Just your average dumpster fire.
- Dec 11, 2020
- Reaction score
There’s now been enough votes cast—congrats Trump on being the only president to be impeached twice!
This is what makes the GOP pleas for "unity" so infuriating. If the coup had worked, those exact same people would be telling us to accept Trump as dictator.10 House Republicans voted in favor of impeachment. Guess the rest are fine with a fascist coup overthrowing the US government.
That's pretty unlikely, there's no recorded mental illness that works like that. And we can see that Trump does at least know societal norms about right and wrong- he regularly demonized immigrants as "rapists that love to kill people", and BLM protesters as "violent rioters and looters", and he repeatedly said that "I'm the least racist person ever". So it'd be really weird for him to believe that rape, murder, violence, etc. was actually all moral, and the entire world around him was mistaken in believing otherwise.I strongly think that Trump might have a mental disorder that swaps right and wrong, so what he thinks is right is actually wrong.
Considering his words before he was even elected with "locker room talk," I think he's still think his morals are out of whack regardless of anything. I still kinda want the brain scan though just too even if there is no mental disorder just to see consider how little marbles he has left.192 Republicans in Congress: Fascism is cool, actually
That's pretty unlikely, there's no recorded mental illness that works like that. And we can see that Trump does at least know societal norms about right and wrong- he regularly demonized immigrants as "rapists that love to kill people", and BLM protesters as "violent rioters and looters", and he repeatedly said that "I'm the least racist person ever". So it'd be really weird for him to believe that rape, murder, violence, etc. was actually all moral, and the entire world around him was mistaken in believing otherwise.
Plus, there's a lot of people with mental disorders- even those that can affect behavior and beliefs about the world- that still work to be good people. While I know this definitely wasn't your intention, I feel like the common argument that "Trump's like this because of some mental issue" ultimately just demonizes the mentally ill more while almost letting Trump off the hook.
If you'll excuse a bit of moral philosophizing on my part, the thing about good and evil is that nobody ever wants evil for evil's sake. Evil can come from hatred of others, a misguided belief, a desire for personal benefit, etc. The closest we could get to evil for evil's sake is people who hurt others for their own entertainment, but even that doesn't justify itself as "actually the right thing", and they don't believe that it'd be good to maximize their actions in the same way people will argue to maximize good actions in utilitarianism. Slaveowners were horrible to the people they enslaved, but they didn't take every opportunity to make their lives even worse than they already had, because they weren't doing it because they believed doing bad things to them was just like doing good things for others. They committed those atrocities because it was profitable to them.
To me, it seems like Trump's evil actions are, sadly, fueled by common desires, attacking people who he feels slighted him and trying to get more political power. It's possible he has some issue that contributes to him acting like that- Mary Trump described him as "the only person who can gaslight himself", so maybe he's managed to make himself buy into the election lies But he's not doing this because he believes that anything evil is actually good, he's doing it because he's managed to justify it to himself.
I mean, I know stupid people exist, and I've yet to see anyone that just loves evil for evil's sake, so naturally I'm more inclined to believe that stupidity factors more into Trump's behavior than somehow being the only person who loves evil and just wants to maximize it.If you don't believe he could be evil for the sake of evil, the only thing that explains the more headscratching aspects is that he is the epitome of too dumb to live and would have been claimed by Darwin if not for Presidential perks or his money.
So really it's the whole pick your poison. Would you rather be seen as pure evil or top contender for the Darwin Award?
I'd argue that being the richest probably has a direct correlation with giving less. (Also don't really understand how this is connecting to your other points)No really being rich and in charge mean that while you can get away with being extremely selfish, statically speaking even the richest and most powerful among us at some point has to give or have given in order to get what they want.
Going with the "evil for evil's sake" theory, Trump said "I'd date Ivanka if she weren't my daughter" because it was a gross thing to say, and he wanted to make his daughter and the audience feel gross about hearing it, because that's "good" in his opinion. But if that's his goal, why is it just the one time? Why doesn't he constantly make gross statements to maximize the effect?1. Publically state that they would lets say dating a family member if the relation was non-existant.
Even outright racists know better than to blatantly say they're white supremacists, that's why we get new groups and symbols like the Proud Boys, because they realize that the groups like KKK are unpopular, and they want to win people over to their side.2. Be wishy washy on the public question of denouncing white supremacy. Anyone else in Trump's place would either be ballsy and admit that yes they would or deliver lie outdoing a Shakespeare performance stating a direct "I denounce them entirely and have no use for them in my country".
I mean, several presidents owned slaves, Ronald Reagan called African delegates "monkeys", and they're still widely revered, so I think you're being a little optimistic.But then if any other President made a casual incestuous comment or refrained from denouncing white supremacy? They would have be eaten alive.
Because taking it seriously means taking accountability, admitting a mistake, and diverting resources to help people. Trump was too vain to admit that he was wrong, so he downplayed the virus so that he could pretend to his base that it wasn't such a big deal, just like he said. He didn't want to spend time that could be spent watching TV or golfing on listening to briefings or thinking of how to solve the problem.How exactly does dismissing the serious threat of the Coronavirus/Covid be profitable? That and his lack of concern for the environment is 100% like the Evo-Villains of Captain Planet who purposefully were harming the environment even to the point where profit isn't part of the equation.
Yeah, that's not something I dispute at all. (Except the "making it punishable by law" thing, I doubt that could be done in an executive order) What I'm arguing is that Trump didn't choose not to do this because he loves evil and actively wanted those people to die- he blew off the pandemic because of apathy.Fact Number 1. There are people who follow him even though prior to the riot that many died in 2020 because he dismissed the precautions.
If Trump actually showed common sense and demanded that people wear masks and kept a distance as much as possible (making it punishable by law), his most devoted follower would have happily done so and possibly even policing those still not complying.
Just like they did for the homelessness crisis, for people dying from a lack of healthcare, for victims of gun violence, for people in the wake of Hurricane Maria... the list goes on. The trouble is, people in power have always been willing to put their own financial interests over the well-being of others. And while COVID doesn't have its own NRA or healthcare industry or military industrial complex lobbying for it, the fact that politicians could rally against COVID guidelines instead of being expected to give financial aide gave them incentive to enable Trump's apathy.Not even sorry. Any other President in a similar place and lack of morals would still have treated the Coronavirus as a serious manner even if it was for selfish reasons of securing power.
But not enough to make him change his mind. And if it took until corona for him to lose their respect, doesn't that further prove my point? If he was just acting for the sake of evil,No really when such a thing puts your own allies or supporters what did Trump have to gain? Cause even before the election the guy was loosing some respect from Republicans who voted him in the first term.
Maybe but Trump feels very much like the exception to that rule. If you don't believe he could be evil for the sake of evil, the only thing that explains the more headscratching aspects is that he is
average net approval is -17. That's 27 points below Obama at the end of his first term.I thought I heard its at only 34%. In other words, we will always remember him as the worst president the US has ever had.
I hate to say it, but don't get your hopes up. Obama-era austerity and neoliberalism helped lead to Trump. A return to that headed by someone even more neoliberal than Obama is likely to lead to something even worse.4 more days! 4 more days! We’re almost to the end of this godforsaken era.
I feel like we’ve had this discussion before, but there’s plenty of evidence Trump’s victory in 2016 was driven primarily by racism, and economic issues weren’t much of a factor.I hate to say it, but don't get your hopes up. Obama-era austerity and neoliberalism helped lead to Trump. A return to that headed by someone even more neoliberal than Obama is likely to lead to something even worse.
One key issue is that people want to feel heard before they can open their minds to other people’s points of view. “Democrats in particular need to go out of their way to reassure these groups that they are being respected, that they are being listened to,” Conner said.
I feel like there's a case to be made that economic factors can affect the prevalence of racism, though. Your psmag link says thatI feel like we’ve had this discussion before, but there’s plenty of evidence Trump’s victory in 2016 was driven primarily by racism, and economic issues weren’t much of a factor.
So doesn't it follow that better access to education would help reduce racism in these populations? Obviously it's not going to fix it, especially with the anti-intellectualism the right's been pushing (and so much more under Trump with his creepy "patriotic education" thing), but it's a piece of the puzzle, isn't it?So the less educated you were, and the less likely you were to actually know any people of color, the more susceptible you were to Trump's fear-mongering. This suggests that these rural voters were voting to uphold "certain racialized and gendered norms," the researchers argue.
Yeah, I'm always caught between takes like that myself. Like, on the one hand, sure, whatever's most effective at stopping prejudice, we should probably try it. On the other, "need to go out of their way to reassure these groups that they are being respected, that they are being listened to," but they don't need to do the same to the people they're prejudiced against? We should just coddle them and make sure they feel respected while they disrespect others?Sounds dangerously like saying that suffering hardship means you shouldn't be held accountable for your own behavior if you suffered hardship.
Like personal accountability should be vetoed.