74
Obscure Iowa non-profit produces new flyer calling Trump ‘trailblazer for trans’
(www.theguardian.com)
Can it be gaslighting when it’s this obvious, at this point?
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
74 points (89.4% liked)
politics
18865 readers
4552 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I occasionally watch YouTube Shorts and normally it's all surfing and fail videos (I have given up trying to understand why) but the other night every fourth video or so were these ridiculous videos edited to show "what a boss" Trump was and how Putin was obsequious, etc. It was crazy to watch.
I'd love to know who is making them and who is paying to have them in my feed. The idea that these videos are going to somehow convince me that Trump is a foreign policy genius and Putin is his lapdog is hilarious. This means that they were very poorly targeted which probably means a huge, inefficient spend.
Any time someone refers to transgender people as "transgenders" or uses "trans" as a noun you immediately know they are bigots.
I don't think that's a great way to look at things
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
Yep was going to say don't get fooled twice LGBT friends he claimed to be on your side last time and look where they got us
No one’s getting fooled by this except people who already don’t live in reality.
Definitely trailblazer material /s
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/spn0MJZr-QQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
As in, he’s setting fire to the roads they built over the last few years?
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, well you can’t fool me.
So it seems to be republicans trying to sway republicans away from trump, but without sending them to a particular candidate.
Says a lot about the Republican party when an attack on Trump for being too "trans-friendly" doesn't even point to a specific candidate, because they're all a bunch of transphobic, homophobic, "anti-woke" extremists... doesn't it?
Prediction: This works way better than DeSantis hoped and Trump wins the Iowa caucuses due to strong support from trans Republicans.
This kind of bullshit worked the first time, why not try it again??
7 years ago there were at least some gay/lesbian people who actually bought into the nonsense that Trump was friendly to their cause.
This was all part of his larger misinformation campaign which was flooding various social media sites. The FBI has been warning us about this for years now but it seems like no really takes it seriously and everything thinks they will not be affected. Bad actors spreading propaganda was all over Reddit, and I have little doubt it is here on Lemmy too.
These are all the exact same arguments from 2016.
Those arguments never went away. Russia is working with the GOP to spread as much misinformation as before, and with election season ramping up, it is only going to get more intense.
Blazing the trail of tears maybe lmao
wonder if Dems can use this narrative to affect support for trump when he inevitably wins the nominee. how many repubs are going to be energized to come out for a "staunchly pro trans" nominee?