President Donald Trump

It feels like it's not about what good Trump can do for you. It's about how much bad you can ignore/accept or how much acceptance of bald-face lies you can put up with whilst the people you don't like are getting upset/hurt/deported/killed.

The main weird aberration of the GOP/MAGA psyche is how much projection they do. It's so, so extreme. I still haven't worked out ihow much is completely sincere and they don't understand they're doing it, how much is deliberate, or how much is some sort of doublethink. I'm guessing the dumb end of the spectrum is sincere, the smart end is completely deliberate, and most are in the middle.

I put Trump at the farthest point of the dumb end in that spectrum.

I think Trump's motivations are quite different than the motivations of most of his adherents.

$$$$$$, power and need for attention.

For trump? Yeah. Especially the last thing.

While I don't disagree with this assessment of Trump, it probably applies to over 95% of ALL politicians in varying degrees.

Ty for that example of false equivalency.

Biden doesn't have dementia, btw.... he had something called, getting ***** old. Same thing Trump has, although many outside experts think Trump's suffering from MCI and Increasing Cognitive Disorganization.

Bolded is very much a load-bearing wall.

I think for a lot of people it's not so much they voted for Trump but instead that they were voting against the Dems. Trump just happened to be the one they thought could get it done.

Of course, but the extent to which you can rely on that logic depends on how bad the person you are voting for is likely to be.

In other words, "I voted for X because Y is bad" only works if X is likely to be less bad than Y.

It has crossed his mind only to the extent that he sees no distinction between his personal interest and the national interest.

That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Sure. I guess we can describe political outcomes as purely a matter of preference and not objectively good or bad.

If a political candidate ran on a platform of ending all human life on earth as quickly as possible, I guess that would be a "good" outcome from chillrob's perspective.

That's generally how the words "good" and "bad" work in this context, yes.

Try to keep up.

Rococo was thinking about "impersonating" someone that voted for Trump. Many Trump supporters not only think that what would happen if the evil Dems were in charge would be bad, they think what Trump is doing is in fact good. Rococo just couldn't put himself in that way of thinking. But, if he really wanted to, he could change his perspective (for this exercise) and come up with plenty of reasons that Trump is "good" and Harris would have been "bad". Heck, he even came up with a campaign slogan for the chillrob party.

The penalty for seditious conspiracy is a fine of undetermined size and / or imprisonment for up to 20 years, so the President appears to be shaky on US federal law. (Though it is possible that he has actually forgotten what country he is president of. He wears that little Old Glory lapel pin to remind him, of course, as presidents have taken to doing in recent decades -- a vulgarity at which the Roosevelts, Eisenhower or JFK would shudder, even if Nixon considered it a neat touch -- but, being quite jowly, he may find it uncomfortable and awkward to look down and check.)

dont bother
we already have baham shrug

Yes, that is indeed how subjective labels like "good" and "bad" work. I'm sure if Rocco suffered a debilitating stroke and suddenly hated immigrants/LGBT people/education, he would reverse his judgement on whether or not Trump is more "good" than Harris.

This is why these are subjective judgements and not objective facts.

I was assuming that I could make the case a bit better than he does.

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded. Whether I agree or not, I understand why some people believe that tariffs are good, banning abortion is good, closing the borders is good, etc.

I don't think that assessing policy in those areas is purely a matter of preference, like choosing ice cream flavors. But I also don't think it is purely objective in the sense that we can say that eating food is objectively and indisputably a good idea unless you want to die of starvation. It is somewhere in between.

You wrote this -

Of course you could build a defensible argument for Trump is you really wanted to (while being in the character you were proposing). Would it be a good argument? For me, probably not. Trump is a bane on our lives. Even if you came up with the best possible argument for Trump, I'm sure you would look at it and think, "Well, that's horseshit". But others might not only agree with the argument, they might be persuaded by it if they weren't there already.

Not everyone takes good or bad to mean a subjective judgment, but either way this wouldn’t be a disagreement with Didace’s point, it would be an agreement.

Not sure what any of this has to do with my post you quoted.

The point is Trump had a leader in the White House that had a reporter sawed into pieces and defended him after a reporter called him out, despite Trump admitting it was "the worst coverup in history" when it happened, which means he knows what MBS did. Now he wants his political opponents put to death.

The other point is no one said anything seditious.

There isn’t, yet most voted for him, so they obviously wanted all of this. Which is why America is likely finished. MattGaetz for AG? RFK Jr for anything at all? These are not serious people. America is in real trouble.

You do realize that this is the case because the USA needs Saudi Arabia . Though we should be more outraged at their role in 9/11 . No administration has stood up to Saudi Arabia