The former president’s most disturbing statements are not bluster. They are a road map to what he will do if elected again.
Donald Trump has described at length the dangerous and disturbing actions he says he will take if he wins the presidency.
His rallies offer a steady stream of such promises and threats — things like prosecuting political opponents and using the military against U.S. citizens. These statements are so outrageous and outlandish, so openly in conflict with the norms and values of American democracy that many find them hard to regard as anything but empty bluster.
We have two words for American voters: Believe him.
The New York Times downplayed his racist, sexist and violent rhetoric and doing "both sides" shit for the last 8 years (the best word I have heard to describe this is "sanewashing")... and now they are coming out with this?
If I was President I’d be taking so much anxiety medication and sobbing regularly over how difficult it is to do it ethically and to create lasting improvements to the country while everyone demands my soul in exchange for their vote in favor of necessary changes to our society, especially of the environmental sort.
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Absolutely everyone believes him. The people that say that he means something other than what he's saying believe him but don't want to be stuck with the image that they're okay with it.
And to clarify to you specifically and the three-ish people that upvoted me, on a weekly basis he helps a 40 year old dude with multiple sclerosis do history homework, and they were covering the second world war. He read the Wikipedia of fascism, and he literally said that he had no idea it was a right wing ideology.
What can I glean from that? I have no fucking clue. Fuck Nazis, fuck republicans. I can only hope that there is a large group of people voting conservative who dont understand the consequence of this next election. Because if you're right than like 40% of the country are bigots, and even if the Democrats win, we're *still fast tracking to collapse
You can always take solace that you weren't down voted.
When you're talking about a set as large as 40 to 50% of the US there will always be exceptions. This exceptions will be numerous yet statistically and significant.
When someone says absolutely every one of the US is X, it's almost always going to be a representation of the truth rather than the actual truth.
Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
The New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America