President Trump's funny insults

**Sar1n** · December 11, 2019, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Trump's a TV celebrity who trolls for votes. He may not believe anything. He says a lot of things he most likely does not understand. He makes noises until you react. Turn him off and he will go away.

Tell that to the US public. Especially if the show he puts on is more interesting for average Joe than the mess that Democrats produce.

**alhoon** · December 11, 2019, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ludicus

With all due respect, I know you don't mean it, but your comments came dangerously close to the apology of fascist/nazi regimes.

I find this insinuation troubling. I also know you don't try to insult me but calling me "close to a Nazi apologist" isn't exactly an honor.
All I said is that they were ready to die for their beliefs, not that killing innocents and robbing people from their right to disagree with their beliefs (or face severe consequences) was good. Being fanatic is not good and I don't see how me saying they were true to their beliefs can be considered any kind of apology

**alhoon** · December 11, 2019, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by alhoon

I respectfully disagree.

Trump may have put up many conservative judges in districts and a couple in the Supreme Court, but the majority of these people have been vetted already to reach the federal level. Most of Trump's appointments in the courts are conservatives and slightly-pro-Trump, they are not Trump's stooges. While these appointments are indeed damaging to the Justice system, the damage is not great nor permanent. Trump simply cannot find a large number of yesmen among the judges.
Yes, the Republicans are ensuing conservative majorities for the years to come in the justiciar branch. But they don't put up conservative idiots and empty suits, they are putting up well-educated, respectable, critically thinking, intelligent people that happen to agree with the views of the republicans constituents.
A few of these are crooked but I cannot find evidence more of them are crooked than usual.

Oh, well... it seems I was somewhat optimistic there.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/p...yke/index.html

Still, there is no evidence I was too optimistic.
CNN is not unbiased by any means but still, the newspaper tries to be present the news even if they twist the meaning and present it in a negative light. I.e. they don't make such things up. They just make sure that people like me learn them.

**nhytgbvfeco2** · December 12, 2019, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by alhoon

Oh, well... it seems I was somewhat optimistic there.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/p...yke/index.html

Still, there is no evidence I was too optimistic.
CNN is not unbiased by any means but still, the newspaper tries to be present the news even if they twist the meaning and present it in a negative light. I.e. they don't make such things up. They just make sure that people like me learn them.

I don't know, the article mentions that this is the 6th nominee out of 160 to be called "unqualified", meaning the vast majority are fine

**mishkin** · December 12, 2019, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by alhoon

Furthermore, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, etc etc were real nationalists that were ready to fight for their country and their beliefs.

Originally Posted by alhoon

I find this insinuation troubling. I also know you don't try to insult me but calling me "close to a Nazi apologist" isn't exactly an honor.
All I said is that they were ready to die for their beliefs, not that killing innocents and robbing people from their right to disagree with their beliefs (or face severe consequences) was good. Being fanatic is not good and I don't see how me saying they were true to their beliefs can be considered any kind of apology

The problem is that among the beliefs of these people was their right to violently annihilate any opposition and they fought for (against, actually, right?) their countries to become dictatorships. Next time you feel tempted to say something positive about these people: "They fought for their country", think twice.

**alhoon** · December 12, 2019, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2

I don't know, the article mentions that this is the 6th nominee out of 160 to be called "unqualified", meaning the vast majority are fine

Yeah, but the guy broke down because a couple of senators of the other party were meanies + he wasn't just called "unqualified", he was called a lot of things. I am not sure he has the work ethic required by a judge.
Also, this breaking down in tears was IMO a publicity stunt or else the now federal judge is a snowflake.

I.e. he's not somewhat below bar, he's much below the bar, an empty suit that got the position because ???. Sure, the democrats probably have installed such people when they controlled the senate on the other side but two wrongs don't make a right.

It is a bad sign although still, as you said, it's not a too bad sign. It's a bit alarming though. 6/160 is not that great but 0/160 is better...

Originally Posted by mishkin

The problem is that among the beliefs of these people was their right to violently annihilate any opposition and they fought for (against, actually, right?) their countries to become dictatorships. Next time you feel tempted to say something positive about these people: "They fought for their country", think twice.

I mentioned those problems in my post Mishkin. And many of them turned their countries to devastated graveyards etc etc. I have no admiration for them.
As I said to Ludicus in the post you quoted, being a fanatic is not a good thing and I don't see how saying what I said can be considered any kind of apologism for them.

I would go to the black-and-white view of "you can't say anything good about bad people" but that's not the point here. Frankly, I don't see what made you and Ludicus to call me "close to Nazi apologist".

Now to the black and white view of "you can't say anything good about people progressives consider bad thing:
This comes back to the topic and Trump.
No, because Trump is a butthole and his jokes are more often than not inappropriate doesn't mean they are not funny. They are.
Also, just because the partisanship in USA has painted Trump as the new bad guy (frankly, he's better than Bush 2) doesn't mean I can't say his hilarious jokes aren't hilarious or that I can't agree with some of his actions.

It is a dangerous and divisive view to say "you can't say good things about Trump! You have to either condemn what you disagree with or stay silent about those things you don't disagree with!"
Those draw imaginary lines in the sand and give a "you're with us or against us" mentality.

Yes, Trump is a butthole. He is bad for the environment but good for business. He's bad for divisiveness, income equality and racial relationships but he doesn't start wars. His tweeting is much below the dignity of the office but his jokes are often funny. He is corrupt, an attention whore and a conspiracy theorist on top but ... [I ran out of good things to say

the list of bad things goes on though.]

**mishkin** · December 12, 2019, 06:52 AM

alhoon, yous said thar Franco, Hitler and Mussolini fought for their countries. Literally. Without any nuance or clarification

So funny.

Donald J. Trump (on twitter regarding the Times person of the year thing): So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

detestable that a public office makes these jokes, detestable that some people laugh.

**nhytgbvfeco2** · December 12, 2019, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by mishkin

alhoon, yous said thar Franco, Hitler and Mussolini fought for their countries. Literally. Without any nuance or clarification

So funny.

All of them were soldiers who fought in wars their countries were involved in, so yes, they literally fought for their countries. I don't see why you think this is controversial.

Donald J. Trump (on twitter regarding the Times person of the year thing): So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

detestable that a public office makes these jokes, detestable that some people laugh.

Okay, fun police.

**mishkin** · December 12, 2019, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by alhoon

Furthermore, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, etc etc were real nationalists that were ready to fight for their country and their beliefs..

Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2

All of them were soldiers who fought in wars their countries were involved in, so yes, they literally fought for their countries. I don't see why you think this is controversial.

Yes, he certainly meant that they fulfilled their obligation to the army like any other citizen and not that it is commendable that they were real nationalists ready to "fight for their country" (also known as torture, take a coup d'etat, provoke internal and external wars, kill entire groups of the population etc).

**sumskilz** · December 12, 2019, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by mishkin

Donald J. Trump (on twitter regarding the Times person of the year thing): So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

lol

Do you realize that when you, or anyone of a similar disposition, share your outrage about comments like this, you're effectively campaigning for Trump's reelection?

**mishkin** · December 12, 2019, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by sumskilz

lol

Do you realize that when you, or anyone of a similar disposition, share your outrage about comments like this, you're effectively campaigning for Trump's reelection?

Anyone of a similar disposition?

So a guy who is not already a Trump follower sees people protesting Trump's last indecency and decides to vote on him. Yes, sure. Privileged minds who were going to vote for a democrat, no doubt.

**sumskilz** · December 12, 2019, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by mishkin

Anyone of a similar disposition?

For example, anyone who feels it appropriate to try to shame others on the internet for what they find funny.

Originally Posted by mishkin

So a guy who is not already a Trump follower sees people protesting Trump's last indecency and decides to vote on him. Yes, sure. Privileged minds who were going to vote for a democrat, no doubt.

For the most part, US elections aren't decided by those who are solidly in one camp or the other. Sar1n's analysis is pretty spot on. For a lot of Americans, one of the most (or even only) appealing qualities Trump has, is his ability to upset the right people. I remember a time when the left had close to a monopoly on pissing off self-righteous public moralizers, but those days seem to be long gone. I'm pretty sure Trump rode to victory largely on the "F... you" vote, and it wasn't just contempt aimed at one end of the political spectrum, it was against the whole establishment. Trump's unrefined dickishness is exactly how he sells himself as an outsider, and his most emotive critics do the bulk of the footwork for him, disseminating it all across social media.

**Lord Thesaurian** · December 12, 2019, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by sumskilz

For example, anyone who feels it appropriate to try to shame others on the internet for what they find funny.

For the most part, US elections aren't decided by those who are solidly in one camp or the other. Sar1n's analysis is pretty spot on. For a lot of Americans, one of the most (or even only) appealing qualities Trump has, is his ability to upset the right people. I remember a time when the left had close to a monopoly on pissing off self-righteous public moralizers, but those days seem to be long gone. I'm pretty sure Trump rode to victory largely on the "F... you" vote, and it wasn't just contempt aimed at one end of the political spectrum, it was against the whole establishment. Trump's unrefined dickishness is exactly how he sells himself as an outsider, and his most emotive critics do the bulk of the footwork for him, disseminating it all across social media.

I agree to an extent. At the same time, I haven’t seen actual data indicating that Trump won due to protest voters, nor do I think people who vote Trump just to “own the libs” somehow have a more coherent position than others who consider “wokeness” to be a qualification for public office. Also, let’s not forget Hillary won the popular vote by a few million, so the idea that Trump succeeded in presenting himself as a hero of the common man is suspect on its face.

**Sar1n** · December 12, 2019, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

I agree to an extent. At the same time, I haven’t seen actual data indicating that Trump won due to protest voters, nor do I think people who vote Trump just to “own the libs” somehow have a more coherent position than others who consider “wokeness” to be a qualification for public office. Also, let’s not forget Hillary won the popular vote by a few million, so the idea that Trump succeeded in presenting himself as a hero of the common man is suspect on its face.

The fact that he won by tipping a few crucial places by a narrow margin, thus winning despite the popular vote does indicate that he wasn't relying on entrenched voters, but swinging the undecided and passive crowd in some way. He did not succeed in swaying many, yet. But those few were enough to tip the balance in crucial places. He succeeded to present himself as anti-establishment, hero of the common people to them.
You're showing typical issue with US politics, and that is the two party dichotomy entrenched in the thinking about it. Trump's main appeal wasn't being "anti-lib" or "anti-dem" or even conservative, though he did include these tendencies to pander some parts of his audience. It was anti-establishment. He openly gave finger to the people on top, those that drove people away from politics and so on. He'd have the same success and put on the same show if he'd been with Democrats instead.

One part of his success is that he's really a brilliant speaker, at least in the context of US politics and language. Yes, he talk a lot of

. But really, people are too used to politicians lying to them that the substance of the speech becomes secondary. Trump works the tone, fluency, stress, the emotion behind the speech and is able to deliver absolute crap with utter conviction.

**Lord Thesaurian** · December 12, 2019, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sar1n

The fact that he won by tipping a few crucial places by a narrow margin, thus winning despite the popular vote does indicate that he wasn't relying on entrenched voters, but swinging the undecided and passive crowd in some way. He did not succeed in swaying many, yet. But those few were enough to tip the balance in crucial places. He succeeded to present himself as anti-establishment, hero of the common people to them.
You're showing typical issue with US politics, and that is the two party dichotomy entrenched in the thinking about it. Trump's main appeal wasn't being "anti-lib" or "anti-dem" or even conservative, though he did include these tendencies to pander some parts of his audience. It was anti-establishment. He openly gave finger to the people on top, those that drove people away from politics and so on. He'd have the same success and put on the same show if he'd been with Democrats instead.

One part of his success is that he's really a brilliant speaker, at least in the context of US politics and language. Yes, he talk a lot of

. But really, people are too used to politicians lying to them that the substance of the speech becomes secondary. Trump works the tone, fluency, stress, the emotion behind the speech and is able to deliver absolute crap with utter conviction.

Again, we are talking about a billionaire born to money who lost the popular vote by a considerable margin. His own White House budget proposes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, something opposed by most Americans. His tax cuts favored the wealthy and corporations over lower income Americans, per more of the same trickle down gospel the political establishment has adhered to since Reagan. His denial of the existence of climate change and rollback of environmental regulations are also at odds with the sentiments of most Americans. To claim Trump is anti-establishment or pro-common man is dubious on its face, and I haven’t seen compelling data to support that claim.

**Sar1n** · December 12, 2019, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

Again, we are talking about a billionaire born to money who lost the popular vote by a considerable margin. His own White House budget proposes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, something opposed by most Americans. His tax cuts favored the wealthy and corporations over lower income Americans, per more of the same trickle down gospel the political establishment has adhered to since Reagan. His denial of the existence of climate change and rollback of environmental regulations are also at odds with the sentiments of most Americans. To claim Trump is anti-establishment or pro-common man is dubious on its face, and I haven’t seen compelling data to support that claim.

There's a bit problem you're ignoring, one that Trump exploited to the fullest.
American politics have a long history of polarization. The result is that politics are opaque, with too much hidden crap, contradictory information being fed by different media, and in the end, rational thinking has been almost completely removed from the process. In American politics, swing voters who decide rationally and check the facts are now even smaller minority than in other countries. Most people are either entrenched or biased voters, or a passive, disillusioned crowd.
With those, fact don't really matter. They either discard them as the other side's propaganda, or because "politicians keep f*king us over anyway, what's the difference". Trump managed to play not the facts, but the emotions present in the passive, previously nonvoting crowd. Like I wrote, he did not appeal to many. But with Democrats pandering to their own echo chamber and presenting the worst possible candidate to counter such tactics-a consummate politician, already involved in some shady stuff and dragging US into wars, especially after the validity of the primaries was questioned-it did not take much, and even then it was close.

And now, four years later, not only did the Democrats fail to formulate a counterstrategy to that, allowing him to entrench his position, they apparently can't even recognize his approach and their own failures that are helping him. If defeating Trump in next election is really what their leadership wants...

**alhoon** · December 12, 2019, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by mishkin

alhoon, yous said thar Franco, Hitler and Mussolini fought for their countries. Literally. Without any nuance or clarification.

I did.
I also didn't think it needs a clarification that "fighting for your country" is not a carte blanche that excuses launching bloody civil wars or installing brutal dictatorships.
I also don't think that me saying they fought for their country (fact) is in any way apology for their crimes and I don't understand how "You said thing XXX that I consider as good about people we consider bad" is apology or something that should never happen.

Shouldn't I refrain from saying "Hitler was a vegetarian" because vegetarians would take this as an apology for Hitler killing millions? Should I refrain from saying George Papadopoulos (Greek dictator) helped the farmers with some of his reforms (that weren't voted for, we had a junta that killed people). Should I refrain from saying Assad is a well educated and competent doctor because well educated opthalmologists may be insulted?
No. There's no reason to refrain from any of this.
And there's no reason to refrain from saying "Trump makes funny jokes occasionally"

Originally Posted by mishkin

So funny.

Donald J. Trump (on twitter regarding the Times person of the year thing): So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

detestable that a public office makes these jokes, detestable that some people laugh.

It is a very lame joke, it's not funny. It is also one of the tamest attacks Trump ever did, if it even counts as one. Calling Greta to "chill" is not an attack. Saying she's got to work on her (imaginary) anger issues is an attack but nothing major.
It's not funny either though.

About detestable: To be honest I agree with you that the PotUS should not go to that level and I would prefer if people didn't insult children. It is not proper. It is... distasteful not detestable (since it wasn't a big attack). Had he mocked Greta's disabilities (like he did with that reported in 2015) that would have been detestable.

**Ludicus** · December 12, 2019, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

To claim Trump is anti-establishment or pro-common man is dubious on its face, and I haven’t seen compelling data to support that claim.

It seems pretty obvious to me.Well, Trump is pro-Trump.

------
Well, to be fair, the right also loves the "Ironic Usage of the Nazi Salute" and even the "Ironic anti-Semitism" Digital Anti-Semitism: From Irony to Ideology - Jewish Review
I guess we (the left) don't have a broad sense of humour. So, here it goes. Donald Trump Insult Generator Link It's..hmm...funny?

**Lord Thesaurian** · December 12, 2019, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sar1n

There's a bit problem you're ignoring, one that Trump exploited to the fullest.
American politics have a long history of polarization. The result is that politics are opaque, with too much hidden crap, contradictory information being fed by different media, and in the end, rational thinking has been almost completely removed from the process. In American politics, swing voters who decide rationally and check the facts are now even smaller minority than in other countries. Most people are either entrenched or biased voters, or a passive, disillusioned crowd.
With those, fact don't really matter. They either discard them as the other side's propaganda, or because "politicians keep f*king us over anyway, what's the difference". Trump managed to play not the facts, but the emotions present in the passive, previously nonvoting crowd. Like I wrote, he did not appeal to many. But with Democrats pandering to their own echo chamber and presenting the worst possible candidate to counter such tactics-a consummate politician, already involved in some shady stuff and dragging US into wars, especially after the validity of the primaries was questioned-it did not take much, and even then it was close.

And now, four years later, not only did the Democrats fail to formulate a counterstrategy to that, allowing him to entrench his position, they apparently can't even recognize his approach and their own failures that are helping him. If defeating Trump in next election is really what their leadership wants...

What does any of that have to do with Trump being anti-establishment or pro-common man? Trump didn’t have the support of the majority of the voters to begin with, and has struggled to crack 50% approval, while actually having net disapproval, throughout his presidency. These and the previous presented are basic facts which contradict your claim. For someone who has couched his argument in parsing pro or anti-establishment trends from the “two party dichotomy,” you sure talk alot about Democrats, and haven’t presented any data to back up your opinion.

As for Democrats “pandering to their echo chamber,” core issues in the party platform, including increased taxes on the wealthy, Medicare for All via a public option, raising the minimum wage, and prioritizing government action to protect the environment, are supported by the majority of Americans. Here again, the facts don’t line up with your assertions, and simply asserting that “people don’t care about facts” doesn’t absolve you of them.

Originally Posted by Ludicus

It seems pretty obvious to me.Well, Trump is pro-Trump.

If the shoe fits....