President Trump's funny insults

[alhoon]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9237721.html
The Gist: President trump addressed a group that includes some rich real-estate people. He non-chalantly told them they are buttholes but they have no choice but to vote for him.
It was a clear "Hahahaha... I don't have to dance to your tune buttholes! Who would you vote for, eh? It would be me. Here's some insults."

“A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well, you’re brutal killers. You're not nice people at all, but you have to vote for me. You have no choice. You're not going to vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that. You're not going to vote for the wealth tax! Even if you don’t like me – some of you don’t and some of you I don’t like at all actually – you’re going to be my biggest supporters because you’ll be out of business in about 15 minutes if they get in.”


Trump is insulting part of his electorate in an election year. This is priceless. And truth be told, I think the rich people he insulted will vote for him regardless.
It is rare to see such ... honesty from a politician. Doubly so from Trump that has a questionable relationship with facts.

But this is downright hilarious. We don't see such things often. And yes, I don't think it would backfire. Such things are a significant reason that 40% of the electorate stands with Trump even through all those scandals.
Because he can turn to people that he knows they have no choice to vote for him and insult them in their face.
Insensitive? Rude? Petty? A self-inflicted wound? Downright foolish? Yes.
But honest and funny too.
____________________________________________________________

And this is not the only case that Trump makes really controversial remarks that frankly few serious politicians would make. In fact many politicians would sweat at the thought of being caught laughing to such jokes. And instead of these, Trump comes along and insults people without a care in the world.
He has been doing so since 2015 and it had not harmed his base. Evidently, 40% of American voters think it is not a big deal.



Do you think such antics would harm Trump coming elections? Does his electorate even care? Do you think that his base (the 40% or so of the electorate that is) actually likes his approach to politics?

About this specific incident, do you agree with Trump that whether they like him or not, rich real estate people (of whatever ethnicity) would vote for him whether they like him or not simply because he's protecting their interests?


Do you agree that insulting a bunch of people because he thinks they will vote for him anyway -and he is probably right- is damn funny ?

[mishkin]

Do you really find it funny that in the same address he is racist towards a senator calling her pocahontas and towards his audience, Jewish, calling them greedy? Why dont you mention in your OP the last part (the antisemtism)?

Trump says pro-Israel group will vote for him to protect their money: 'You're not nice people at all. You're not going to vote for the wealth tax'

"Donald Trump has been accused of antisemitism after he told a pro-Israel Jewish group they will vote for him to protect their wealth."

Really, alhoon? Maybe you should check your sense of humor. And your honesty, and your racism too.

[Abdülmecid I]

Frankly, that sounded to me like friendly bantering that the Independent newspaper intentionally tried to misrepresent. As far as I understand his speech, he's just being a bit self-sarcastic, which I personally consider as a useful tactic for increasing your popularity, regardless of how journalists may distort it. In what concerns generally the impact of verbal gaffes upon presidential campaigns, I think their role has been gradually declining, which is actually great news. The presidential elections in the United States have traditionally focused excessively on the merits of the candidates themselves, instead of paying even a marginal attention to their manifestos and the ideological principles of the parties that endorsed them. This approach reveals an extreme lack of political maturity and renders the voters exceptionally vulnerable to the Messianic promises of populist charlatans.

In 2016, Donald Trump succeeded in convincing millions of childishly naive citizens that his nomination presents a great challenge to the establishment and the decadent elites. Despite our supposedly constant progress in education, a great number of adults genuinely believed that a self-contradictory magnate, who enjoyed the support of the party that historically panders to the higher echelons of the society, sincerely aimed at draining the swamp. On the other hand, however, Hillary Clinton was decisively defeated, not because mainstream media suddenly discovered fake news and evil foreigners plotted against her, but because she was too strongly associated with the previous administration and its failures in improving quality of life. So, I would argue that elections are still largely influenced by the obsession with the candidates' character, but politics play an increasingly important role. Even Donald's rise can be explained not so much by his extravagant personality, but by the fact that his populist behaviour managed to overshadow the normally reactionary positions of the Republican party.

Similarly, the result of the 2020 elections will probably be shaped by the levels of popular approval of the incumbent government and by how efficiently the Democrat nominee, either Joe Biden or Elisabeth ''Pocahontas'' Warren is able to convince the electorate that she intends to take as radical reforms as Obama claimed in 2008. So far, statistics don't pay a very rosy picture about the prospects of Donald in repeating his previous triumph in Pennsylvania. In conclusion, Trump is right, since wealthy real-estate businessmen will still vote for him, even if his rants make them feel uncomfortable and, honestly, that's the clever strategy. Everyone should concentrate on each party's platform and not on the anyway irrelevant and insignificant rhetoric of its leadership.

[mishkin]

You have managed to write three paragraphs and not mentioning even once the word "jew". Congrats.

the standards are so low...

[alhoon]

Do you really find it funny that in the same address he is racist towards a senator calling her pocahontas and towards his audience, Jewish, calling them greedy? Why dont you mention in your OP the last part (the antisemtism)?

Trump says pro-Israel group will vote for him to protect their money: 'You're not nice people at all. You're not going to vote for the wealth tax'

"Donald Trump has been accused of antisemitism after he told a pro-Israel Jewish group they will vote for him to protect their wealth."

Really, alhoon? Maybe you should check your sense of humor. And your honesty, and your racism too.

I don't think he is anti-Semitic. That the people he insulted happened to be Jews because it was a pro-Israel event doesn't mean it was why he said it. When you make fun of a person's money, I don't think you have to check whether they are Jewish or not. Treating Jews differently is actually harming equality.
Also, I don't find it racist at all to call out a white woman that claimed to have a great great great grandparent from a native American tribe along her 31 white g-g-g grandparents... when she didn't. The natives also called her out on that.

In short, to answer your question: Yes, I find it funny. You don't find it funny because it hurts your sensibilities and I understand that.
However the point remains: Such insults to his electorate don't harm his base. People that think like you do wouldn't be voting for him, would they? As such, he didn't lose anything, on the contrary he touched base with some of his supporters.

Frankly, that sounded to me like friendly bantering that the Independent newspaper intentionally tried to misrepresent. As far as I understand his speech, he's just being a bit self-sarcastic, which I personally consider as a useful tactic for increasing your popularity, regardless of how journalists may distort it. In what concerns generally the impact of verbal gaffes upon presidential campaigns, I think their role has been gradually declining, which is actually great news. The presidential elections in the United States have traditionally focused excessively on the merits of the candidates themselves, instead of paying even a marginal attention to their manifestos and the ideological principles of the parties that endorsed them. This approach reveals an extreme lack of political maturity and renders the voters exceptionally vulnerable to the Messianic promises of populist charlatans.

A very interesting take.
While I partially disagree that it is a good thing that "verbal gaffes are not that big of a deal" I don't completely disagree either. When it comes to Trump though, it's not just verbal gaffes. His rhetoric in 2015-2019 has increased divisiveness which is certainly not a good thing - whether it is funny (like this) or not (Mexican rapists).

The part about "It was a joke, and received as such, despite what the newspaper tried to pass" was also an interesting take. I hear them laughing in the background so perhaps you're right.

[Heathen Hammer]

he is racist towards a senator calling her pocahontas

You mean Warren, who is white and pretended to be Native American for years?

"Donald Trump has been accused of antisemitism after he told a pro-Israel Jewish group they will vote for him to protect their wealth."

Calling Trump antisemitic is the dumbest accusation I've seen made against him, especially in light of him treating Israel like its 51st state.

[Mithradates]

Do you really find it funny that in the same address he is racist towards a senator calling her pocahontas and towards his audience, Jewish, calling them greedy? Why dont you mention in your OP the last part (the antisemtism)?

Trump says pro-Israel group will vote for him to protect their money: 'You're not nice people at all. You're not going to vote for the wealth tax'

"Donald Trump has been accused of antisemitism after he told a pro-Israel Jewish group they will vote for him to protect their wealth."

Really, alhoon? Maybe you should check your sense of humor. And your honesty, and your racism too.

Well, I find calling the obviously white Warren as Pocahontas funny, maybe I should check my sense of humor too. Also, all those Jews laughing during Trumps speech should check their sense of humor too, right?

[mishkin]

Following your logic someone (the president of the united states in person in this case) can speak of n#### in an auditorium full of black men if they find it funny and it is justified to call someone pocahontas if their percentage of Indian blood is really low. Enjoy your humor, little group of fellas, alhoon, Abdülmecid, HH, Mithradates. (Yeah, you see what I did there, right?).

alhoon, why you didn't mention that he was addressing a Jewish audience. The article you quote basically just talks about it and you never mentioned Jews in the opening post.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think we can all agree that real problem isn't imaginary "-isms", but more about PC brigade having thin skin and pretty much looking for things to be offended with.

[alhoon]

alhoon, why you didn't mention that he was addressing a Jewish audience. The article you quote basically just talks about it and you never mentioned Jews in the opening post.

Because it's not important.
Jews are people. Jews are not special. Those Jews will vote for Trump anyway. Being a Jew is not a disability and it shouldn't offer protected status. (PS. Trump has mocked disabled people in the past - that was less funny).
The article writes what the journalist thinks is important, I write what I think it's important in my OP. I really don't think it was important and I really think calling Trump's remarks as anti-Semitic is weird.

A real estate mogul that tells an audience full of black people in real estate: "Some of you are brutal killers, I don't like some of you" (which is the exact equivalent of what Trump said) is not racist and is mind-blogging to me that someone would consider "insulting a person that happens to be Jew" as anti-Semitic. ESPECIALLY since Trump was clearly well received in that talk by his audience.
I mean, I would take the applauds of Israelis and Jews in the audience over a poster's opinion on whether Trump's joke was anti-Semitic and racist.

In conclusion, Trump is right, since wealthy real-estate businessmen will still vote for him, even if his rants make them feel uncomfortable and, honestly, that's the clever strategy. Everyone should concentrate on each party's platform and not on the anyway irrelevant and insignificant rhetoric of its leadership.

In the USA the PotUS (as we have recently found out) has very little power thanks to some very smart people ~250 years ago. In other countries this is not always the case. I fully agree that we should look more on to what the boss does and not what the boss says and in USA's case the boss doesn't have that much power, especially inside the country as congress can practically walk back everything he does. Also, even in the case of USA, the way the boss talks causes far-right marches and partisan division. Although the blame for the levels of division evident today also lies with the democrat party-hawks and people that say "OMG! Trump said something bad about a few members of his Jewish audience! Anti-Semitism!".

Regardless... the way the boss talks is funny.
And whether the opposition likes it or not, such remarks (whether you like them or not or consider them racist etc) resonate well with an important part of Trump's message (I talk loudly and I am not afraid to insult people). And also offers him free publicity.

[Mithradates]

Following your logic someone (the president of the united states in person in this case) can speak of n#### in an auditorium full of black men if they find it funny and it is justified to call someone pocahontas if their percentage of Indian blood is really low. Enjoy your humor, little group of fellas, alhoon, Abdülmecid, HH, Mithradates. (Yeah, you see what I did there, right?).

alhoon, why you didn't mention that he was addressing a Jewish audience. The article you quote basically just talks about it and you never mentioned Jews in the opening post.

Nope, not even close. Wealthy people are not going to vote for the wealth tax because they want to remain wealthy, easy as it is. Wealthy "insert whatever race here" are not gonna vote for the wealth tax.
He is not calling Warren Pocahontas because her percentage of Indian blood is really low, he is calling her like that because Warren identified herself as a Native American, which she isnt. She actually had to apologize to the Cherokee Nation because of this.

(Yeah, you see what I did there, right?)

No I dont. btw this "little group of fellas" is literally everybody except you. Think about that.

[alhoon]

I refuse to be bundled in the same little group of fellas with some of the posters mentioned as we are very very different ideologically.

Putting me in that little group is clearly racist because I disagree with it and it was directed to a Greek (me). (<=== Sarcasm)

[athanaric]

Do you really find it funny that in the same address he is racist towards a senator calling her pocahontas

How's that racist and who would that "racism" even be directed at? White Anglo-Americans or Native Americans?

Following your logic someone (the president of the united states in person in this case) can speak of n#### in an auditorium full of black men if they find it funny and it is justified to call someone pocahontas if their percentage of Indian blood is really low. Enjoy your humor, little group of fellas, alhoon, Abdülmecid, HH, Mithradates. (Yeah, you see what I did there, right?).

Pocahontas is a name and not an insult, much less a racist one. If you pretended to be black and your career profited from it, someone calling you out on it wouldn't be racist (least of all towards black people), he'd be doing the rest of the world a favour.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Do you really find it funny that in the same address he is racist towards a senator calling her pocahontas and towards his audience, Jewish, calling them greedy?

Wow, you're really reaching with this one aren't you?

[Sar1n]

You have managed to write three paragraphs and not mentioning even once the word "jew". Congrats.

the standards are so low...

You even want quotas on mentioning them? That's racist.

[Knight of Heaven]

The Pocahontas jab is indeed funny, i dont see how it isn't.

If anything is racist here, it is Elizabeth Warren using her allegedly ascendance as native American for political points. Ascendance that was then debunked. Making her self pass as native American descendant so she can have political influence and points, its what is insulting.

Calling her Pocahontas is just fitting.

[Infidel144]

The 'Pocahontas' thing is not funny, because it is supposed to be 'Fauxcahontas'...

[sumskilz]

You have managed to write three paragraphs and not mentioning even once the word "jew".

It is nice to see somebody occasionally can.

[Prodromos]

A lot of diseases have come out of the closet since Trump's election, and anti-Semitism is one of them. Despite Trump's occasional denunciations, anti-Semites feel greatly emboldened by his presidency. They feel that if he goes down, they'll go down with him, since they've latched onto him as a means of realizing much of their agenda, from unraveling the current political consensus [which happens to be anti-racist and anti-sectarian], to isolating America from its allies [which would logically include Israel], and so on.

As for Trump himself, he seems to like Jews and supports Israel, so he's certainly not a classic anti-Semite, but the type of anti-Semitism he promotes is a 'positive' anti-Semitism -- that is, he believes in all the bad traits that anti-Semites associate with Jews (greed, disloyalty, etc.), but he happens to think they're admirable qualities and nothing to be ashamed of. Having someone like that in the White House is a big victory for anti-Semites, since positive anti-Semitism in society can easily morph into negative anti-Semitism.

It's explained in this article: Trump keeps pushing anti-Semitic stereotypes. But he thinks he’s praising Jews

Trump may be preferable to most of the Democratic challengers, but the fact that anti-Semites, racial supremacists, Catholic Integralists, Russian Chekists, and similar groups, all feel comfortable in the Trump coalition, should make constitutional conservatives and Christians (especially Protestants) think carefully before getting on the Trump Train. Trumpism is closer to Charles Maurras' political thought than to James Madison's.

[alhoon]

Trump's daughter and his son in law, arguably the people with the most influence on him, are Jews. Frankly it's the first time I hear "disloyalty" is a Jewish trait as from what I understand even the people that dislike them acknowledge they have very close relationships with one another and are very loyal to their group. I also can't fathom how one could consider "Greed" and "disloyalty" to be admirable traits.

On the other hand, Trump is frankly bizarre so maybe in his own skewed morality those traits may indeed be considered good qualities and while I don't understand why, anti-Semitists are indeed with him despite all the support he has given to Israel and how close he is to Jews. His son in law is often accused of being the stereotypical Jew sans the skills: propped up by family connections, banker with no morality, greedy.

Most Anti-Semitists I can think of, including some posters that are no longer active in the forum, are not very bright people so I doubt they would be playing 3D chess with Trump thinking they can turn "positive" anti-Semitism to negative. They probably don't bother to listen to Trump to figure he's not anti-Semitist and believe their own fake news and echo chambers. Since Trump doesn't seem to give a damn about racism and openly hits the "PC crowd" they benefit from him in power.
Trump is mainly anti-Latino and anti-Arab in my opinion and that's because of immigration \ terrorism ~> because these allow him to capitalize on people's fears.
He's not anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-gay and anti-Asian.

However, when you give the thumbs up to Anti-Latino and Islamophobes, you have to turn a blind eye to the racists and anti-Semitists as well because many of the "street fighthers" that promote anti-Mexican and Islamophobic views are also racists, or homophobes etc.
And then, we have the PC-crowd. Trump reacts badly to different views. If the PC crown pushes one way, he would push the other way ~> increase divisiveness.


Long story short: The anti-semitists benefit from Trump is a byproduct of Trump's capitalization of fear and his war with PC. I don't think he is anti-Semitic.