Trump, Under Oath, Says He Averted ‘Nuclear Holocaust’
Trump, Under Oath, Says He Averted ‘Nuclear Holocaust’
During a deposition in his civil case, the former president offered a series of defenses, digressions and meandering explanations of his political and professional dealings.
You're viewing a single thread.
”I think you would have nuclear holocaust, if I didn’t deal with North Korea,” he explained, and then added: “And I think you might have a nuclear war now, if you want to know the truth.”
It is still worth remembering that Obama tried to work with North Korea, but the Republicans shamed him because they said he should only meet with them if they agreed to get rid of their nukes.
Trump did nothing to protect the world from North Korea, but gave Kim Jong-Un a nice photo op to help legitimize his power.
And saluted north Korean generals
Well have we tried becoming North Korea? That would definitely avoid North Korea from launching jukes at us. /s
Do you know how to tell when politicians are being hypocritical? When they open thier mouth. You could do literally nothing but point out hypocrisys of poloticians all day for your entire adult life and never run out. It is the equivalent of saying "bruh".
The both-sides-narrative only helps the far-right.
(serious) could you expound on what you mean by this?
The far right is seriously outnumbered. Encouraging people to apathy helps them, because most people who get involved are their enemies.
Personally, I think both sides have their issues, but the issues the right has are waaaay worse than the issues the left has.
So just saying “both sides have issues” makes it a binary argument when the degrees of how negative their issues are really matters.
Two possibilities:
-
Apathy - people stop voting for parties that can be a counterweight to the far right.
-
Abbreviated analysis/Feelings over facts - people are more likely to fall for politicians presenting themselves as underdogs who are going to revolutionise the political landscape, which is a strategy fascists like to use. "Drain the swamp" is a perfect example for that, and if I remember correctly, there were a lot of potential Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. I know both are more or less opposites, but both provided a canvas for people's feelings that "politicians are all the same" and that fundamental change needs to happen. The latter is true, but with proper analysis shouldn't lead to voting for the far right.
-
It encourages people to look at left and right politics on an equal scale, when in reality politics is anything but equal. To demonstrate this, all you have to do is look at the talking points of both sides.
The issues with talking points of the left tend to be constructive in nature but misguided at worst. Like affirmative action. There's a legitimate argument that giving people a leg up based on race is not fair. But the act of doing it isn't really hurting anyone at the end of the day, and was ultimately designed to help people who are less likely to receive conventional help.
Now let's compare that to the talking points of the right, which tend to be destructive in nature and at worst fuels the vilification of people who the right deems undesirable. Like the movement that's gaining traction in red states of banning drag. Those are laws designed to give homophobes a reason to discriminate against queer folk under the guise of "protecting the children from sexuality", which is an argument that quickly devolves to "well you just like enabling child predators!" any time it's faced with an ounce of scrutiny, such as why those laws don't apply to otherwise straight performers.
There are very few leftist policies that focus on vilifying whole classes of people, and likewise there are very few right wing policies that focus on helping people. Comparing them by saying a variation of "both sides" is apples to oranges at best. At worst, you're helping paint the picture that leftists are just as bad, which is not even close to true.
bruh
Time for your meds
Don't see why this is down voted so much. People spend way too much time focusing on hypocrisy. It's freaking boring and it sways absolutely no one's opinion
Because the political parties andvthe media want them to focus on how the other side is bad. For tge poloticians it means they don't have to do much good. For the media it sells. And by the vote differences you can tell how few people realky get that. But in all honesty, it is human nature to have such a tribe mentality.