President Trump's funny insults

[Heathen Hammer]

No, they won't have any problem.
Because you're asleep in the middle of the night and you are too poor to afford that and they are 6 trained guys with armor piercing rounds fired from fully-automatic weapon while you're a lone, sleeping civilian. And they have no problem usually shooting your kids and call it an accident.
And while the government would of course have a problem convincing the public about the necessity of such secret police if you can freely argue against it... the others can also convince the public of the necessity of such secret police.

As such:
- Freedom of Speech helps but not too much - while it can also cause the downfall, as it happened with the spread of dangerous ideologies
- Having a gun in your house can do squat to stop an authoritarian regime to come to power. You're not the only one armed, the other side also has armed civilians. The only way for an authoritarian revolution to come to power is... through an armed population. Like it happened in Russia. The Red Army of the Bolseviks was initially composed by armed civilians, that managed to overthrow their government and install a very authoritarian regime.

AK-47 and its variants are quite affordable. Examples of numerous successful insurgencies speak for themselves.
Ideologies can only become actually dangerous when they have the power to prevent people from arguing against them. Hence why freedom of speech is key in preventing encroachment of authoritarianism.

As I said earlier: Bolseviks instituted gun control after they came to power. Their revolution was only possible because they had an armed, radical population. Yes, they were not too popular. But they were the radical 15% and they were armed. That's enough.

Bolsheviks came to power through foreign funding and heavy reliance on foreign mercenaries. The first thing they did after coming to power was disarming the population. If Russians could shoot chekists, Lenin, trotsky and their other genocidal cronies would have been overthrown.

About Trump's divisive tactics:
Yes, his opponents are also divisive, but he uses the "point the finger towards minorities" and "divide and conquer" tactics. No, he's certainly not as bad as the NSDAP. But that's a low bar...

I don't think there are instances where Trump points fingures at one's background as a point of criticism. And "divide and conquer" tactics were always employed by American politicians. Just look at previous administration that brought back identity politics from de-facto irrelevancy.

Anyway, In my opinion, one of the main problems with your line of thought HH is...
You're too sure "your side" will be the one that has the popular support.

Armed revolution in the USA? That's a 0.01% chance buddy as things are awesome for USA.
However, if that 0.01% turns up... it is more possible at this time that this would be the ANTIFA and progressives overthrowing Trump and install a dictatorship. Why? Because the one in power is Trump and not a radical progressive.
You wouldn't like to live in an ANTIFA dictatorship, would you HH? Then you should be against guns.

And before you go "We would totally crush the craven and pathetic ANTIFA in an armed confrontation"... that means you automatically assume the armed people would take your side and not theirs.
But if we're talking about an armed revolution (the 0.01%) of ANTIFA, that means they would have the numbers.

Now, if you say "Hey! I am not talking about that revolution, I am talking in the case of an evil liberal POTUS and a sycophantic congress that try to take away my freedoms!"
For them to come to power = they have strong support. You can call the other side sheeple if you want, but they would still have numbers. As such armed population = more enemies for you to fight against.

As I said: You don't want an ANTIFA dictatorship where the armed gangs of civilians come into your house and drug you out so that illegal immigrants can live in your home? Then you should not want free guns.

My side is letting people do what they want. I think antifa's ideology is vile and people that follow it are either too stupid to realize that their ideas are evil or are evil themselves, same goes for any other similar groups such as evangelicals, jihadists, "woke" pedophilia apologists, etc, but I would oppose criminalizing their speech or barring them from their right to own firearms or speak out. if anything, letting people with questionable ideas speak is a great way to create a debate and determine their ideas are wrong via reason, as opposed to threatening them with repression, resulting with them resorting to violence.
And if such groups decide to use violence to impose their ideas on others, then it is fine by me that citizens shoot them.
The only people who want to ban ideas are those that either:
a) Think this ideology is superior to theirs and want to ban it for fear of losing power
b) Think that their own ideology is so bad that they would lose to literally anything
And long as citizens have access to weapons and are able to speak freely and own property, I don't care what their beliefs are.

[Roma_Victrix]

You guys know me, not a fan of Trump, I'm a "Bernie Bro" if that's really a thing (probably not considering all the female minorities like AOC and Nina Turner who also follow him now), but Trump is undeniably hilarious here when making fun of "Mini Mike" Michael Bloomberg and "Pocahontas" Elizabeth Warren. Seriously, don't ever underestimate Trump's ability to read a room or ride on another populist wave, even if he's directly damaged some sectors of the US economy (hello there, soybean farmers). If Biden won the nomination I'd drink a lot of whiskey and then reluctantly vote for him, but "Sleepy Joe" Biden as Trump calls him is a bit slow these days and slurring his words a bit too often. He would be crushed by Trump in a debate. Like, eviscerated.

[Akar]

Why would I want a President who behaves that way? So unprofessional. I wouldn't even want a grocery store manager to act like that.

[mishkin]

You overestimate Trump, you overestimate his followers and perhaps some of you overestimate yourself.

[Gromovnik]

Remember that time when Trump made fun of a disabled journalist? He is truly a stable comedic genius.

[Akar]

These jokes wouldn't even be funny if a comedian told them, let alone the president.

[TheLeft]

Remember that time when Trump made fun of a disabled journalist? He is truly a stable comedic genius.

I also remember the time when he boasted about sexually assaulting women. Hilarious!

[Heathen Hammer]

I find it quite funny how anti-Trump crowd pretends to be outraged over Trump mocking an opponent, but ignores the fact that Trump is yet to start a major war. By the last year of his first term "professional" Obama had already butchered Libya and was busy drone-striking everything that moves in the Middle East, not to mention his terrorist-funding passion project in Syria. So yeah, I'll take mean tweets of Trump over war crimes and human rights violations of his "professional" predecessors.

[Prodromos]

Trump is undeniably hilarious here when making fun of "Mini Mike" Michael Bloomberg and "Pocahontas" Elizabeth Warren.

I dunno, RV, I watched bits and pieces and didn't find any of it funny. I guess I just don't see the appeal. Personally, I'd much rather if the president behaved more like this:

[Gromovnik]

I find it quite funny how anti-Trump crowd pretends to be outraged over Trump mocking an opponent, but ignores the fact that Trump is yet to start a major war. By the last year of his first term "professional" Obama had already butchered Libya and was busy drone-striking everything that moves in the Middle East, not to mention his terrorist-funding passion project in Syria. So yeah, I'll take mean tweets of Trump over war crimes and human rights violations of his "professional" predecessors.

But that's not what this thread is about. Although, yeah, Obama is a war criminal.