5 ms·

You’re on to something there. In 2016, Trump first had to defeat the Republican establishment. Then he won the election. In 2020, he nearly won again. In 20

You’re on to something there. In 2016, Trump first had to defeat the Republican establishment. Then he won the election. In 2020, he nearly won again. In 2024, he won the election again. He is like no politician before him. He is boorish, childish, uncouth, and boastful. But it’s the fact that he opposes the sneering, snotty media/political establishment that gets him votes. People are tired of lies being constantly pushed upon them by condescending pretty people. Another snarky article from The Atlantic only feeds the monster.

rbanffy 1y ago
> People are tired of lies being constantly pushed upon them by condescending pretty people And it seems all they always wanted were lies being constantly pushed upon them by despicable petty authoritarians.
IAmBroom 1y ago
[flagged]
- mrkeen 1y ago
  If you're having trouble 'seeing from the other side', just substitute "toddler" for "communist", and "poisoned for years by memes and disinformation" with "infected by the woke mind virus". If I characterised your voting behaviour being due to "Trump derangement syndrome", would that be a "lie"?
  - happytoexplain 1y ago
    That relies on the common fallacy that both sides of any given political binary are "the same" by default - i.e. that if you believe anything about Republicans, and you don't believe the same thing about Democrats, or vice versa, that you are a hypocrite almost automatically. But of course you need to state some kind of opinion or argument that X is the same as Y - it's not true by default. If a Democrat (or Republican) did the things Trump does, I would expect and understand for people to accuse that Democrat (or Republican) of acting like a toddler, or whatever. That doesn't mean you should or that it's a good thing, but it's understandable and not hypocritical.
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  Here’s a few examples: Bill Clinton being defended by Gloria Steinem and the National Organization of Women. Dan Rather trying to take down GW Bush with forged documents. Anderson Cooper standing in a hole while bemoaning a flood that really wasn’t that bad. Katie Couric and the deceptively edited gun owner interview. The deafening silence about George Floyd’s criminal record. The whole media attack on the Covington High kids. ( With Hollywood social media assist. ) Jussie Smulletts attempted Trump smear. All the participants outraged at Justice Kavanaugh ( who are oddly silent about Bill Clinton’s much worse transgressions ). Such outrage for a very thin allegation. The complete media silence during the surprise Hunter Biden laptop discovery. ( Add to that dozens of ‘expert’ testimonials that called it ‘Russian disinformation’. ) Of course by now it is proved genuine. The damage in this big lie was the proximity to Election Day. That’s why the denials and silence are so very important. There are many more, but you should see the point. If you think there’s nothing to all of this, then I’m afraid we’re just on opposite sides of a strange wall that distorts what seems truthful.
  - happytoexplain 1y ago
    You're right. Though simple lists of anecdotes and examples do nothing because they are essentially infinite - you could list one thousand evil deeds on either side and still be cherry-picking, or be listing things that the other person simply disagrees with subjectively even if you both agree on the factual parts, and that's not even considering the cases where you each disagree on the facts. But you're right in that if the perception of how badly one "side" behaves vs the other is almost perfectly opposite between two people (sounds like "party A is shitty but human, party B is evil"), they might as well be aliens to each other. You can't resolve differences in reality.
happytoexplain 1y ago
But he and his culture exemplify "sneering", "snotty", "lies", "condescending", and "snarky" much more strongly than mainstream media ever has. That's practically his entire platform. I don't feel like my saying that is even really an insult to him - i.e. I think he embraces those qualities pretty openly.
deeg 1y ago
> But it’s the fact that he opposes the sneering, snotty Calling people "Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", and Gavin "Newscum" isn't sneering and snotty?
- Ancapistani 1y ago
  That’s literally his appeal. Perceptually, he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back. More realistically, he’s a caricature of the way the right feels the media and political class treat them. Obviously there is some gap between perception and reality - but those same groups reacted so strongly to him that they became a caricature of themselves. He’s popular on the right because he’s so unpopular on the left.
  - happytoexplain 1y ago
    >he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back It's hard to believe anybody believes this. I understand both sides always feel like the other side is always "worse" by essentially any metric, but first? The first Republican candidate to mock democrats or be shitty? You mean the most extreme, surely. Also, "shot back" implies something comparable. Again - I don't really believe anybody thinks what Trump culture does is comparable to what either Republicans or Democrats have done to each other for decades. If you mean it asymmetrically - as in the president "shooting back" not at the other presidents, but at the media and constituency of the opposite party, then in that context it makes even less sense. It was always the case that the media and online shitposters waged petty war against each other, while the presidents made rare jokes that were more diplomatic (on average...). It was always a gradient going up the chain - the people at the bottom saying the worst things, then the media in second place, then elected officials, then the president. But Republicans were always varyingly more extreme at all levels of that hierarchy. There was never a layer where the Democrats were shit-talking the Republicans in a way that the Republicans didn't match or exceed. So it doesn't make semantic sense to say that Trump "shot back" - what Trump did was pull the worst of those bottom bits straight up into the presidency, and all layers in between. The Democrats are "shooting back" by reactively getting more shit-talky at higher levels. Of course, that's not the right thing to do, but it's understandable, and they still don't come anywhere near Trumpism, qualitatively or quantitatively.
JohnTHaller 1y ago
> People are tired of lies being constantly pushed upon them by condescending pretty people Now they have way more lies pushed upon them by condescending ugly people

rbanffy 1y ago

> People are tired of lies being constantly pushed upon them by condescending pretty people And it seems all they always wanted were lies being constantly pushed upon them by despicable petty authoritarians.

IAmBroom 1y ago

[flagged]

mrkeen 1y ago
If you're having trouble 'seeing from the other side', just substitute "toddler" for "communist", and "poisoned for years by memes and disinformation" with "infected by the woke mind virus". If I characterised your voting behaviour being due to "Trump derangement syndrome", would that be a "lie"?
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  That relies on the common fallacy that both sides of any given political binary are "the same" by default - i.e. that if you believe anything about Republicans, and you don't believe the same thing about Democrats, or vice versa, that you are a hypocrite almost automatically. But of course you need to state some kind of opinion or argument that X is the same as Y - it's not true by default. If a Democrat (or Republican) did the things Trump does, I would expect and understand for people to accuse that Democrat (or Republican) of acting like a toddler, or whatever. That doesn't mean you should or that it's a good thing, but it's understandable and not hypocritical.
RickJWagner 1y ago
Here’s a few examples: Bill Clinton being defended by Gloria Steinem and the National Organization of Women. Dan Rather trying to take down GW Bush with forged documents. Anderson Cooper standing in a hole while bemoaning a flood that really wasn’t that bad. Katie Couric and the deceptively edited gun owner interview. The deafening silence about George Floyd’s criminal record. The whole media attack on the Covington High kids. ( With Hollywood social media assist. ) Jussie Smulletts attempted Trump smear. All the participants outraged at Justice Kavanaugh ( who are oddly silent about Bill Clinton’s much worse transgressions ). Such outrage for a very thin allegation. The complete media silence during the surprise Hunter Biden laptop discovery. ( Add to that dozens of ‘expert’ testimonials that called it ‘Russian disinformation’. ) Of course by now it is proved genuine. The damage in this big lie was the proximity to Election Day. That’s why the denials and silence are so very important. There are many more, but you should see the point. If you think there’s nothing to all of this, then I’m afraid we’re just on opposite sides of a strange wall that distorts what seems truthful.
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  You're right. Though simple lists of anecdotes and examples do nothing because they are essentially infinite - you could list one thousand evil deeds on either side and still be cherry-picking, or be listing things that the other person simply disagrees with subjectively even if you both agree on the factual parts, and that's not even considering the cases where you each disagree on the facts. But you're right in that if the perception of how badly one "side" behaves vs the other is almost perfectly opposite between two people (sounds like "party A is shitty but human, party B is evil"), they might as well be aliens to each other. You can't resolve differences in reality.

happytoexplain 1y ago

But he and his culture exemplify "sneering", "snotty", "lies", "condescending", and "snarky" much more strongly than mainstream media ever has. That's practically his entire platform. I don't feel like my saying that is even really an insult to him - i.e. I think he embraces those qualities pretty openly.

deeg 1y ago

> But it’s the fact that he opposes the sneering, snotty Calling people "Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", and Gavin "Newscum" isn't sneering and snotty?

Ancapistani 1y ago
That’s literally his appeal. Perceptually, he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back. More realistically, he’s a caricature of the way the right feels the media and political class treat them. Obviously there is some gap between perception and reality - but those same groups reacted so strongly to him that they became a caricature of themselves. He’s popular on the right because he’s so unpopular on the left.
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  >he’s the first person to run on the Republican ticket that shot back It's hard to believe anybody believes this. I understand both sides always feel like the other side is always "worse" by essentially any metric, but first? The first Republican candidate to mock democrats or be shitty? You mean the most extreme, surely. Also, "shot back" implies something comparable. Again - I don't really believe anybody thinks what Trump culture does is comparable to what either Republicans or Democrats have done to each other for decades. If you mean it asymmetrically - as in the president "shooting back" not at the other presidents, but at the media and constituency of the opposite party, then in that context it makes even less sense. It was always the case that the media and online shitposters waged petty war against each other, while the presidents made rare jokes that were more diplomatic (on average...). It was always a gradient going up the chain - the people at the bottom saying the worst things, then the media in second place, then elected officials, then the president. But Republicans were always varyingly more extreme at all levels of that hierarchy. There was never a layer where the Democrats were shit-talking the Republicans in a way that the Republicans didn't match or exceed. So it doesn't make semantic sense to say that Trump "shot back" - what Trump did was pull the worst of those bottom bits straight up into the presidency, and all layers in between. The Democrats are "shooting back" by reactively getting more shit-talky at higher levels. Of course, that's not the right thing to do, but it's understandable, and they still don't come anywhere near Trumpism, qualitatively or quantitatively.

JohnTHaller 1y ago

> People are tired of lies being constantly pushed upon them by condescending pretty people Now they have way more lies pushed upon them by condescending ugly people