Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\"." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target)." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up", ">\n\nMore distraction from Biden's current fiasco I see haha" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up", ">\n\nMore distraction from Biden's current fiasco I see haha", ">\n\nAre you claiming that any more than one political story existing in the news at a time is a “distraction”? Do you think that the rest of us can’t process that multiple events sometimes happen contemporaneously?" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up", ">\n\nMore distraction from Biden's current fiasco I see haha", ">\n\nAre you claiming that any more than one political story existing in the news at a time is a “distraction”? Do you think that the rest of us can’t process that multiple events sometimes happen contemporaneously?", ">\n\nI'm saying this entire sub attempts to distract" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up", ">\n\nMore distraction from Biden's current fiasco I see haha", ">\n\nAre you claiming that any more than one political story existing in the news at a time is a “distraction”? Do you think that the rest of us can’t process that multiple events sometimes happen contemporaneously?", ">\n\nI'm saying this entire sub attempts to distract", ">\n\nYou haven’t explained how anything is a “distraction.” It seems to me that you’re the one trying to distract by changing the subject of this comment section away from the subject of the article." ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up", ">\n\nMore distraction from Biden's current fiasco I see haha", ">\n\nAre you claiming that any more than one political story existing in the news at a time is a “distraction”? Do you think that the rest of us can’t process that multiple events sometimes happen contemporaneously?", ">\n\nI'm saying this entire sub attempts to distract", ">\n\nYou haven’t explained how anything is a “distraction.” It seems to me that you’re the one trying to distract by changing the subject of this comment section away from the subject of the article.", ">\n\nLol ok derpy" ]

[ "Turns out having a narcissistic sociopath for a president isn't all that it's cracked up to be.", ">\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s", ">\n\n\nYeah but I like him because he’s not afraid to say what’s on his mind! /s\n\n\"Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.\"", ">\n\nThat pretty much sums it up.", ">\n\nI’m a bit shocked he didn’t shout, “squirrel”", ">\n\nHe REALLY wanted to use nukes. I remain convinced his \"plan to end end terrorism in 90 days it's so simple but I won't tell you now\" from before the 2016 election was \"nuke them\".", ">\n\nI know enough people who said that the solution to the Middle East problem was to turn it into a smoldering crater, so I have 0 doubt that Trump probably thought the same thing.", ">\n\nIt would end that problem, but create a whole new one. But you know, the people that think it is a real solution also forget that most actions have repercussions.", ">\n\nIt wouldn’t end the problem of terrorism, it would create more terrorists. As well as probably triggering completely legitimate military action against the US. \nThere are multiple things that prevent a single deranged idiot from launching nukes, but if it did happen, I’m confident the USA would get the shit kicked out of it, either militarily or economically.", ">\n\nIt's the Jason Mendoza approach. \n\"Any time I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail at it... BOOM! Right away, I had a different problem.\"", ">\n\nJust like he said to paint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity. If this guy ever had to stop a roadrunner you can envision him calling up Acme Co. to get an anvil and some rope.", ">\n\n\npaint U.S. jets like a Chinese one so they could attack Russia with impunity.\n\nRussia did that with North Korea actually during the Korean War. MiG-15's painted to look Chinese/North Korean despite being piloted by Soviet airmen.", ">\n\nBut in the case of the Flying Tigers, it was done in cooperation with China.", ">\n\nThat is the Big brain working. He sees no issue in killing millions, it's like there is no conscience there.", ">\n\nIt’s like that because it is that.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\n\nSame as his response to people dying in the pandemic. That is a trait of a psychopath.", ">\n\n\nSchmidt reports that the prospect of how many people could be killed had \"no impact on Trump.\"\nTrump was also \"baffled and annoyed\" that he would need congressional approval in order to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.", ">\n\nAnnoyed because he wanted to be an all powerful dictator and that’s not what a US President is. If he gets into office a second time that’s what he will turn the role into, however.", ">\n\nGuy got his foreign policy smarts from watching old Bond movies.", ">\n\nWanted to nuke storms, wanted to nuke cartels, doesnt surprise me there are other things he wanted to nuke\nEdit: here a nuke, there a nuke, everywhere a nuke nuke", ">\n\nOld McNukeald had a farm", ">\n\nMAGA-laga-O", ">\n\nI don't believe that for a minute. Trump would have blamed it on the liberal antifa communist nazi BLM protesters. And millions would have believed it.", ">\n\nhe could've said it was JFK from the grave and they'd still believe him.", ">\n\nHe could have said he was actually JFK and they would have believed him.", ">\n\nIt would explain the obvious head trauma", ">\n\nYou win the Internet today. Congrats.", ">\n\nWhat?! He saluted their generals! I thought he had upmost respect for them!!", ">\n\nFuck, I forgot about that one….yikes!", ">\n\nThe fact that we survived the Trump presidency without him detonating a nuclear weapon is a miracle in and of itself.", ">\n\n\"in and of itself\", I think that was the first time I've heard\\read that phrase used properly!", ">\n\nIceland has been known to launch nuclear strikes", ">\n\nOnly as pranks though", ">\n\nWill this make Donnie’s boyfriend, Kim Jong-un, fall out of love?", ">\n\nYou do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.\n- Fran Lebowitz", ">\n\nGod, he is such a fucking imbecile.\n-Random redditor", ">\n\nSince he never fucking shuts up I'm going to assume the list of things he \"discussed\" is pretty long.\nHow many of those things went beyond a fleeting thought that was vocalized and never followed up on? Probably very few.", ">\n\nBecause there were people around to stop him. Thank God there was no second term. He was getting better at finding \"yes men\".", ">\n\nIf there's one thing autocrats are good at, it's breeding the capacity for pushback out of their staff.", ">\n\nSame with your run-of-the-mill narcissistic bosses. Who needs top talent when there are people willing and able stroke their ego? Top talent just reminds them of how inadequate they are anyway. Can't be having that.", ">\n\nI'm only surprised he thought that would work. There are only so many countries with nukes, this would have been the least believable thing he ever tried.\nEdit: There are 9 countries with nukes. This would have been really easy to figure out between the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and Israel (NK has them too but they would be the target).", ">\n\nEspecially after he threatened them on Twitter with \"fire and fury.\"", ">\n\n“…The likes of which no one has ever seen before “", ">\n\nEverything with him, no matter how mundane, is the \"greatest ever\", \"never before seen,\" \"record breaking\", etc.", ">\n\nOf course it didn't cross his mind, that killing millions is not reasonable thing to consider.", ">\n\nYou mean Trump would blame someone else for something he did?", ">\n\nDidn’t know North Korea was in the middle of a hurricane", ">\n\nThere are a lot of might, maybe, could, may Trump articles. Journalism is who, what, where, when and why. We need more of those.", ">\n\nTrump absolutely believes everyone is as stupid as he is. \nAnd N Korea now knows they can bomb us and blame Mexico, and Trump will absolutely believe it.", ">\n\nHe talked about nuking a hurricane. Fucking insane", ">\n\nunlikely. more likely that he had an open comic map and used crayons to illustrate his intent. Discussing nuclear strikes? Well beyond his demonstrated capabilities. However, saying red country is bad and needs to be removed? Totally consistent with his demonstrated intellect.", ">\n\nI wonder if he considered blaming Greenland.", ">\n\n“She speaks the bullshit. We merely…floated the idea”\n-Trump, probably", ">\n\nThat’s some fine strateegery right there. Nice.", ">\n\nThat tracks", ">\n\nIt's all fun and games until the nukes start flying.", ">\n\nHe was trying to nuke a hurricane in North Korea.", ">\n\nHe was probably thinking about the prime real estate he could snap up to build Trump World for him and the MAGA \"dont follow the science\" faithful.", ">\n\nThe Shaggy Defense.", ">\n\nBut they wrote love letters /s", ">\n\nI thought he loved kissing Kim’s ass. What happened between them? Fallout? Don’t cause another one though if you know what I mean.", ">\n\nTrump is the sort of person who's inclined to believe that every institutional norm is just pointless political correctness.", ">\n\nDumbass doesn't realize that Russia and China radar (and others) would have picked up the launch and probably launched their own nukes. WWIII.", ">\n\nOooo another book", ">\n\nEh. Why the F not? By that point, he can't schock me anymore.", ">\n\nIs this an old article or are they just rehashing it because a book came out? \nOr maybe that was a similar story. I remember reading about where trump thought he could shoot down Chinese planes and then claim Russia did it. Or something along those lines.", ">\n\nHe wanted to nuke Russia with Chinese planes. Also a hurricane. Also the cartels and NK, also probably Iran.", ">\n\nThank you. I knew it had to be close to that. Just so much crazy shit back to back it became hard to keep straight.", ">\n\nI remember him gloating about the MOAB, which I believe was far more ordinance than needed, because his first instinct was to use a nuke and he had to be talked down.", ">\n\nA book saying it doesn’t prove anything.\nBut it’s sad I could absolutely see him throwing this out as an idea.", ">\n\n“Sir.. are you suggesting we blow up the moon?”", ">\n\nOMG that is a brilliant idea Donny boy, did you come up with that all on your own?", ">\n\nI imagine a President would need to discuss every option. NK had been a hostage situation since the armistice. They are but a short distance from Seoul. So while I loath Donny for his dim witted incitement and lies, I can’t fault him here.", ">\n\nDon't forget he wanted to nuke hurricanes too.", ">\n\nIt’s scary how close we skated towards complete annihilation for four years.", ">\n\nTomorrow is blame someone else day….no joke, look it up", ">\n\nMore distraction from Biden's current fiasco I see haha", ">\n\nAre you claiming that any more than one political story existing in the news at a time is a “distraction”? Do you think that the rest of us can’t process that multiple events sometimes happen contemporaneously?", ">\n\nI'm saying this entire sub attempts to distract", ">\n\nYou haven’t explained how anything is a “distraction.” It seems to me that you’re the one trying to distract by changing the subject of this comment section away from the subject of the article.", ">\n\nLol ok derpy", ">" ]

[]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them" ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power." ]

[ "It's not actually the First Amendment that protects them, it's their wording.\nJust look at Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, for example. Jones got himself in huge legal trouble because he was direct and consistent in sharing his beliefs about the Sandy Hook Massacre. The important thing is that he was direct. He took ownership of his opinions, and doing so is why he got burned.\nCarlson, on the other hand, bends over backwards to avoid saying anything directly. His preferred tactic is to use rhetorical questions. It's not a style choice, it's a pre-emptive legal defense. He can just go into court and say, \"I never said that I believed the election was rigged.\" And that's true. \nSo what we need to do is educate people on how to spot these misinformation tactics. How to notice when someone is avoiding taking ownership of their words, in particular. Trump loves to say, \"A lot of people are saying...\"which any reasonable person should have learned is how he disguises his own opinion as that of others, thereby shielding himself from legal trouble.\nAnd maybe the best way we can help is to put this information out there. Once you get someone to question the voice they're hearing, they can start to think more critically about what is being said. In other words, find that person who's down the rabbit hole and say something like, \"Have you ever noticed that Tucker Carlson refuses to say what he thinks? Every time he wants to make an opinion, he uses a question instead. That's how you know he's lying.\"\nYou might never see the results of that information, but the next time that person hears Carlson ask a rhetorical question, they'll say, \"Wow, he really does do that.\" and the seed of doubt begins to grow.", ">\n\nMy favorite was things like\nHeadline\n\n\"Trump is a Racist\"\n\nArticle\n\nA guy named Bob called Trump a racist.\n\nThis way they got to push the propaganda but it was perfectly legit cause they were just reporting what Bob said", ">\n\nWell that was Trump's mo. \"Plenty of people are saying it\" was his mantra.", ">\n\nIt's a fallacious no matter who is doing it.", ">\n\nDepends. Because what they described could also just be citing one's sources, aka journalism.", ">\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\nThe first one can be journalistic - assuming others, like that journalist's editor, have verified those sources - the other is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.\nUsually, journalists will attempt to be as specific as they can without revealing the identities of their sources a la \"two people familiar with Apple's plans,\" and they'll be specific when they describe what those sources told them. Appeals to popularity or the unseen masses never get that specific and only exist to dupe people into thinking that something is a popular idea without having to do the heavy lifting and backing it up.\nGranted, the original example of someone citing Bob, who says that Trump is a racist, isn't really an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy, but it is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on? If it's the latter, then it's still nonsense, just packed in a different box and tied with a different bow.", ">\n\n\nThere's a difference between citing specific, anonymous sources and using weasel words like \"many people are saying\" or \"some people believe.\"\n\nAs you eventually note at the end of your comment, the example we are responding to was \"some guy named Bob said ...\" That is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious. \n\nit is still fallacious because why the fuck should anyone care what Bob says about Trump on Twitter? Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\n\nHence why I said \"it depends\" and asked the other commenter for a real example of what they are referring to. It's not clear what they meant by referring to this hypothetical \"Bob.\"", ">\n\n\nThat is a specific named source, so the point about weasel words doesn't apply here at all. If you thought I was referring to the person who mentioned Trump's mantra I can understand the confusion -- but the question at hand was whether or not the original example is fallacious.\n\nI explained why it's still fallacious despite not being an argumentum ad populum. I even made the same exact distinction you just made in an effort to explain why it's all fallacious despite not being the same.", ">\n\nNo you didn't, you asked \"Is he being covered because of his qualifications and expert opinion or is he being covered because he said something inflammatory that the website/news outlet could capitalize on?\" and only commented about the latter possibility. You also made up your own detail that he apparently said it on Twitter, which was not part of the scenario until you made it up.\nIf Bob is being quoted because of his qualifications or because he witnessed something and his credibility was vetted, it's not fallacious. It's journalism. Hence, \"it depends.\"", ">\n\nThe implication in the original post was that this Bob character is just some random asshole on Twitter, not some kind of authoritative source on Trump. There's no reason to characterize that as a bad thing if Bob is, indeed, an authoritative source. I explained why sourcing him - even though he's named - is fallacious as well as Trump's favorite appeal to popularity, \"many people are saying.\"\nIn this scenario, it probably isn't journalism, it's likely fallacious, despite the fact that it isn't spelled out. So no, it doesn't really depend in this instance, it's just fallacious.", ">\n\nIt’s worth defining misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation could be accidental. If you tell me something you believe is correct but isn’t, you’ve misinformed me. But if you tell me something that you know is incorrect, that’s disinformation. There is malicious intent involved. \nI think this is important in the free speech argument. Ideally we’d want to stop disinformation and slow misinformation.", ">\n\nthis post needs a signal boost. the problem with misinformation is the lack of specificity. words can have very precise meaning. when people make mistakes because they don't understand the nuance, that is misinformation. when Tucker Carlson reinforces that misunderstanding it becomes disinformation.", ">\n\nEducation. A course in critical thinking. Maybe a statistics class, ethics and simple logic with common sense. The desire for truth and reasonable thought.\nBut how the hell you build a society with this knowledge is beyond us.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\nIf anything, that they're so expert in some areas seems to make them prone to assuming they're right about everything without having to second-guess themselves or their sources of information.\nI'm not saying education is not perhaps part of a solution but it's not the whole solution.", ">\n\n\nUnfortunately, some of the most prone-to-misinformation people I know in real life are also highly educated and had to pass classes in logic, statistics, etc. to get their professional degrees.\n\nDo you know what anecdotal evidence is?", ">\n\nI do. And depending on context, it's appropriate and useful.\nIt's a logical fallacy to point to one band with a trumpet player and say, \"All bands must have trumpet players\", but if someone says \"No bands have trumpet players,\" pointing to a few that do disproves that statement and invites the stator to re-evaluate.\nEdit: At this point this person blocked me for some reason.\nPointing out educated people who are prone to misinformation is sufficient to indicate that education is not a complete solution.", ">\n\nNo one said no highly educated people are prone to misinformation.", ">\n\nVirtually everything the government does on this directly is going to violate the first amendment. The only thing they can do directly is try to have factual information, regarding a hot topic that's full of misinformation, readily available to whoever wants to see it. \nHowever, the one and only real solution to this problem is educating people critical thinking skills. Our education system is so trashy that people literally don't know how to think critically. They don't how to evaluate sources, they don't know how interpret information, they don't know how to ask the right questions, they don't know to how properly critique something, they don't know to put their biases in perspective. Our poor education system can be directly blamed for why huge chunks of the population think being a critical thinker means buying into conspiracy theories.", ">\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic. You're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech. You cannot, or should not, use speech to recklessly endanger someone. For example, you can't use your speech to encourage someone to kill themselves or to kill other people.", ">\n\n\nThe straightforward wording of the Bill of Rights is actually kind of problematic.\n\nI disagree, the direct and simple wording of the first amendment is what makes it so powerful. It's very hard to abuse, manipulate, or distort free speech in this country, and that's a good thing.\n\nYou're right that the wording of the 1A is very clear, but we NEED some restrictions on free speech.\n\nFree speech already has an almost perfect amount of restrictions. The first amendment doesn't protect: \n\nObscenity \nFighting words \nDefamation (including libel and slander) \nChild pornography \nPerjury \nBlackmail \nTrue threats\nSolicitations to commit crimes\nIncitement to imminent lawless action \nPlagiarism of copyrighted material", ">\n\nYou're agreeing with me. A straight reading of the 1A could prohibit restrictions on everything you list. So making exceptions is important.", ">\n\nIt is your constitutional right to owne a gun. If you point it at a group of people to intimate them you are guilty of Reckless endangerment. You have the right to tell people whatever you like. If you tell them that drinking bleach will kill covid-19 you could also be guilty of Reckless endangerment, maybe manslaughter. You have rights but have to be responsible with them", ">\n\nTerrible, terrible, terrible. Just think of all the things that Republicans might consider \"dangerous to public health.\" Does this still sound like a cool idea under President Trump or President DeSantis?\nIf not, then it's probably a bad idea.", ">\n\nIf we’re at the point where republicans can prove in a court of law that speech that’s not dangerous in fact was dangerous, I’m not sure how precedent is going to help.", ">\n\nIt's much easier to get to that point if you make it a norm that \"dangerous\" speech can be banned.", ">\n\nI don’t see how. It isn’t a norm that you can ignore stare decisis. It isn’t a norm that you ignore a congressional subpoena.", ">\n\nI don't see what your point is.", ">\n\nThat the idea of republicans only doing something because democrats set a precedence is a farce. \nThere’s no precedent for withholding judicial appointments for years with a minority in the senate. Their moves aren’t reactions in any sense.", ">\n\nNo. Being free to say what you believe means you are free to say something that could be wrong. Any governing body created to regulate misinformation would instantly become a propaganda and censorship machine for whatever party is in power.", ">\n\nSAYING what you believe is fine, until you do so in a public forum which sends your words into (potentially) millions of ears over the Public's Electro-Magnetic Spectrem, and that would include anything bouncing off a satellite or cell tower regardless of who owns the satellite or tower." ]