[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

I wasn't talking about Trump specifically, or even conservatives.

Everyone on both sides automatically thinks the worst about everyone on the other side these days, usually just to score some internet points.

It's a terrible way to go through life. We should show a little grace sometimes.

[jonplackett]

Just a good time to remember that the same guy who thinks tariffs are a good idea is the guy who stood at a podium during Covid next to the world’s leading expert and suggested injecting bleach into Covid patients was a good idea.

And was caught on mic saying he likes to grope women.

I would not say anyone is ‘automatically’ questioning Trump’s character or intelligence.

There is plenty of evidence he has neither.

[spiderfarmer]

Truth is, Trump never said anything particularly intelligent or insightful. I think most commenters in this thread would make smarter decisions and would give better answers to tough questions without resorting to deflections and personal attacks . He always needs someone around to explain his boasting comments to make it seems logical, but this term, he’s not even surrounded by smart people anymore. It’s frightening.

[arandomusername]

You really are proving that user right, considering Trump never suggested injecting bleach.

[jonplackett]

I beg to differ. Quote from Trump:

“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute ... is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning?"

"Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that”

https://www.axios.com/2022/04/26/birx-calls-trump-disinfecta...

Edit: found the actual video. Enjoy!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5t...

The guy is a full on moron who thinks he is a full on genius.

[arandomusername]

Never mentioned bleach. Mentioned UV disinfection right before that quote.

Never suggested it or said it's a good idea. Just said it's interesting, worth checking out, and has to be done by medical doctors.

Completely manipulating and twisting what Trump said to further your agenda - again proving the user above right. Is what Trump said stupid? Yeah. Did he suggest to inject bleach? No

[jonplackett]

OK so he suggested injecting disinfectant. Which is basically the same as bleach. If you can’t tell that from the video I’m not sure what’s going on anymore.

He also talks about putting UV lights inside the body, which is still a bit dumb, but not as dumb as injecting or ingesting disinfectant or bleach.

If you want to say he is only says it could be ‘interesting’ to inject or consume disinfectant then sure, why not - that’s still insane and dumb in equal measure.

He even tries to walk back his comments later saying he was being ‘sarcastic’ which he very clearly was not.

[arandomusername]

When you get a wound, it's often a good idea to disinfect it. Do you wash your wounds with bleach?

[freejazz]

You're proving that user right. Taking one minor quibble about what this other poster said, which was obviously not a full recitation of all of Trump's highly questionable conduct over the years (as opposed his less questionable conduct) isn't the slam dunk you're making it. It's more like nitpicking that goes well beyond the point and only serves to demonstrate you interest in arguing small details and not anyone's actual points.

[arandomusername]

Nitpicking? Minor quibble? It was the major point that the user brought up.

> Just a good time to remember that the same guy who thinks tariffs are a good idea is the guy who stood at a podium during Covid next to the world’s leading expert and suggested injecting bleach into Covid patients was a good idea.

First sentence, right here. It's complete dishonest framing to make what Trump said seem as bad as possible. Which just goes back to the parent user's comment:

> Everyone on both sides automatically thinks the worst about everyone on the other side these days, usually just to score some internet points.

[freejazz]

>Nitpicking? Minor quibble? It was the major point that the user brought up.

Not really. The major point the user brought up: "I would not say anyone is ‘automatically’ questioning Trump’s character or intelligence. There is plenty of evidence he has neither." That's like reading comprehension 101.

>First sentence, right here. It's complete dishonest framing to make what Trump said seem as bad as possible. Which just goes back to the parent user's comment:

Not really.

>> Everyone on both sides automatically thinks the worst about everyone on the other side these days, usually just to score some internet points.

Exactly what you did to the other poster. The other poster was clearly saying there is great reason to not assume the best about Trump. Your response? Ignore that and bicker about a minor detail.

[arandomusername]

And the bleach argument was the supporting argument for the statement regarding intelligence.

> Not really.

Yes really.

> Exactly what you did to the other poster. The other poster was clearly saying there is great reason to not assume the best about Trump. Your response? Ignore that and bicker about a minor detail.

No. The poster used that bleach argument as the reason here - which is a completely dishonest argument. It's not a minor detail.

Is this how the discussion should go, in your dream world?

- Trump is bad!

- Trump is good!

- Trump is bad!

Since, according to you, actually discussing the exact cases/reasoning brought up is quibbling over minor details, nitpicking.

[actualwitch]

This dumb bothsiderism take is exactly the reason for the shitstorm hitting US right now. People really need to stop sane washing everything he says and try to actually have an objective glance at him and take him for who he is: a con man. He made a majority of conservatives as goddamn fools, voting against their own best interests because he said he'll punish the right people. Spoiler alert: he instead concentrated power in his own hands, dismantled research and social nets and is well on his way to wrecking middle class and the rights of the workers. Until this simple fact is acknowledged, every Trump voter is complicit in making this happen.

[phpnode]

hey now, the non-voters and the terrible decision makers in the democrats also share in this blame

[arandomusername]

What social nets did he dismantle?

Similarly, democrats need to acknowledge that they are responsible for Trump getting elected. Immigration was one of the biggest issues for voters and it went rampant under the democrats.

[actualwitch]

It is sorta insane to me how someone can exist in the same reality that I do, and not be aware of, like, the main part of the platform that dude is implementing right now? Perhaps that is caused by all the mentions of DOGGY/Musk getting instantly flagged off the front page, but weren't they pretty open about their plans? It's all in project 2025. It's such a large amount of open and well-documented information that compiling it all myself would take a while, so I decided to give the Gemini Deep Research a try, here are some excerpts (but you can ask it yourself or literally just google):

> A central guiding force behind the austerity measures implemented in 2025 was "Project 2025," a comprehensive policy blueprint developed by conservative think tanks. This project advocated for a fundamental restructuring of the federal government, calling for a reduction in bureaucracy, significant tax cuts, and decreased spending across various sectors, including major social programs like Medicare and Medicaid

> The Social Security Administration (SSA) experienced significant changes and faced substantial workforce reductions under the Trump administration's austerity drive in 2025. Driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the administration announced plans to cut approximately 7,000 employees from the SSA, representing about 12% of its total workforce. This reduction followed a decade of underfunding for the agency's administrative budget, which had already shrunk the workforce considerably. Alongside these staff cuts, the SSA initiated the closure of regional offices and the termination of leases for numerous field offices across the country. These physical closures raised serious concerns about diminished access to in-person services for beneficiaries, particularly those residing in rural areas or lacking reliable transportation.

> Further limiting accessibility, the SSA eliminated phone services for most applications and for changes to direct deposit information. This policy shift mandated that individuals needing these services either visit an SSA field office in person or utilize the agency's online tools. This change disproportionately affected seniors, individuals with disabilities, and those without consistent internet access or digital literacy. Adding to the concerns surrounding the program, reports emerged of the administration classifying living immigrants as deceased, leading to the cancellation of their Social Security numbers

> Adding to the uncertainty, the House budget resolution for FY2025 called for significant spending cuts from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the very committee with jurisdiction over Medicare. Analysts raised concerns that the magnitude of these proposed cuts, totaling $880 billion , would be virtually impossible to achieve without impacting major healthcare programs like Medicare.

> Simultaneously, the Trump administration proposed several changes to the ACA. These included shortening the annual open enrollment period by a month, ending coverage eligibility for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and limiting the coverage of gender-transition care by defining "sex-trait modification" as not an essential health benefit. Furthermore, enhanced ACA subsidies, which had significantly lowered premium costs for millions of Americans, were set to expire in late 2025. The administration also significantly cut funding for community-based organizations that assisted individuals with enrolling in ACA coverage, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

> The Trump administration's austerity measures in 2025 also significantly impacted unemployment benefits and workforce development programs. Republican funding bills, shaped by Project 2025, proposed the elimination or substantial reduction of funding for key workforce development initiatives, including Youth Job Training Grants, Adult Job Training Grants, the Senior Community Service Employment Program, and the Women's Bureau. These cuts directly diminished the resources available for individuals seeking employment training and job placement assistance.

> The austerity measures implemented by the Trump administration in its second term in 2025 represented a significant and multifaceted retrenchment of the federal social safety net. Driven by the policy framework of Project 2025 and operationalized through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), these measures encompassed substantial workforce reductions across federal agencies, significant proposed budget cuts to key social programs, and policy changes aimed at tightening eligibility and restricting access to benefits. While the administration often framed these actions as necessary for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency, the analysis of available information reveals a consistent pattern of cuts and changes that disproportionately impacted vulnerable populations. Seniors, individuals with disabilities, low-income families, children, and immigrants faced increased barriers to accessing essential services and benefits across Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and housing assistance programs. The reduction in workforce development initiatives further threatened opportunities for economic advancement. The cumulative effect of these measures painted a picture of a significantly weakened social safety net, potentially leading to increased poverty, food insecurity, homelessness, and lack of access to healthcare for millions of Americans.

Mostly Gemini delivered a good overview of the changes, but it doesn't include stuff like people's pension plans being dependent on economy being in "number go up" state, which is not the case now.

[arandomusername]

You said Trump dismantled social nets. Your AI slop doesn't mention any social nets that were dismantled.

Please tell me, what social nets could one rely on before Trump that they cannot now?

> but it doesn't include stuff like people's pension plans being dependent on economy being in "number go up" state, which is not the case now.

Sounds like a ponzi scheme.

[actualwitch]

So is it that you fail to see how any of the actions mentioned in the "AI slop" can result in lack of access to safety nets by certain population groups, or do you merely assign no value to those specific nets or those specific population groups? In former case I suggest you refer to dictionary, otherwise a history book will do. Look up what happens in any of the authoritarian regimes when all the undesirables are processed, and whether people who had guns or privilege were somehow exempt from all the frog boiling machinery in the end. "First they came for the socialists..."

[arandomusername]

You said safety nets were dismantled. Please tell me, what safety net was dismantled. Just one, the biggest one you can think of.