Pathetic. Spend your own money if you’re so goddamned rich. But, like before, people on welfare will finance his campaign so he can do them harm.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
110 points (92.3% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4752 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This was one thing I thought I'd like about Trump back in 2015. "Hell, he's filthy rich and saying he'll fund his own campaign rather than be bought out. Sounds good!"
Oh boy...
If.
"Most of you can't donate because of Joe Biden."
Which means everyone who does donate to Trump, can do so only because of Biden. If you donate to Trump, you agree with Trump that Biden made you successful.
I mean, I hate Trump with every fiber of my body. But that logic is flawed.
That's like saying "If the reason why those who can't donate is because hurricane Andrew destroyed their homes, then those who can donate is thanks to hurricane Andrew giving them an extra home."
The difference is a hurricane doesn't have intention. Trump assigned blame to a person's condition directly on the actions of Biden. You can't have it both ways. So those who are worse are Biden's fault but that also means those who are doing well are doing well because of Biden.
Even Fox News called out Trump for his continually trying to have it both ways with the stock market. If the market goes down one week he blames Biden. If the market goes up one week it's because of Trump.
I see what you're saying now, but that's a different argument.
You're saying now that if two things happen, and good and one bad, Trump assigns blame or praise depending on which one it is. I understand that one.
But you originally said that one thing, not two, whose only intention is to cause harm, does both good and bad. And that makes no sense.
If the difference is intention, then that's like saying "You can't go to the supermarket because a bunch of lions are intentionally blocking the front door. It follows that if you can go to the supermarket, it's because the lions are intentionally blocking the front door."
Again you are using an example where there isn't human intelligence behind the action. Lions blocked the door so you can't get in. But if someone else got all the groceries they wanted and extra to give away from the same grocery store without problems what does that say? Doesn't it imply the lions let that person in? They have extra. The lions must have helped them.
I just want to say that this is a fun conversation somehow, and I appreciate you continuing responding.
Having said that, c'mon, man, you're moving the goalpost again. First you said intention was missing. I added intention, and now you say that human intelligence is missing. What will be missing next? Quantum entanglement?
I made it work with the lions.
My point about intention was that a lion can be an unreasonable force of nature like a hurricane. So swapping a lion for a hurricane didn't change your argument.
If you actually give the lion intention then you have lions that are blocking some people and helping others. I get your point that a policy can have only negative effects. But Trump's scenario has some with negative effects (no money to donate) while others have a surplus of money to give away.
My point about intention was that a lion can be an unreasonable force of nature like a hurricane. So swapping a lion for a hurricane didn’t change your argument.
(I didn't downvote you, by the way.)
A lion can have intentions. It can have the clear intention to eat you. Again, you didn't say reasonable intention. You just said intention. But anyway, I know that's not the point of the argument.
You are still insisting on a scenario in which there are two different actions (lions blocking some people and helping others), whereas the way I understood it is that just one action was the cause of two opposite consequences. I guess that can happen (a fire killing some animals but making others flee and flourish elsewhere), but Trump was only referring to one consequence (Nobody has money because Biden bad.)
Yeah I'm not down voting either.
Trump was only referring to one consequence (Nobody has money because Biden bad.)
But Trump didn't say that nobody has money. He said some don't have money because of Biden and therefore can't donate. If we assume the default is some money but not extra to donate, that means those who can donate have extra money because of Biden.
No, not really. That just means one or more of three things:
-
Because Biden's actions didn't affect them at all. Like a tornado not destroying your house.
-
Because someone else helped them (e.g. Republican organizations handing out money - which is.... fantasy)
-
Because in spite of Biden's actions affecting everybody, those people still had some money left to donate. Like how during a recession many people lost their jobs, and some of those people lost their houses, but some others could still make their mortgage payments.
In the end, I understand what you're saying, and even though we differ on how stupid Trump's message is, we agree that it was a stupid (and false) thing to say.
What about God? He's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing and all wise... somehow, just can't handle money!
Man I miss Carlin.
Fucking same. To maintain my sanity, i cling to old Carlin routines and bits like Rose on a door at the end of Titanic.
It was better in the original Russian …
It's the grift that keeps on giving
Is this real or AI?
I yanked it from that platform formerly known as....it's received 605K views and a cursory view of the comments doesn't show elon, kirk, walsh flipping out, so gotta say TRUE!
It's long enough and absent of things that would pop in on even the best generators (so far), so yeah, this is real. He is that sad and low energy.
Deepfake exploitable, if nothing else
I feel like he’s looking older by the day
I like how he keeps talking about how radical the Left is. I think we're pretty radical too Donald!
Wait is this AI?….
No.
Truth.
Woooooow
If he agrees to do the truffle shuffle, i might be convinced to share some pennies with him. A nice roll or two, in a lovely tube sock...
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support