“Advocates for evil due to a comprehensive ideology” vs “advocates for evil due to reckless power-seeking narcissism”.
It’s a distinction without a difference; the effects on the world are the same.
1 Like
Honestly, for most American “Christian” conservatives, the former is considered a bigger sin than the latter, even assuming they consider the latter to be a sin…
2 Likes
Yeah, he’s retweeting them ironically.
4 Likes
I’m giving you a Like, even though it’s just too late in the day for me to think about whether you’re being ironic.
3 Likes
I think the proposition that Donald Trump possesses any sense of irony at all, much less applies it when retweeting white supremacists, is so far fetched that you could be forgiven for liking my comment out of pity for my obvious state of cognitive impairment, should I not be commenting ironically.
8 Likes
No prob, I just checked, and my best friend’s sister said her brother’s uncle told him that his mother should tell her stepson to tell my best friend’s sister to tell me that you were being ironic. So we’re good. 
6 Likes
Neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the Chief of Staff have a finger on The Button. Anyone pining for Don Regan is probably more about trickle-down economics.
1 Like
You know I suspected I spelled that wrong but working third shift and having been awake 19 hours somethings just slip through the cracks.
So Reagan, as in former president.
Ok, help me here. I’m trying to understand what your point is. Yeah, you’re either making fun of me or disagreeing somehow. But I don’t get it. Could you please explain?
Trump is a jerk and shouldn’t even be considered for office. Period. His idiocy stands on it’s own. Anything that detracts from showing him to be dangerous is not good. Adding a petty tone to a serious description of him works great with people who don’t like him. But I want to persuade people who do like him to change their mind. This changed the post from something I would be comfortable forwarding to them, to something that comes across as partisan. And likely to be ignored or eve reinforce someone’s belief.
He certainly is a weird looking dude. Posts about him looking silly are fun. And I enjoy them. But part of me also wonders why we give a damn what a candidate looks like. Supermodel or burnt leper, should it matter? Mixing how someone looks with why they shouldn’t be elected is worrisome.
So that was my point. Let’s keep the serious “This a-hole is a monster and shouldn’t be elected” separate from the “Check this funny looking goofball out.” Can you please explain why this is a bad idea without a picture?
I usually stay away from mocking a the way someone looks, but we’re talking about a man whose schtick is largely based on attacking other people’s appearances. He even mocked an opponent’s appearance in response to a comment questioning whether it was appropriate for a Presidential candidate to make personal insults based on appearance. Turnabout is fair play.
I’m not one to make a fat joke but if Chris Christie starts ranting about how Hillary needs to lose weight then I’ll gladly attempt to direct his attention to a mirror.
4 Likes
Do you have any ideas on how to convince Trump supporters to change their minds?
1 Like
Trump tries tanner to be buff but Tanned Trump turns into Biff Tannen.
1 Like
Good point. He’s a hypocrite when it comes to looks. But are we pointing out hypocrisy when we make fun of him, or are we legitimizing attacking someone’s looks? Or both? If everyone is doing it, does it then become normal and acceptable?
Not disagreeing you. Just thinking out loud.
I meant for the photo of a childish prima donna to mock this quoted part of your previous comment:
Why end a serious article about Trump and his idiocy with a silly poke at his looks? It undermines the serious message. Both are fair game, but please keep them separate.
My point was that his policies are so childish, and worse yet, hateful and already destructive, that I don’t think they deserve any more serious consideration than does commentary on his appearance.
As Brainspore basically just said, I don’t see a reason in Trump’s case to keep them separate. He’s a clown, an actor who’s all surface and virtually no substance. His looks, gestures, and other aspects of his performance are what matter to his base, at least as much as what he says. “Keep the serious separate from” the rest? It’s all a fucking joke, and yet, it all works together to mesmerize his fans.
1 Like
Right? It’s not like well-reasoned arguments that seem “fair” because they avoid commentary on his cartoonish appearance are going to convince the sort who support Trump.
Showing them he retweets from people they don’t want to be associated with is a pretty good one. Which is why I was disappointed by the ending. Yeah, I could link to the original article. But sometimes linking to a summary like Boingboing makes it easier for people to read quickly. Long stuff get’s ignored.
Most of Trump’s jerk stuff is why he’s admired. So when something comes along that is truly useful, I don’t want to mix messages.
Convincing people an argument is fair is hard. Convincing them an argument is unfair is easy. No point in shooting yourself in the foot unless the goal is to be ignored.
Sorry, but wen all you do is post a picture, it’s hard to tell if you are mocking me or something else. I was trying to be serious and sincere. It felt like I was being ridiculed. My mistake.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
