it first or as a practice over some timeframe. I don’t find such argument persuasive, and I believe the default position is that only some fringe of left and right would wish to cheer a class of people being shot. Let’s regard each other as human beings with empathy. Whenever someone is shot it is a tragedy, even in the case of self defense or to protect someone else. Maybe it’s politically advantageous to know that, but lie and say some “other” actually desires and cheers it. But you don’t have to do it here, and you don’t have to be the kind of person that excuses and justifies dehumanization today based on a wide or general political critique of other people in past decades. Or, a hypothetical, would you hear and accept if somebody accused you of a similar charge, and feel it necessary to declare that you are human, and death is tragedy, and dehumanization isn’t ok? Does it change if that person says they only accused you because of 20 years of your behavior? I don’t find it persuasive, and I don’t think you’d feel a need to argue in favor of your basic humanity.

If Republicans as a party enact policies about literally killing the homeless and other undesirables, and you as a Republican don't leave the party, you are just as guilty as the rest of the party. End of story.

[Paranoid Android]

FLAG: Trump says he might declare a national emergency to keep National Guard troops in D.C.

"If I have a national emergency, I can keep the troops there as long as I want."

Trump openly announces his move to keep troops further. I mean DC is so effed cause of the federal oversight.

Trump on DC: "We haven't had to bring in the regular military, which we're willing to do if we have to. And after we do this, we'll go to another location and we'll make it safe also ... Chicago is a mess. And we'll straighten that one out probably next"

Vid in link.

He throws in NY but maybe not in this video. I hate these videos cause Trump says so much shit for news headlines. Yet, this is next move I think, so worth noting.

[Captain N]

So in a surprise to nobody white nationalist and abusive drunk Pete Hegseth has ordered the DC National Guard to carry their service weapons. Are we winning yet?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/22/polit...-carry-weapons

[Milchshake]

Remember kids, "Mr. Nuance" also wants to convince people that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a hardened criminal when there's no evidence. IMO thats like trolling of the worst kind..

Kilmar Abrego Garcia free from Tennessee jail and returning home to Maryland, lawyer says

[Edge-]

So in a surprise to nobody white nationalist and abusive drunk Pete Hegseth has ordered the DC National Guard to carry their service weapons. Are we winning yet?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/22/polit...-carry-weapons

my my my

armed feds occupying a city

the literal republican nightmare scenario for years

yet they're the ones ordering it

never

ever

trust

republicans

- - - Updated - - -

Remember kids, "Mr. Nuance" also wants to convince people that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a hardened criminal when there's no evidence. IMO thats like trolling of the worst kind..

Kilmar Abrego Garcia free from Tennessee jail and returning home to Maryland, lawyer says

where's the times new roman "M S 1 3" in that artists rendition?

[Breccia]

You have to dialogue with the other side

You have yet to dialogue with anyone. This post is hypocrisy and handwaved.

[Edge-]

You have yet to dialogue with anyone. This post is hypocrisy and handwaved.

it's also very funny to say that when the head of the republican party is functionally calling for republicans to redraw all their states maps to get a supermajority in the house because he wants republicans to pass legislation specifically without talking to the other side

like, he's the president and the leader of the party. he sets the party direction and the party follows in goose-step as we've seen time and time again