cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1121188
Archived version: https://archive.ph/WLqWJ
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230806095904/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66417168
How anyone sees this man as anything other than a lumpy pile of orange shit is baffling.
It’s simple: he spoke to an undercurrent of emotional resentment that a lot of people had and gave them permission to feel like they were good people (or at least not bad people) for feeling that way. Every seemingly logical explanation that the right twists into place in hindsight is only a justification for that gut reaction.
They want to feel good for having xenophobic, nationalist feelings. He gave them permission and said they were the good guys and everyone who disagrees is wrong. They only care about the facts that back up that perspective, everything else is conveniently discarded to defend their collective ego. 45’s narcissism helps him win this crowd because he’s been ignoring all inconvenient facts his whole life, and whenever that habit catches up with him he always has a scapegoat or 12 ready to go.
Well written, I wonder what caused that emotional resentment?
My guess would be cancel culture, I believe his supporters only like him because progressive people hate him.
the emotional resentment comes from the perpetual victim mentality. the only way their way of life works is if they are constantly under attack by a villain of the week thats simultaneously incompetent and feeble but also sadistic and near unstoppable.
Yeah I guess there’s also underlying issues of feeling lost and insignificant in a complex world. Add to that economic struggle and a lacking class awareness and cognitive dissonance does the rest.
Probably has something to do with racism and the election of a black president.
He’s a poor man’s vision of a rich man, an ignorant man’s vision of a smart man, and a weak man’s vision of a strong man.
Even a blind man can smell this leprotic turd a mile off.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Prosecutors in Donald Trump’s upcoming trial have asked for limits on what the ex-president can publicly say about the case, after he shared a threatening message online.
In their filing, the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith said the post raised concerns that Mr Trump could publicly reveal secret material, including grand jury transcripts obtained from prosecutors.
The Republican has already hit out against the special counsel, telling a crowd of supporters in Alabama on Friday that Mr Smith was a “deranged human being” and “a bad guy”.
Judge Tanya Chutkan gave Mr Trump’s legal team until 17:00 local time on Monday to respond to the submission.
In a statement shortly after the filing, a spokesperson for Mr Trump defended the social media post and insisted that he had been targeting political opponents.
Judge Chutkan, a noted hardliner on cases against those accused of participation in the Capitol riots, is expected to call in attorneys from both sides on 28 August to discuss setting a trial date.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
In their filing, the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith said the post raised concerns that Mr Trump could publicly reveal secret material, including grand jury transcripts obtained from prosecutors.
Is this a problem that doesn’t have a solution?
Like, if I break confidentiality I’m fired. Is there not some “break the rules and we throw you in jail” or are they too cowardly?
It’s pretty complex to put a former president in jail. The logistics, alone, are a nightmare. Never mind the upheaval that would cause with the right-wing. So it’s not just being cowardly.
