Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The chancellor from the movie orthe chancellor from the original comics?
Alan Moore may not like Trump (I don't "like" Trump but think he's normal as far as not-so-good presidents go, it will always be normal to get one of those each decade), but he said he didn't like that the movie took away the leadership ambiguity his original comic had.
Even as another movement steps into light, I don't think the mask is best changed, that part is fine, but it would be stereotypical haste to not wait for something explicit/outright. What has Trump actually done that screams "I am an outright villain for this nation, fear me"? The Guy Fawkes groups are largely inactive in the discourse of Eastern nations, does that imply relative complicitness there?
Do you mean besides the evil plan (project 2025), his explicit statements of becoming “president for life”/overstepping the bounds of the 2-term presidency, talking about jailing his opponents (including some republicans), his associates calling for violence, his lawyers referencing immunity to political violence (military assasination of a political rival), and an actual insurrection by his followers?
That's not "his" evil plan (which doesn't even include the president for life part, that was wishful thinking out loud), and the part about jailing opponents is mainly related to those who exploited due process in the political sphere in the past eight years. Which, although Trump is not himself innocent, many, many people did, both for one side and the other (think the Biden family trials, which any normal person would see as parallel to the Trump trials), but with this kind of thing never going anywhere, even for state governors.
As for the rest, are we really going to hold someone accountable just because of their toxic fandom? That's the mistake many are trying not to make with all the involved sides. I for one criticize presidents by, I don't know, their policies and broken promises (e.g. Trump's military inclusion protocol).
Fair, but as the puppet in this theater of government takeover, he is culpable.
Clearly, him wishing to be a dictator does not concern you…
Can you outline these for me, with some references? The list is:
Absolutely, when he stands by them.
One can fantasize about being a dictator and still have the restraint not to be one. Obama said the same once, exploring the "what if" of if he was elected more than twice. Neither stand by this, and neither stand by what some of their more extreme supporters have done, hence some of the people in Trump's list of allies, who do not fit the racial image promoted by said followers. The closest thing to this Trump wants is (and elaborating on the due process part here) to jail people who either charged other politicians wrongfully or got away with things wrongfully (which makes it ironic Joe Biden is at the top of your list, we don't know if he or Hunter are guilty but we know the issue at least deserves more analysis). Aside from Harris out of questionable association, that list draws a blank for me and nothing actually says those people are necessitated in a conversation about people who would be jailed, deciding this which isn't actually a power that comes with immunity to prosecution in the first place, as immunity to prosecution, if it was an issue here, just gives you invulnerability to political elements, not the power to imbue them, nor does it protect you from the consequences of absolutely every crime, which a president would find out if they ever killed someone for example.
From what I can tell, Obama said he probably could have beaten Trump if he had run for a third term AFTER the 2016 election was over. Unless you are referring to something different.
On the first point, do I really need to quote the things Trump has said about the January 6th protesters? And those who participated in the Charlottesville white nationalist march in 2017?
On the second point, regardless of many of his supporters being racists, Trump knows he has to still win over black and Hispanic voters in the political game. And why would he reject a lap dog like Ben Carson or Justice Thomas regardless of their skin color?
Your last sentence was too long and I don’t understand what you were trying to say, except: 1. Biden and possibly Harris are the only one on the “Trump wants the send to jail list” that make sense to you, and 2. Not every crime will be immune under the new SCOTUS ruling.
If rules can be bent to the point of it being a defense, their mere existence ceases to be an effective enough topic of debate, since their acceptance can just be met with concern that they won't be adhered to as intended. If he is going to arrest anyone over a "big lie" agenda (or for anything else), it's also worth pointing out it's not like they're not going to get a court hearing for it, it's not like they're going to wake up one day and be like "well I guess I'm in jail now". Relatedly, it's by the same logic as not rejecting "lap dogs" based on their characteristic that we can't automatically assume he's going to accept people as model members of his fandom just because they follow him.