For the good of the entire fucking world, Jill Stein should go away. Go back to practicing medicine, where you’re usually limited to only killing one person at a time.
There’s no excuse for the Democrats’ support for Israel’s genocidal wars, and Biden is complicit in his unwavering material (materiel? Both? Both.) support that allows them to continue doing it. I hate that if I don’t vote for the enabling-genocide party, I’ll get the enabling-genocide-but-also-women-are-things-and-LGBTQ-people-shouldn’t-exist party.
So instead her goal is to ensure the election of Donald Trump and his merry band of eschatological fetishists, who’ll not only do the same thing because their literal goal is to bring about the apocalypse, but also bring back all his very smart domestic policies and hand the government over to the Project 2025 fanatics to turn the United States into Gilead. Brilliant. Real big-picture thinking there, doctor.
I’d argue she shouldn’t be allowed to practice anything other than some deep breathing and self-reflection.
Good thing you’re not in charge, then!
Go back to practicing medicine, where you’re usually limited to only killing one person at a time.
Any source or links that say she kills people as a doctor?
Removed by mod
It is clear they should be banned already.
I think it does bring up some larger issues though. Like should limits be placed on accounts. Do we really want users like this? Are they adding to the experience?
Banned for what? Because I have different views than you do?! Do you realise that the vast majority of articles I post aren’t even to this community?! The person you responded to neglected to tell you that.
Here is my post history: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
This community isn’t a “Only pro-Harris posters allowed” community. It celebrates diversity of opinion and thought. It’s not an echo chamber.
If you think the article that was posted for this thread doesn’t align with the community guidelines, feel free to contact the moderators. Thank you!
This was a discussion about you behavior. You did not address this behavior in your post.
The links are okay, but your responses are ridiculous just like the one here. The passive aggressiveness is palpable.
The constant need to disproportionally defend yourself definitely is trollish.
If you wish to address this fine. Otherwise there is not much else to say. I wish you good luck in the future and do hope you will change.
Also, let’s here’s a fun example. I just posted this: https://lemmy.world/post/20405177
It’s actually an anti-Stein/Pro-democrat article. Look at the downvotes of the article. And go read the comments. lol
It got downvoted because I posted it. People downvote me because they think I am a russian troll who wants Trump to win. But I have posted several pro-democrat articles. So how does that fit in with your narrative of me and my behavior? Serious question; not “trolling.”
Because my point is that I think people are actually mad because they are emotional that I’m not voting for Harris. And to explain it, they are quick to say that I have an “agenda” or that “I’m trollish.”
But if I post articles that are pro-democrat/pro-Harris/anti-Trump/anti-Stein, and people are still mad, then how does that fit the idea that I am the one with some agenda?
So you’re saying I should just sit back and say nothing when people spread falsehoods about my motivations? What about when I’m accused of being Russian or not even living in the US—just let that slide too? What about that I am “multiple people” on this account because “no human could do that!” (which is hilarious by the way)
You’re literally advocating for me to be banned, and I shouldn’t respond to that? Really?
How about this: If people don’t want a response from me, or think that my responses are “trollish”, then maybe they should stop making accusations about me and just discuss the article.
A guy in this very thread, posts how many articles I post. And he does it every day. Sometimes multiple times a day. And he comes right out and says I shitpost. Now he is free to do that. My post history is public. But isn’t doing that sort of trying to get some response?
Him posting that and baiting me doesn’t get a rise out of me at all. But it’s obvious he’s targeting me and has been for some time. Feel free to check his post history and what he says to me. Again, he’s free to do that as much as he wants. But don’t I have a right to reply?
I had someone the other day, mention that they were responding to me ad nauseum to just increase the comment count for the post.
Is that in good faith?
If people just stopped responding to me, wouldn’t that pretty much eliminate all the drama?
Now, people TOTALLY have a right to respond to me and try to “call me out.” As often as they want, because it won’t stop me from posting. But if they have that right, don’t I have to right to respond?
Example:
My advice would be to only discuss the points of the article and stop trying to defend yourself in such a ridiculous manner. You don’t need to at all honestly and at this point it only further solidifies people’s perception of you.
You can only control yourself and pointing your finger at everyone else is never a good look.
Surely you can see what you have been doing is not working. Try something else.
Thanks for the advice. But I’ll defend myself and my views when I feel it necessary. Sometimes I ignore, sometimes I don’t. Depends on my mood. And though it was good for some discussion points to have with you, at the end of the day, I don’t really give a shit what angry Lemmy commenters say. lol
I gave you examples, but then you decide to not address those at all. So yeah, I’m not really gonna take your advice on this.
And for the record, I DID ignore all comments and only asked people to respond to the article and not make things personal, and everyone said I was a troll and/or a bot. In fact, I used to put it as a disclaimer when I posted. Caused WAY more uproar and drama than me responding. lolol That’s in my post history as well. So…
I’ll keep posting what I want, when I want, where I want, and respond to people how I want. Whether it is “working” or not. Thank you!
“I’ll keep posting what I want, when I want, where I want, and respond to people how I want. Whether it is “working” or not. Thank you!”
You keep confirming you are a troll, time and time again.
Ban because you disagree with them? And you people say that Republicans are authoritarian.
Try harder please. I have read several articles posted by OP. They clearly have an agenda and have engaged in a lot of trolling behavior.
So the question is having an active troll/propagandist really good for the community. Maybe you could argue that they generate engagement or that we need to protect people’s right to disagree.
The community should carefully weigh this moving forward. If accounts that act like bots are allowed then this place will follow in the footsteps of Digg or Reddit.
Personally, I would have already set them straight as a moderator. I have never been impressed by edgy people who add very little to the conversation.
The mods and admins have actually discussed their account multiple times.
The consensus is, yes, they have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not against the TOS.
The links they post are legitimate links from respected sources.
So, no, nothing bannable or removable here. The comments and downvotes do their job exposing just how shitty their opinions are.
The problem we have is not with bad opinions.
If I were to copy paste the same response across many threads, intentionally antagonizing users and making that obvious, what is the secret to having that not be considered trolling? Because apparently op somehow discovered how to achieve that. This user is making it beyond obvious. They intend to troll users, and they’re putting a lot of effort into it. Can you help us understand what makes that okay?
I don’t think anyone has a problem with shitty opinions. I think the bigger problem is a pattern of behavior that impairs the community.
- Copying and pasting the same low effort text multiple times in replies
- Refusal to engage in good faith discussions/interactions
- Excessive volume of low quality posts and comments
- Rampant sealioning in comments
- Outright trolling which you all have only moderated a portion of
Overall you have a user that disrupts the community in a variety of ways and contributes nothing of value - especially in their comments. I think at least a temporary ban has been justified for quite some time.
Thank you for calling this out in detail. I think that copy pasting responses several times easily qualifies as trolling and the massive amount of them doing this makes it no question. This alone should be enough.
They should be banned from the instance. I can’t quite follow how it’s controversial unless some of the mods are letting their politics stand in the way of observations anyone can easily make in a couple of minutes. There is nothing redeeming about this account. They are spreading bad ideas in bad faith, and frankly it shakes my faith in the platform that they can get away with it Scot fucking free. It’s disgusting.
I don’t have to explain anything to you or anyone else. Feel free to stop responding and commenting on my posts if you don’t want to hear replies from me. Thanks! :)
Wasn’t talking to you, bud.
Feel free to stop responding and commenting on my posts and comments if you don’t want to hear replies from me. Thanks!
Makes perfect sense about the links. Now their conduct of being defensive/borderline trolling in all the responses is not okay.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed.
Why would defending my views or opinions not be ok? Other people defend their opinions, why shouldn’t I be able to? Plus if you are that annoyed with me, you can block me and not see anything I post or comment.
So what about the trolling behavior in comments?
People do not complain about his posts, let me repeat that, his posts are not the problem. Nobody cares about his opinions. Nobody minds that he likes third parties, that part is fine.
It’s the behavior in comment sections that is the problem. How is it that we have a rule 4 that prohibits trolling, but we allow a user who consistently exhibits comment behavior intended to simply irritate whoever is interacting with them? Low effort, consistently full of logical fallacies, frequently misrepresenting himself and others, etc. These indicate a troll.
Again, it is comment behavior that is the problem. How many of his comments need to be removed before it is identified as a problematic account? I think we deserve some transparency here.
Where and how do you draw the line with regards to trolling behaviors in comments sections?
edit: Let me quote him from just below here, where he replied to someone replying to you right here:
I don’t have to explain anything to you or anyone else. Feel free to stop responding and commenting on my posts if you don’t want to hear replies from me. Thanks! :)
Does this add anything to a conversation? Does this further discourse in any constructive way? Does this encourage people to positively participate in our community?
I appreciate your effort here. It seems like the answer is that this user gets special treatment. Maybe it’s a mod or admin’s alt and no one is brave enough to stand against it.
I think they’re just erring on the side of free speech in general. They’ve always been fairly lenient with comment behavior that isn’t extremely blatant. Since they don’t seem to understand the nature of these things, we sort of have a responsibility to educate about it.
Thank you! (I mean, kind of…lol)
I think actively trolling people by arguing in bad faith or through astroturfing like this is definitely poisoning the community. It shouldn’t be tolerated for tolerances’ sake. And I’m not saying to just ban people you don’t agree with. I’m saying people who obviously just post to poke the bear, so to speak, should face discipline for trying to turn Lemmy toxic.
These are pretty much my thoughts as well.
If these articles are from legitimate news organizations, calling it “poking the bear” doesn’t really make sense. I’m not even posting the articles directly—just links to them. And let’s be real, the actual news sites get way more attention than we ever will here. So if you’ve got a problem with the content, take it up with them.
Besides, are people who post a ton of pro-Harris content “astroturfing”? Or do you think what I post is “poison” simply because they don’t match your opinions?
How is posting articles from news orgs “trying to turn Lemmy toxic”? So is posting pro-Harris articles “toxic”? Also you do realize I post pro-Harris articles too, right?
1: You are “poking the bear” because everything you post to this community is pursuant to getting Harris to lose the election, either through pro-PSL or Green articles (via the Spoiler Effect), or through explicitly anti-Harris articles. That’s the pattern behind your posts, it obviously doesn’t matter how reputable a source is to you so long as you can flood Lemmy with this content. “Take it up with them” is a copout for your behavior because you choose to post their articles here.
2: You clearly don’t know what astroturfing even means. What could pro-Harris posts even astroturf for?
3: Repeatedly posting articles about getting Harris to lose the election and arguing in bad faith in defense of why that’s actually good for advancing socialism in the US is toxic because it’s literally incorrect. And when pointed out, you say you don’t actually think a second Trump term would be all that bad for you. It’s patently obvious what you’re trying to do on here, you’re trying to get leftists on board with neo-fascism and accelerationism to enrich yourself.
So what about the Anti-Trump and Anti-Stein articles that I post too. What bear am I poking when I have posted those?
And how exactly am I trying to “enrich” myself?! What?! lolol
Liberals don’t like leftists in general because we make them feel like bad people. That’s why they try so hard to morally lash out at us whenever they can. They understand that many of the policies they advocate are unethical, but can’t oppose a system they benefit from, so they tear us down and lash out at us.
You have some interesting beliefs for sure.
Liberals who are most often defined by equality typically align with the so-called left. Although it is important to point out what country you are from can drastically alter this perception. I was born and raised in North America.
The right which is often synonymous with conservatives have pushed back against racial and gender equality. They believe in rigid hierarchies keeping control through rules that bind others but not themselves.
I get the feeling you probably believe in a lot of right wing propaganda. Hence the whole inflicting moral outrage on others being such a boogey man. It really isn’t as conservatives have no problem ignoring it.
often defined by equality typically align with the so-called left.
They talk as if they are aligned, but vote as if they are not. They put BLM in their social media profiles, then voted for the people that created the necessity for orgs like BLM to exist. They cried about kids in cages, then voted for the architect behind them.
While the liberal is part of the oppressor, he is the most powerless segment within that group. Therefore when he seeks to talk about change, he always confronts the oppressed rather than the oppressor. He does not seek to influence the oppressor, he seeks to influence the oppressed. He says to the oppressed, time and time again, “You don’t need guns, you are moving too fast, you are too radical, you are too extreme." He never says to the oppressor, “You are too extreme in your treatment of the oppressed,” because he is powerless among the oppressors, even if he is part of that group; but he has influence, or, at least, he is more powerful than the oppressed, and he enjoys this power by always cautioning, condemning, or certainly trying to direct and lead the movements of the oppressed.
Kwame Ture
So you think that leftists only pay a lip service to equality? That is a valid criticism given by leftists themselves.
It is important to keep in mind it was the progressives, which includes liberals and leftists, who are the ones responsible for desegregation and just about every other social justice issue in our modern times.
They did not do it by force either. They convinced people and used their social currency to cause voluntary change in the hearts and minds of people as well as policies in the government.
In the US, trying to lay the blame on them for family separation and caging children is pretty far fetched. Did they play some small part in it? Probably.
It was not their policy and to be frank they would have never had to take a centrist position if the conservatives did not try to make it into a political issue in the first place. Conservatives have used their grievance culture of hate to turn people against each other for far too long.
So Kwane Ture’s biggest criticism is the liberals don’t try hard enough? That because they don’t tear the institution down they are just as bad as the oppressors. That because they see it is wrong and try to make a change that they are actually taking power away from the oppressed.
This is all a common criticism in the vein of Malcom X and many before and after him. It of course ignores that the progressives are actually made up from the oppressed. That everything we consider part of what makes life livable nowadays is because of progressives.
We would already have cheap or universal healthcare, equality of the sexes, elimination of discrimination, reformation of policing, living wages, free education, and a slew of other amenities if the conservatives did not decide to turn all these issues partisan.
The fact that the Democratic party marched to the right is the response of 60+ years of hateful propaganda spewed from the conservatives to divide our populace. They are the ones responsible for dragging the country right.
Having said all that I do agree with his sentiment. The progressives have grown complacent. We still don’t have a equal rights amendment added to our constitution. We won’t protect the rights of 50% of our society. As a man with four daughters it is very disheartening.
Where do you come up with this stuff? You really put a lot of assumed beliefs/motivations on large groups of people. It’s like you’re deep in echo-chamber talking points designed to divide subgroups, but have never actually talked to “Democrats” or “liberals”.
Hint: outside of fringe communities discussing socialist philosophy, in the US “left”, “liberal”, and “Democrat” are nearly synonymous to most of the public.
Just because the general public believes something doesn’t make it correct. US democrats believe they are on the left side of the political spectrum, but by every measurable aspect they are firmly right wing, and moving further to the right
https://lemmy.world/post/20349566
Anti-Stein/Pro-Democrat article I posted. Check the downvotes and the comments.
https://lemmy.world/post/20281854?scrollToComments=true
Anti-Trump article. Check out the comments. So you don’t think I had the right to reply?
https://lemmy.world/post/20405177
Yet another anti-Stein article I’ve posted. Heavily downvoted.
So what is my agenda again? Please explain.
But I’ve posted articles that are critical of Trump, Stein, and Harris, as well as articles praising each of them. How come you don’t mention those articles?
So, if you’re assuming I agree with every viewpoint in the articles I post, how does that even work when I share so many conflicting perspectives?!
I also created and mod a political news community where people have posted articles praising Harris, criticizing Stein, and trashing me—yet I still leave those up.
https://lemmy.world/c/politicsunfiltered
I could have removed them. Seems like a lot of conflicting viewpoints for you to imply I have some agenda.
Right?! And the vast majority of articles I post aren’t even to this community. And I’ve posted pro-Harris, anti-Stein, and anti-Trump articles too. Funny how the poster who posted my stats neglected to mention that. lol
I think basement dweller is much more likely. Let’s not forget, trolling is fun at a certain age. It’s a recreational activity, engaged in as a way to enjoyably pass the time. This is why the advice always used to be to not interact, and just starve them of any engagement so it stopped being enjoyable. To not feed them.
That stopped working when real effects also became achievable, but we shouldn’t forget that the first motivation is still there. Just because ignoring them won’t make them go away now, because they’re trying to actually work on a nebulous goal, doesn’t mean it ever stopped being fun.
I mean, is it so hard to believe, when we used to get regularly DDoSed and even occasionally hacked, that we’d also pick up some dedicated trolls from time to time? It’d frankly be pretty naive to think we’d be so lucky, if someone has ever spent any time in the seedier corners of the internet where these things come from.
It’s that fun aspect we have to remember. I mean, I disagree with ozma, Linker, jimmydore, lots of people very regularly, but they’re not stringing out dozen+ long comment chains just trying to irritate the person they’re interacting with at whatever moment. They’re not trolling, they just have strong opinions. It’s specifically that having fun at other people’s expense thing that makes this one different. And frankly, it’s very common on the internet, just usually not so much in moderated spaces, when the mods are being appropriately responsible. The rest of the internet is still out there though, can always go spend some time on 4chan’s /pol/ if you need to see the sorts of things we’re dealing with. Maybe a LoL lobby, I hear those are lovely. Maybe the comments sections under some Gamergate youtuber’s videos, or Ben Shapiro or someone.
Plenty of places you can find people that just want to have a good time at your expense. For fun, with just a side dose of fuck-the-world.
And then of course, there are those people who like to engage and accuse just so they can increase comment counts:
You keep that saved like its some damning thing, but it’s really not. Trolling is actually harmful to a community. That’s not.
Thanks for the shout-out! I feel so special that you think so highly of me!
OR I mean, it might just be that I’m an older, semi-retired guy with some extra time who genuinely enjoys keeping up with third-party news and socialist movements. Not very complicated.
But your theory makes it sound way more fun and exciting! Like I’m some kind of super agent involved in a multi-layered grand conspiracy to… to… what exactly? Oh yeah, post articles on a tiny Lemmy forum that get downvoted immediately!
Still, the way you describe it, I almost feel cooler just reading it!
I’m just about to post a few more articles, so if you could please update your stats when you post, that would be awesome! Thank you! :)
Yay more nonsense about Jill Stein from someone who prefers a Trump victory. Everyone enjoy your dose of bad faith comments from OP while they continue their totally real crusade against the duopoly. Absolutely not a troll account managed by a bunch of people spamming bullshit day in and day out.
I didn’t write the article, so how does that mean I prefer a Trump victory. If I preferred a Trump victory, wouldn’t it just be easier for me to vote for him?!
Absolutely not a troll account managed by a bunch of people spamming bullshit day in and day out.
Thank you for realizing and admitting that you know I’m not a troll account managed by a bunch of people! :)
Yeah, she’ll stop Kamala and hand it to Trump. Nobody is “flocking” to her.
Well if no one is flocking to her, then you don’t have to worry about her stopping Harris. Right?
She will get the same 3% she does every year, and it will be the same 3% that Hillary lost by in swing states in 2016.
Saying the quiet part out loud?
Who?
“We would rather let Trump endorse killing everyone in Gaza before supporting a cease fire and two state solution.”
That’s really what this boils down to.
This will cause a firestorm.
Maybe. When and if this silly bint gets Trump elected he will happily sell Israel enough incendiary weapons to vaporize every Palestinian alive.
It might. And I’ll probably get lots messages about how I am voting for Trump (which I’m not). All because I posted the article. lol
"So they have to do a 180 … She said the U.S. must “rein Israel in”
But she doesn’t have a plan to win Jewish votes it seems.
How and Why I Will Stop Kamala Harris Winning the White House
I assume that is Newsweek being sensational rather than a direct quote… if it is a direct quote, Stein is basically admitting that she’s supporting a GOP win. Considering the difference in positions the Green party officially has regarding policy (e.g. immigration), this doesn’t make sense unless Stein is just outright lying about her policy positions.
I mean, wtf? Ok, so this actually isn’t the first time (RFK Jr comes time mind), but, what?!
At least, this article might make it easier for me to convince folks to not vote for Stein.
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-how-why-i-will-stop-kamala-harris-winning-white-house-1961100
I wonder if she’s willing to risk the future of democracy in America to detach the US from Israel.
It appears so.
You sound like you believe her BS. She risks the future of democracy in America for Putin, and detaching the US from Israel is the means, not the ends.
How is the future of democracy going to be risked?
Jill Stein cannot win this election. She can only spoil it for Kamala Harris and in so doing pass the win to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump and the RNC are a material threat to democracy in the USA.
Maybe the Democrats should be nicer to Green Voters instead of calling them idiots or traitors every time they say they are gonna vote Green.
I’m not voting Green party, but the hate and rudeness I have received here guaranteed that I won’t vote Democrat. No way.
the hate and rudeness I have received here guaranteed that I won’t vote Democrat. No way.
Which, in the eyes of rational people, makes you an idiot and a traitor. An idiot, because you’re letting your bruised ego get in the way of making the only rational choice in the upcoming election, potentially causing a much greater amount of harm in the future. And a traitor, because the person you’re most benefitting by your aforementioned idiocy is someone who has already committed treason against his country, and has stated on several occasions that he would like to do away with basic tenets of democracy if he gets elected.
So, you might balk at both labels, but both are accurate. If you don’t like it, you have two options: either change your behavior, or pretend that self-affirmations will actually alter reality.
Nah, I’ll just keep voting third party. Happily and proudly. Thank you! :)
Right, which is the second of the two options. I’m assuming this is also accompanied by you occasionally standing in front of a mirror saying: “I am not stupid. I am not a traitor. People like me.” Delusion’s a powerful thing.
Why would I stand in front of a mirror after I talk about voting?! What?! I don’t even understand what you are trying to say, but you haven’t changed my vote. Thanks!
Trump is the bed liberals made for themselves when they kept punching left and ignoring everyone telling them what would happen if you supported Clinton in 2016. And we were right about how things played out.
100%. Harris is no peach either. I’d much rather someone with Stein’s policies win.
But she doesn’t have any chance. And it’s imperative that Trump not win.
You’re agreeing with someone who would rather have trump than anyone else.
And let’s be honest here, steins foreign policy is almost literally cut and pasted from the kremlin’s party line. I assume they fixed some translation errors.
It can both be true that the DNC helped in some way to move the Overton Window in the US rightward and that the primary movers of said window, the fascist RNC party, must not win the election or the consequences will be dire.
Stein’s policies are simply more progressive and better for America. But they’re likely unobtainable in the current political climate and she can afford to make such grandiose goals as policy because she isn’t beholden to them as she has no chance of winning.
Fuck Jill Stein. I’m not interested in evaluating the policy positions of a wack job who is now clearly only here to be a spoiler.
I like some of Stein’s policies, but a lot of them are just silly and naive. She wants to abolish the Electoral College, for instance. Great, but since that’s directly in the Constitution, she’s going to get an amendment through with a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4ths the states? Which kinda requires some of the red ones?
Then big one for me, is “peace-loving” Stein is critical of Ukraine aid. I cannot support hanging them out to dry like that, even though we promised to help keep them secure after convincing them to de-nuclearize, after the fall of the USSR in the Budapest Memorandum.
Our word has to be worth more than that.
I’m all for progress towards a utopian world, but offering one as your policy platform is a little manipulative when we have a government of checks and balances that has some republicans in it.
Yep! I would have voted for Bernie!
Trump is an incompetent idiot. I don’t think he’s a threat to democracy though. I’m not afraid of him. You are free to be, but nah, I’m not.
The man literally advocated for an American Kristallnacht at a rally recently.
You are a fool to not see him and his dictatorial ambitions as a threat. Project 2025 clearly outlines the RNC’s goals to shift the nation towards a dictatorship and remove dissident ideologies by force.
Furthermore, the future for Palestine will fare no better under Trump than Harris. All Stein is doing by purposely trying to spoil a win for Harris is enabling and aiding the growth of fascism in the US.
I’m not scared of him at all. I like Stein, even tho I’m not voting for her.
How is Stein a spoiler? Most of us wouldnt vote for Harris even if there were no 3rd party. Harris is now backed by the guy that helped write P2025 and helped found the Heritage Foundation, and that’s how it will end up being bipartisan with liberals supporting it in a few years. Liberals are cheering in their party becoming a full fledged openly right wing party
How are you someone to be taken seriously? Like Stein, there’s public history to consider.
Put down the crack pipe.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t know politicalcorruption if it was standing in front of demanding you vote for it
My brother! Who gets accused of being a bot more, you or me?!
I’m not afraid of him
Gee, I wonder why.
“The leopard surely won’t eat my face! I’m helping get him elected!”
That could just never happen.
As you well know, Trump has already tried a coup once and has promised many authoritarian horrors. No one believes you don’t know about that stuff.
“When I’m president you’ll never have to [get to] vote again!”-the orange turd.
But it’s okay, Because you’re not afraid of trump.
Correct, I am not afraid. Thank you!
For everyone else reading, this is the mask off moment of this poster’s true intentions with the incessant propaganda.
What do you think the mask off moment is? I have always said I am not scared of Trump. In several posts. Since day one. In fact, even the person I was replying referenced the fact that I always say I’m not afraid of Trump.
So what mask do you think is off?
Here let me actually make it bold for you, so you can remember, even tho I have said it several times: I don’t care if Trump wins, because I’m not afraid of him. I’m not voting for Trump or Harris. I don’t like either one. I. Don’t. Care.
And what propaganda have I posted? I don’t write the news articles, friend. I just post them. And even then, it’s not the article, it’s just a link to an article.
Did you think I was the one writing them, hosting them, editing them, or publishing them!? If you feel the news org that writes and hosts the articles are writing propaganda, have you written to them about your concerns?
