ThatGuyYouHate

The difference between twelve and 35;

“But I don’t wanna go to the dentist!”
“I really wish I didn’t have to go to the dentist.”

“I’m gonna bail out the banks so my friends stay rich!”
“We need to bail out the banks because they are too big to fail.”

We don’t mature. We just change vocabulary.

Trump isn’t invincible. He never was. He’s never going to be.

Conservatives only loved democracy as long as it went their way enough.

Now that it might not, they abandon it for fascism that favors them, no matter the horror.

I’ll say it again. Mark my words. Conservatives WILL accept Trump’s “activities” with Epstein before they abandon him.

Mark.My.Words.

Control the stupids, control society.

Make more stupids, more peons to control. Fewer smart people to challenge you.

Trump makes the right people feel safe and secure he can get them to do just about anything.

Voltaire - Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Getting it removed AFTER THE FACT feels pretty performative after having it for almost 2 decades. Just having the Nazi tat is just the BEGINNING of the problems here.

We have a right to demand more of our representatives.

We have months until the primary. Surely someone can take his place.

I’m still kinda on “that one thing” since he chose TO KEEP IT FOR 17 YEARS.

When someone doesn’t fix a mistake till AFTER they get caught, it kinda feels disingenuous and more because he HAD to.

And now apparently he has ANOTHER Nazi tat.

It’s not the ONE thing, it’s the PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR.

If self-awareness and a sense of strategy were natural, we wouldn’t be in the position we are in to begin with.

I think people who, rightfully, are disgusted by his Nazi tattoo. Even brilliant people make real dumbass decisions all the time (though this one olympicly stretches it).

But they are not pointing out enough that the problem is HE CHOSE TO KEEP IT FOR 17 YEARS.

THAT is what shows who he is.

Either he’s a Nazi or a flaming idiot.

Both are disqualifying.

We have MONTH until the primary. Someone else can take up the reigns. we DON’T have to keep talking about this!

If we were a day before the general and the last name of the other guy was, let’s say, “Trump,” we’d be having a very different and difficult conversation.

But that’s what some people don’t seem to understand; we are months away from the primary.

WE DON’T HAVE TO!

Good advise for everybody.

It sucks, but it’s good advice.

Is having an interest in historical Vikings better or worse? I can never tell.

Maybe. But the most damning evidence is that he kept it.

For two decades.

Either he is one, or he doesn’t take them seriously enough to be disgusted by them.

If he’s really a “history buff,” he knows what the Nazis did.

Both of those are better than Nazi, to be fair. Thankfully this got discovered early and someone else can hopefully take his place.

Either he’s intelligent and running a con on us all (almost certainly), or he’s “innocent” and just a flaming idiot.

Neither should be in a position of responsibility over other people.

We aren’t talking about the moon, are we? We’re talking about a person and what they did or didn’t know/care about at a particular time of his life.

I never claimed it was valuable at all. I just tried to give a how that hasn’t been conclusively shown to be out of the realm of possibility.

And all relevant evidence says he very likely is. My explanation as to the, however small, possibility is simply; 20 years ago, he didn’t know/remember/care, and did something heinous.

I never said that’s what DID happen. I didn’t even say I BELIEVED it happened. I’ve simply tried to show a HOW.

There is none to make. Since you’ve decided to make a whole thing of this, I’ve just been poking holes in the reasoning that he did.

He got it 2 decades ago. We don’t know exactly what he knew and when. We can take an educated guess on what he LIKELY knew, but we cannot GUARANTEE it. That’s all.

I never questioned it. I’m sure they wouldn’t.

Who’s dying on a hill? You’ve taken this FAR more seriously than I have. I simply accepted the possibility that this man is a dumbass, and you, seemingly, haven’t.

All I pointed out is that the evidence presented may not inherently mean what it probably does, and what we want it, to mean. Nothing that has been presented completely excludes this version of events. That is all.

The fact he got it at all and actually tried running as a democrat.

There wouldn’t be. Trying to prove he DIDN’T know something would require proving a negative.

And he, by all possibility, DID know. But there is a world where he didn’t because he was completely half-assed in his education.

Many people only look into history just to confirm their own beliefs.

That is the most telling thing of it all I think. That he had it long enough for it to fade.

And he very well should have. And the most telling thing is he didn’t get it removed. He either agreed with it or didn’t care enough.

Who is hand waving or ignoring? I am pointing out that there is a reality where an idiot does something stupid. Just because the guy has a Wikipedia page doesn’t make him smart.

Intellectually lazy? I never denied anything you said. I pointed out they may not mean what you want them to mean.

Yes. I know what inductive reasoning is. Your conclusion IS the supported one. But it is not completely conclusive. That is all I have been pointing out. As I stated in my first response, I didn’t say it was a great possibility.

Your students aren’t him. You’re making assumptions imprinting your experiences onto him.

What part of my “story” was supposed to be “nice?” Exactly? I’m pretty sure I’ve called him an idiot 4-5 times now.

Your “evidence and context,” while more than likely to be the case, are inconclusive at best.

I made a passing reference to the possibility as you nor I actually know the guy.