For me, so many things he said were not rooted in any form of science or verifiable fact so it was always hard to fully accept and endorse his platform. He has always been a snake oil salesperson trading on his surname.
Like... that's the whole MO of the administration. None of the "reasonable" positions are genuine; they only exist to entice leniency from the gullible. It's been that way since day 1.
Maybe because he launched missiles at them last presidency?
It's a lot of things, but one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits and ideology.
Spot on! The people who actually care the most about the issues the regime champions should really be their loudest critics! Instead they seem to be content just "being heard" or "owning the libs"? They'd better be enjoying it while it lasts, because what it's actually doing is burning (arbitraging) all the political capital that these issues had accumulated.
Like despite being pretty ambivalent about it, I don't want to hear a peep about "immigration enforcement" for the next decade - its proponents had their moment, they had their mandate, and they mostly just squandered it on having an anti-Constitutional tantrum.
> ... and ideology
The only ideologies I've found to line up with the regime's actions are 1. self-enrichment, 2. anarcho-capitalism, 3. malevolent foreign influence, 4. religious fundamentalism. 2/3/4 are essentially all just aimed at destroying the government/society for different reasons.
To be fair, it's the same type of self-perpetuating destruction they've been playing with education the whole time.
What was the purpose of putting this man at charge if not punishing citizens? All this people are foreign agents.
Even more informative in this case: did he sell his endorsement to said rapist/fraudster in exchange for a cabinet position?
You could know literally zero percent of anything about anything in the world and know that this is not a person to be trusted.
Shame on you. Glad you’re opening your eyes now, but it’s your shame to wear now too.
I definitely understand being angry, there is certainly blame to be had, and perhaps there is an argument to be made that supporting RFK Jr was a poor idea even before he joined up with the destructionist grifters. But save your vitriol for the ignorant ones who actually voted for Grump, and most especially for the unrepentant ones who are still cheering as our country's institutions burn.
This regime thrives on hate, including the hate for it.
For example if I told you that you should be ashamed of your original comment, does this make you immediately feel shame? Or perhaps does it make it feel like I am personally attacking you?
In fact, I'd say that emphasizing and playing up this difference was a pretty successful campaign tactic for the destructionists. Remember how "deplorables" ended up backfiring so hard? The characterization was entirely technically correct! But yet with the way people work, it ended up doing the exact opposite from what one would naively hope.
(in general, I honestly don't even know if feeling shame from being shamed is a thing any more with the way impersonal online communities work. You can now easily find a different community that will validate whatever you did)
There's no evidence whatsoever that excusing and forgiving these people's credulity and contempt has done any good whatsoever.
If you fuck up, especially in a way that damages your country so deeply, then you need to feel bad, and you need to suck up the fact that your countrymen will criticize you for it. That's the downside of fucking up.
You don't get to say "okay I'll acknowledge that I fucked up as long as you guys be nice to me for doing so." No. A literal 3rd grader couldn't get away with such a position, and neither should any adult capable of having an opinion on any of this stuff.
That's ego for you. It does not like frontal assaults! When someone is in the middle of realizing something for themselves, the last thing you want to do is interrupt them.
I personally saw someone in my family literally use the name "deplorable" for an online account in response to that kerfuffle. Not social media or anything like a public persona, just a web service they wanted to use. Look up sociological labeling theory. One small silver lining to their passing is that I didn't have to witness them spiral into full rabid social media dementia.
And reflexively reaching for this feel-good "no evidence whatsoever" research-assistant-with-a-deadline-quality proclamatory bullshit is one of the ways the Democratic party shares the blame for Grump. That is some "culpability for this administration" that you yourself would seem to share, and that you would say you should reflect on.
Go back and read my original comment. I most certainly would not have written my comment if you had been responding to someone still unapologetically supporting the destructionists! But no, you were taking your anger out on someone who didn't deserve it - exactly like all the maggots who continue to cheer on the performative cruelty.
Or just continue helping to throw gasoline on the corpo-manufactured divide-and-conquer "culture war" pyre! It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?
And? Were they a Clinton voter before that moment? Spoiler: No.
> [this] bullshit is exactly how the Democratic party shares the blame for Trump 2024
No, it's not. Clinton was one of the most disliked people in the entire country going into the election, and Harris came to a close second. Especially in an era of high inflation where incumbents were ousted in pretty much every single election in the entire world. The DNC put up truly horrible candidates and lost.
> It has been working out so well so far, hasn't it?
We have just as much evidence that your strategy of coddling the culpable is to blame. Arguing is easy if you just presume (without evidence) that you're correct, and then in fact dismiss the very idea of forming evidence-based beliefs as a problem in and of itself.
Maybe it should be generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.