Despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden by more than seven million votes, Donald Trump tells a Republican summit near Orlando that he would have won every state if not for widespread voter fraud.
  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    122·
    1 year ago

    Just to get a feeling of how fucking dumb I think you are if you actually stand behind this dumbass.

    After several recent gaffes — including getting Sioux City, Iowa, mixed up with Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in a speech last week as he drummed up support ahead of the Iowa primary — Mr Trump took fewer missteps in his Florida address.

    But he did again repeat that Victor Orban’s Hungary bordered on Russia, which it does not. The countries are about 1,000 kilometres apart at their closest point.

    In a previous speech, he said Mr Orban was the leader of Turkey.

    You think that’s a great choice to lead anything? It’s not even funny to make fun of you, because you are literally mentally handicapped.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    74·
    1 year ago

    “ I don’t get it. They say I lost but I won the most states. All the states, 53 in all. The greatest victory ever and they stole it from me, from you. The greatest victory by the greatest president!”

  • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
    634·
    1 year ago

    Whenever Trump utters a new completely bogus lie, I don’t think about him at all. Instead I think about his voters and wonder if there is any falsehood he could utter that would cause them to change their minds about him. It’s still hard for me to accept the idea that so many people think this is acceptable behavior in the final analysis. I know many Trump voters say that they don’t like Trump or approve of his lies, but they still claim he’s better than any Democrat due to his policies and strident action to support them. It really is a strong man appeal, and none of them seem to be able to see how letting this become the new precedent for their party will damage not just the Republican platform in the long run but the entire American political system.

    I can see a future in which Gen Z or their children elect a similarly unhinged president who tries to ban organized religion or selectively deny federal funding to red states or some other nonsense. When the shoe is on the other foot, oh the cries of injustice these same Trumpers will make.

    We are all so fucked. Glad my life is already 50% over. Future generations have my condolences.

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      1 year ago

      Instead I think about his voters and wonder if there is any falsehood he could utter that would cause them to change their minds about him.

      Exactly: the point of this kind of blatantly outrageous lie isn’t actually to try to convince anybody of anything; it’s to act as a fascist purity test. The goal is to force everyone either to sink deeper into the cult of personality by knowingly accepting and thus sharing in the lie, which introduces even more cognitive dissonance and makes it that much harder for them to break free in the future, or to out themselves as an enemy so that they can be purged.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      111·
      1 year ago

      …president who tries to ban organized religion or selectively deny federal funding to red states…

      Now this is a platform I can support!

      • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
        414·
        1 year ago

        Then you’re part of the problem. You object to extremism on the Right, but favor it on the Left. I’m finding this is pretty typical of the average Lemmy user, sadly.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          Welcome to the the fallacy that is the US political landscape, every anti-right view is a pro-left view and vice versa. This is the outcome of a two-party system. If you think this is stupid you should be a supporter of proportional representation and in favor of the abolishment of the two-party system.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
            22·
            1 year ago

            We’ve had a two-party system for a long time without politics being this polarized, so I can’t chalk it up to just that, but I acknowledge it’s a factor. I am for a third+ party option and proportional representation, obviously. However, I also just think extremists of any stripe regard anyone who isn’t them as extremists of another stripe and can’t wrap their minds around the concept of political moderation.

            • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
              6·
              1 year ago

              One of the issue with a two-party system is that all it takes is one side to polarize the issues. Once it’s polarized there’s no political moderation because it devolves into “us vs them”. The opposing parties must take the opposite sides on political views and the common folk are either “with us or against us”. It’s pretty clear with the republican voter base that even if they don’t agree with the republican party (as evident from Roe vs Wade) they will still vote republican, because they have to accept the majority of the democratic base to change their vote. The two-party system is bound to extremism the moment one of the parties decides to turn to extremist, you either toe the party line or you essentially do a 180 on you political views. You can’t have political moderation when one side decides to polarize issues. And that’s where the benefits of proportional representation come to light, because one party can’t just radicalize the entire political system. If one political party turns too extremist for your views you can find (or create) adjacent parties to support.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          81·
          1 year ago

          You are confusing resistance as “extremism”.

          Both sides are not the same. One side is fascist. The other side can politely complain about it or can resist by taking action. Fascism has never been defeated without action. Marginalizing conservatism is marginalizing fascism.

          Do not defend fascists. They neither need nor want your defense.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
            214·
            1 year ago

            I’m not confusing anything. Communism is just as bad as fascism and just as authoritarian, and yet most Lemmies support it. I don’t want the Far Left in charge any more than I want the Far Right in charge. You’re defending someone who is calling for a ban on organized religion and funding to States with majority conservative voters. That’s extreme and if you can’t see it, then I’m inclined to think you’re just cut from the same extremist cloth. Sad.

            • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
              91·
              1 year ago

              What does communism have to do with anything at all? I think you are using boogie man words to try to defend a weak argument. No one here has said anything about communism. Can you define communism? Define it. Go ahead. And then explain what it has to do with anything we are talking about.

              No matter how you frame it, there is nothing extreme about resisting extremism. Conservatives are extremists. Resisting conservatism is the appropriate and moral thing to do.

              Thank you for illustrating how every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
                111·
                1 year ago

                Conservatives are extremists.

                Thank you for illustrating how every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.

                LOL, I’m not a conservative, but you just demonstrated you’re an extremist. I have learned not to bother debating anything with extremists. I brought up Communism, because most Lemmies support it, and I’m not just talking about the Tankies. I’m done with you now.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          31·
          1 year ago

          Everyone talks like that online, but I doubt there’s anything there. Most of us who vent frustrations about the self-destructive authoritarians elected by what must be extremely gullible voters, are also likely to vote for more aid to their children than they vote for, more support for their public health, more support for education, technology and science in their regions than they do, more income for their most desperate, more safety net for their citizens who fall, better healthcare for their infirm, more investment in their future than they do, etc.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      8·
      1 year ago

      wonder if there is any falsehood he could utter that would cause them to change their minds about him

      “Hillary Clinton is actually a good person.”

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      40·
      1 year ago

      Like…it’s been fuckin YEARS you pathetic sad sack. No one gives a fuck anymore. Even his own supporters aren’t as gung ho because…it’s been fuckin years. It’s hard to get people excited to vote for you when you won’t shut the fuck up about the election four goddamn years ago.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.caEnglish
    24·
    1 year ago

    I wonder at which point of his ridiculous lies Republican voters will (secretly?) clue in.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    252·
    1 year ago

    I’d like to point out that even Ronald Fucking Reagan didn’t win all 50 against Mondale. He lost Minnesota.

    “Reagan won a landslide re-election victory, carrying 525 electoral votes, 49 states, and 58.8 percent of the popular vote. Mondale won 13 electoral votes from the District of Columbia, which has always voted overwhelming for the Democratic candidate, and his home state of Minnesota by a 0.18% margin.”

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    176·
    1 year ago

    could someone [in the court process] request a mental evaluation to determine if he is even competent to be found guilty? hes clearly off his rocker, and a potential danger to himself and others!

    • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
      34·
      1 year ago

      No. There will should be NO easy outs for this fuckwad. He needs to be made a serious example of. He should be sent to Gitmo.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
          71·
          1 year ago

          I think it would set a precedent for the office. Mental health check.

          • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
            8·
            1 year ago

            Our officials should be held to a higher standard than we are, and that absolutely should include mental health checkups before and during tenure. But we also need to recognize that would be a convinient system for opponents to weaponize. We can’t even manage to have an impartial Supreme Court, let alone mental health examiners. Idk what we do about it.

            • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
              31·
              1 year ago

              We can apply the “but who makes the rules” fear to everything. But inaction is just as bad. I think we need to understand that nothing has changed in politics, we just have more awareness of it because of the internet. The supreme court has always been corrupt. The idea of impartiality was drilled into us like the pledge of allegiance. We’ve all been brainwashed, but a lot more of us are waking up.

      • RubberStuntBaby@kbin.social
        4·
        1 year ago

        I’m pretty sure that the most we can hope for is house arrest. The courts won’t want a former president getting stabbed in the showers, being bullied into giving up national secrets or the bureaucratic mess of him having a security detail inside, as fitting as any of that would be.

  • clutchmatic@lemmy.world
    10·
    1 year ago

    Interesting how politicians can say absolutely whatever they want even if that undermines the integrity of the country they want to rule over

  • paprika@infosec.pub
    81·
    1 year ago

    I think he’s talking about the Repub primaries, which is not even impressive because incumbents generally aren’t even challenged. But of course he would brag about that.