mtmkjr

10 years ago I would have agreed with you. but what has happened since he was elected has driven me away from that side of the aisle. He floods the zone with his chaos strategy and then his followers mock anyone who opposes his actions by calling them deranged, and ask why they are obsessed with him.

I think that the difference between Trump and every other president is that his GOAL is to make people hate each other and hate other people. No other president has done this. We see this happening to our country and we are called deranged because we speak out against it? By the way I'm wondering is there any other derangement syndrome or is it limited to Trump? I haven't heard PDS being thrown around when people speak out against the Russian leader. How about ODS, EDS, JDS, MDS, DDS, BDS, ODS

Here is how he can be compared to a dictator without actually being a dictator: He is an admirer of dictators. He has strongman/authoritarian instincts. He has a propensity to consolidate power and suppress dissent (control over consensus) He can be all that and still not be an actual dictator because of constitutional restraints, even frayed as they might be right now

Fox News, Newsmax and OAN are the top news television news sources for MAGA. I think that's pretty influential. I'm not including any of the pundit personalities like Tucker Carlson or Daily Caller etc that are probably even more influential, and far more misleading Here are some examples: Circulating short video clips that made Biden look like he was saying it doing things he didn't, by cutting them out of context. Ex: The New York Post, showed Biden turning away from a group of G7 leaders and giving a thumbs-up gesture, implying that he was wandering off or confused. The original, full video showed he was momentarily turning to give a thumbs-up to a skydiver who had just landed as part of a demonstration, the edited clip had been zoomed in to remove that context. Fox News edited a clip of Biden speaking about Satchel Paige where he said "adopted the attitude of the great Negro, at the time pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher in the pros in Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson, his name was Satchel Paige". Edited version: "adopted the attitude of the great Negro at the time, pitcher, name was Satchel Paige." (Edited to make it sound racially insensitive, when in context he was using the term that was used in the day of the "Negro leagues" ) Fox published a story claiming SNAP beneficiaries were threatening to "ransack stores" over benefit cuts. Later, many of the clips it cited were revealed to be AI-generated. Rather than admitting the "error" and issuing a standalone correction or retraction to be transparent, they changed the article post-publication and added an editor's note acknowledging that "some videos appear to have been generated by AI.” Newsmax aired a segment using 6 images of empty store shelves suggesting supply-chain shortages under Biden. But the photos were taken in other countries and in different contexts. Promoting conspiracy claims about 2020 election and specifically false information about voting systems. Resulted in judicial rulings finding defamation. Remember all these settlements paid to avoid trial ---Fox News famous $787 million settlement with Dominion ---Newsmax 67 million to settle with Dominion ---Newsmax paid $40 million to settle with Smartmatic, OAN also paid a settlement to Smartmatic OAN was suspended and demonetized by YouTube for COVID-misinformation (news video promoted a false cure).

Thank you for clarifying. I still trust BBC above many other news organizations. This is a one-off and I think overall their record is strong.

Do you have the same criticism for Fox News, OAN, Newsmax etc. selective editing, cropping footage - showing not just slants as you say but intentional edits to push their political or ideological narrative? I have multiple examples showing patterns of misleading so-called news reports. As opposed to this one time with BBC

Regarding the BBC incident, I am much more concerned when a news outlet shows a pattern of bias and allows that bias to consistently shape its reporting. That is not the BBC. It is respected as a fair and reliable news source. If there can be more examples shown that slant it one way or the other I'm willing to criticize but I have no reason to, based on this one incident. Far far far more concerning are news outlets on the far left and far right that report everything through a political viewpoint, "taking sides" rather than just delivering the news as it happens. The BBC is consistently in the middle, accused by liberals of being too conservative and conservatives of being too liberal. I think that's a good place to be.

This one is less upsetting to me than nearly everything else he's doing. I think it's a distraction to murdering Venezuelans as just one example. He tends to do these things to deflect attention. I think he has a list of things to do to deflect from every serious action. So in the big scheme of things it's just a building, but he is a temporary resident. It's not owned by him to do as he wishes and he should consider renovations in light of it being the people's house. I don't think the end result will be something most people are proud of. But I'm not up in arms about this as I am everything else

This statement is maddening every time I hear it. That's like if a bull gets into a china shop wrecking things, and someone says "only reason some are upset is because it's a bull". I have no personal animosity toward Trump. If he were implementing a normal Republican agenda I'd evaluate like any other presidents agenda People aren't upset because of who he is—they're upset because of the damage he's doing.

Very interesting. Where was the quote from?

I can only hope that murdering 17 people in international waters creates a little bit of stress, disagreement and division, but I'm not confident any push back will be tolerated.

They just want to stop the questions - 17 people and counting https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-carried-out-3rd-fatal-strike-on-alleged-drug-smuggling-boat-in-the-caribbean-trump-says

Hi Daisy, This is why I have a problem with it - If a study shows a correlation between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism, that doesn't mean Tylenol caused it. Many other factors could be at play— why are the women taking Tylenol? Getting the answers to those questions could lead to more studies and better information. Correlation is far from the endpoint. (Imagine saying carrying umbrellas are the reason for rain because they're only seen when it rains) For government to make a major announcement like "pregnant women should not take Tylenol,” they need strong causal evidence—proof that the Tylenol itself directly leads to autism. For those that say why not advise that women stay away from Tylenol? After all they should be minimizing medication use anyway... Well this is why: 1. They risk taking away a safe treatment based on incomplete or misleading data. Fevers need to be treated. Pain needs to be managed. Can't just take away safe options based on opinions by non-medical politicians with agendas to push. 2. It draws attention away from the need to continue the research to find actual answers, and leads people, especially those who jump on the less scientific information to think it's been definitively determined to be the cause when it hasn't. 3. It is a harm to the acetaminophen manufacturers to have their product slandered and creating unnecessary panic and confusion. Even if there is a possible correlation, health guidelines should say something like "more research is needed" or "exercise caution". But even that does not seem warranted when looking at the research as a whole. Medical experts and policymakers wait for very strong consistent evidence of harm - showing clear causation, not mere correlation. The way this non-scientific announcement was made was reckless and irresponsible.

No, they don't. But thank you for proving my point I'm not actually the other side. I've always been independently conservative. The wave of anti-immigration sentiment drove me away. I would be just as appalled if there were a Trump style Democrat bulldozing a liberal agenda, increasing authority while dismantling the checks and balances I mentioned earlier. So again I agree with TMB, it's not a both sides thing.

The danger comes from the fact that many of his followers don't recognize his authoritarian/fascist actions, not because they can't define the terms, but because they're focused on achieving their own political objectives. They view his actions simply as a means to an end, and seem unwilling to see the bigger picture. Those on the opposing side, are feeling the impact of these actions, so they're more likely to recognize and sound the alarm about potential threats to democratic norms even if most can't define fascism, they know that an authoritarian government is no good, it's not what we value and justifiably want to protect. The checks and balances of our Constitution force both sides to more broadly consider of the impact of political power beyond their own interests.

Unfortunately not all states can gerrymander for partisan purposes. California can't do what Texas is doing because its redistricting process is specifically designed to prevent partisan gerrymandering. It's part of the state Constitution that was created through a ballot process, so changing the state Constitution to allow partisan gerrymandering would have to be put to a vote again. Most of the states that have redistricting by the legislature are red states, so they are easily gerrymandered if both Governor and legislature are same party.

You may have mentioned that elsewhere but I am curious what news sources you do find credible? What are your go-to news sites?

Can you please provide evidence of a coordinated, racially-motivated campaign of extermination against the white South African farmers? If true I want them to find safety within our borders. But I need that evidence. Please link to it here.

Of course (just answering a direct question)

I appreciate your responses. I decided for myself it was not worth it to continue to engage

I believe the amount of radiation emitted when it's warming up is lower than during the patient scan. You probably wear a badge that monitors your level of radiation exposure right? If you do wear one you can ask for it to be checked if you are ever concerned.

Can you share what are your go to sources of news and information?

At his PEAK of his popularity, he still had less than 50% of the vote, edging out Harris by less than 1.5%. And now he is in a downward slide, with only 42% approving and 53% disapproving. If you defend him by saying "The public still loves him as he won the popular vote" then I'm curious if you would you apply the same logic to his current poll numbers? What you call anti-American parasites and edgelords are now the majority of the country who disapprove of his reckless destructive actions.

I hope no one minds if I share this passage, since it is related to the topic being discussed - Trump is a living example of what is spoken of here:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/politics/hegseth-second-signal-chat-military-plans