top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 74 points 1 year ago

It spells a lot like 'not fit for the Office's to me.

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    When one is a world leader, they have to understand exactly what they're talking about, and keep that position constant. This man doesn't. But his incompetence is well known and understood. What are we all going to do about it? Lemme tell y'all, protesting isn't going to stop anything. There's more of us than there are of them (being those with power), and the 2nd amendment exists. Do with that as you will, especially those that are severely depressed.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (25 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To win wars afterwards the united states military CANNOT blow up the people who feed it. Literally impossible for the military to win against the populace if they want to live a life after the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    It's not warfare. It's assassination. Any gun can kill someone. No matter what he thinks, he's not bulletproof. It's suicidal to make the attempt. But the one to do it would be put in the history books as one of 5 people to kill a US president. I'd do it if I could honestly. Alas, I don't have access to transport, a weapon, or a good plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    and to what end?

    No seriously.

    You actually believe trump is the one calling the shots? he's a fucking patsy. do you have any idea how many patsies they currently have lined up? how many martyrs do you have ready to go?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Who won the wars between the US and Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? Was it the people with the bomber airplanes? Is the US winning the war against the Houthis?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you want to call them "victories", you can, I guess.

    Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam were all political wars without any clear military objective or purpose. They were basically unwinnable from the US side, and we "lost" because political pressure from the home front grew to the point where it was necessary to end the conflicts.

    Even if you disagree with that statement, 1.1 million Viet Cong and N. Vietnamese military personnel died, with another estimated 2 million civilian deaths on both sides of the Vietnamese war. Vietnam's infrastructure was absolutely destroyed.

    In the second Iraq war, its estimated at 260k-460k deaths; also with their infrastructure being absolutely destroyed.

    the Afghanistan war has similar numbers and similar a similar toll on infrastructure.

    For a more accurate depiction of what a second US civil war would look like I suggest looking at The Troubles in Ireland. Only it's going to be a lot more people killing their neighbors across a country with 360 million people. it will be a bloodbath, it will be awful, and it's going to be ended by the military bombing the everliving fuck out of whatever is still moving at the end.

    stop glorifying violence. It's not going to end the way you think it will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Regarding the Troubles, it was a low-level civil war with the military involved with very limited rules of engagement. The UK military essentially served a police function, though it was institutionally biased in favor of the Unionists. There was no bombing, no artillery fire, none of that (though there were targeted assassinations, largely done by the UVF based on intel fed to them by the UK military). The UK establishment's goal was to contain the problem, not to eliminate it. The Good Friday accord came after a generation-long stalemate. So that's probably not a meaningful model of what might happen in the US.

    And people-power revolutions have occurred in many countries in the world, often without much violence (except for some perpetrated by the authoritarian states against their citizens, and even those tend to be limited). Many have succeeded. On the other hand, there have also been popular movements that have failed (for example, most of the Arab Spring revolutions). Even so, there is no reason to assume that resistance would inevitably lead to a Civil War 2.0 scenario. That would be a worst case; and considering that the pro-dictatorship faction is at most 40% of the population, and largely from the most economically irrelevant parts of the country, the most they could reasonably achieve would be unstable minority rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Trump spends his weekends on golf courses in the middle of high density populations. They're essentially impossible to actually secure. It would take a really good shot, but a .22 would have the range. On top of that, even Google maps has satellite pics of the course and surrounding area.

    Facing the US military head on is suicide, and the police have far more personnel. They're not even a worthwhile target to begin with. There's a reason the super wealthy like the Koche bro's or the Murdochs live on compounds in the middle of nowhere. The open empty space forces anyone going after them to get visibly close to their highly paid, and very effective, security teams.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 41 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Jonathan Guynn, a Justice Department attorney, responded: “President Trump is a master messenger in many ways, but he also doesn’t speak with precision about things sometimes. And I think that this might be one of those situations where perhaps his comments were based on what he was recalling may have been the state of play previously.”

    Xinis was not convinced. “Isn’t it basic, isn’t it black letter law that the Executive Branch must speak with one voice?” she asked.

    “Right now, the administration is not speaking with one voice, and I’m not here to credit one versus the other,” she added. “If I can’t get that one voice — and you don’t give me details […] I don’t know what to do with that.

    Later on, Guynn said, “I can’t even necessarily comment on some of the statements that President Trump has made.”

    Sorry, fucking wut??? The comments of the actual President (sic) of the US are not reflective of the "government's" actual position...???

    😂 🤣 😂 🤣

    Then WTAF is he even there for? Why conducting "interviews" (phone or in-person) with foreign leaders? Why speaking to the press "formally"? Why conducting "government" business with "authority" of (what's left) of the Executive Branch?

    FFS. The mental gyrations these MAGAts go through to get what they want are so fantastical and convoluted as to be entirely unfathomable. Not surprising, given their untenable position(s). But certainly unfathomable.

    ( and, yes, I know he truly doesn't "speak with precision", he's a rambling idiotic buffoon, but that reality is being used purely to the MAGAts own benefit here and that is utterly and completely unconcionable )

    🤦‍♀️ 🙄 🤡 🖕 💩

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They don't use words to convey meaning or to express thought. Their words are chaff that they emit as one of many tactics to get what they want. So there's no reason to reason with them. It's not a debate, it's a power grab.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is this an "Alternative facts" thing, or a "he ain't all there" thing?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    "your Honor, we all know Trump lies. When his lips move that's when you know he's lying, it's common knowledge. It's really on you that you believed him. You can't hold him accountable for lying, it's actually your fault."

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    TACO removed barely speaks English.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    They misspelled "lies about things all the time".

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    He barely speaks identifiable English.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Nobody epitomises "talking shit" quite like Trump

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    He knows like 4 words and lies about everything. And, only cares about his ego. What do people expect.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    He doesn't speak coherently... PLEASE

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    The Justice Department is WOKE eventhoughtrumpforcedhispicksthrough but also we don't NEED A president who SPEAKS clearly!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    He doesn't speak with coherence either.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Tony Soprano does the same thing…

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›