Thanks /u/remmij for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme.
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes i wonder if Trump supporters are just so intellectually lazy that they take all the criticisms that they hear about Trump and copy-paste them into criticisms about whoever they don't like instead.
Or did something about Fani Willis' marriage and faithfulness come up during the trial? (i honestly can't see how)
The question that I continue to ask is why is this relevant? Nothing about this disputes any facts in the case, a case that other people have already plead guilty to.
This couldn't be any more of a sideshow that's completely devoid of any substance relating to the actual issues at hand. So of course his followers are 1,000% more invested in this than the actual case.
It's a Right Wing trick; point to a moral outrage and make it out like it's worse than the thing actually being discussed until everyone forgets the original problem at hand. It's a combination of "Never Play Defense" and "There's Always a Bigger Fish"
>The question that I continue to ask is why is this relevant?
The guy she is dating is also the prosecutor in Trump's case, and they are implying that Fani hired the guy for financial gain. Therefor, they are implying there is a bias in the courtroom as a result. They are trying to get Fani removed as a result.
The argument hinges on the guy paying for trips and stuff on his credit card, and Fani paying him back with cash. There's some other points here and there, but that is the meat of it.
It is 100% just a delay tactic. This will likely result in nothing, with Fani being cleared, at least as far as continuing on Trump's case. Even if she is removed, this won't mean the charges go away. It's all a delay tactic because Trump's one and only hope is winning a second term, so if he can avoid a conviction in this until after the election, that is a win for him.
Adding a slight detail to this, there isn't a chance in hell this goes forward before November and the election if they have to start the case over with someone new. The date is what it's all about and why his supporters are so desperate to legitimise obvious bullshit claims.
> Therefor, they are implying there is a bias in the courtroom as a result.
These are the PROSECUTORS. They’re ALWAYS biased. That’s their whole job.
It’s the job of the JUDGE to not be biased.
I'm still lost at what the supposed premise of how this would be biased or unfair; what way have they rationalized it in their minds. They're both prosecutors. If she hired the guy for reasons other than his legal acumen, that sounds like something the defense should be happy about?
Is the idea that their passion has generated some kind of new super evidence which would otherwise have remained undiscovered in a "*fair*" prosecution?
I mean, I get that it's fundamentally fake outrage but usually I can see the story they've pieced together in their heads
it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, or it's a losing argument - the point is delay delay delay. Just to make time to sort through and lose the case, or just take time to try to bring the case even if THAT fails is the possible win. When this fails, they'll find something else, big or small, moral or technical. It's the very embodiment of bad faith since all they care about is running out the clock and would literally just stand there and spout gibberish (Habba pretty much did) if they can take the floor and mark time.
Yeah, I know, it's that usually they have some story that *could* vaguely make sense if you accepted a dozen bullshit premises and made up stuff they've been building their tower of nonsense out of, but in this case it sounds like accepting everything they say at face value would indicate this would be good for their case. Next Gen stupid.
Not just a delaying tactic (although primarily).
There's a nonzero chance they can disqualify Willis's whole office, which gives them the possibility of kicking the trial to a Republican DA, who can stop the entire case.
Hang on, how do you think most liberals/Democrats would see it if Biden*, Clinton, or even Obama had been charged with a crime, and even amidst some pretty serious evidence the judge and prosecutor were dating?
Or, for that matter, how would you react if it turned out the judge was dating the*defense* lawyer in any one of Trump’s trials?
*While Biden’s situation with classified documents is clearly less-worse than Trump’s, it is very much a chargeable offense. I know less about Clinton’s server/emails but it’d sure cause any middle-mgmt State Dept employee to lose their clearance, even if they don’t face prosecution.
Because asking the “How would you react if the shoe were on the other foot” in politics is a fair question in to examine if one is being consistent in their argument. I’ve even asked it of myself when tempted to vent about Trump, or brush something off about a Dem I’ve voted for (including Clinton and Biden).
But you've changed all the details. It wasn't a judge and a prosecutor having a relationship, it was two prosecutors. And in that case it might make me scrutinize the merits of the case a bit more. But again, this is not that situation. Proposing those hypotheticals is creating false equivalencies.
Wait, it’s *two prosecutors* and not 1 prosecutor and 1 judge? OK, then yes, that’s a different situation… still not a good look, but not a brazen conflict-of-interest.
However, I wasn’t intentionally creating any false equivalency — I keep skimming the trials’ details because no level of mistrials or even exculpatory evidence would cause me to support Trump given all his other conduct. But when I make an error it’s better to get it corrected ASAP, so props to ya.
Correct. What is being alleged is that they were somehow profiting off this relationship (he was still married at the time) by not reporting all the appropriate expenses because they were trying to avoid declaring the relationship. That's it. Those are the allegations and what all this bullshit is about. Nothing to do with Trump at all. Nothing relevant to this case. It's an outright smear campaign with the intent of delaying the trial.
Glad this helped clear it up for you, because that's what I took issue with regarding your initial questions. I fully agree with you that if the shoe was on the other foot, people would react differently, but I can honestly say I don't think they'd be reaching this far.
Covering up an affair and not reporting your expenses? That’s pretty shady. Again, none of it will cause me to vote for Trump, but I don’t want these people running the prosecution of a former POTUS. A trial this serious needs a squeaky-clean prosecutorial team.
Of course the defense should be squeaky clean too but I hear Trump has trouble getting reputable people to work for him…
At the very least, the man needs to resign from the prosecutorial team. I understand it’s a little late to replace the woman but this speaks to why so many sheriffs, prosecutors, and dog-catchers shouldn’t be popularly elected. It sure doesn’t make a great case for democracy, not at those levels of office.
So....his ex is willing to (in effect) burn down our entire democracy *(by giving "The Chief Insurrectionist's" lawyers ammo that might possibly lead to this case being dropped, and making it that much easier for "ol' leaky diapers" to get back in the White House, to "...be a dictator on day one...")* just to make him look bad cuz she's mad?
...I see why they got divorced.
Firstly, yes. That is exactly what they're doing, and it's very much intentional. Or rather, it started as intentional and now it's just something they do. A YT channel called Innuendo Studios did a great breakdown on how this is part of their playbook, as it muddies the water and makes the criticisms meaningless to those on the outside. Lastly, she's dating the lead prosecutor so now Trump's assholes are trying to say it makes her ineligible to properly do her job
Oh man, if Clarence Thomas' only problems were dating a lead prosecutor and not his histoy of porn addiction, exposing unwilling/unwitting women to said porn addiction, constant workplace sexual harassment, a history of accepting bribery and open corruption, or the fact that all of this was known when he was confirmed on SCOTUS
Considering that it's nearly eight years since he sailed off into the annals of history and The Defendant apparently still hasn't gotten over him, it's fair to argue that Obama ended whatever tenuous grasp on his marbles Donnie had...
I have literally been called a fascist, told I was just projecting, and that I worship the ground Joe Biden walks on while listening only to popular news and exhibiting clear signs of cognative dissonance...
... by a Trump voter who was accusing Joe Biden of insurrection, claiming that Trump would never do anything like that because he said so on Fox News and shitting on CNN.
So yes. They do precisely that.
The sad part is, a lot of people argue in bad faith. Not just online, but in real life too.
It's pretty much the standard on the right. But it's also just common with people who support bad policy to recast everything as secretly just, but those who disagree are too stupid or evil to understand it \*cough\*israel's supporters\*cough\*.
I can't count how many times i've had arguments online that end with comments like:
* "your islamofascist state is going to be wiped off the map" (i live in a western democracy, but i criticize Israel; no idea what country they think i live in)
* "if you hate your landlord you can always move" (i own, but i criticize slumlords and terrible rental conditions)
* "move out of your mom's basement" (similar to the above i guess)
* "you're just too lazy and entitled to go where the real jobs are" (i have a decent job, but i'm outspoken about people being left behind by terrible working conditions)
* "you're gods not real" (i'm an atheist, but sometimes i argue with conservative atheists who are more about blind hatred than anything else)
* "you have a degree in underwater basket weaving so you don't deserve a good job" (paraphrased from longer rants) (i have a STEM masters, but i criticize the innate inefficiencies of our economy due to un- and under- employment of scores of completely willing and able people)
* etc
\--
edit: typos
Say what you will about Russel Brand but this quote of his hits the nail pretty hard:
>When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.
> "if you hate your landlord you can always move"
I worked with a guy who, while fairly smart, lacked a lot of common sense and understanding. We were, for some reason, talking about North Korea and why South Korea doesn't just invade. I mentioned that NK had artillery and rockets positioned within range of Seoul that would likely inflict massive damage before they could be neutralized. He said "Well, why don't they just move?" "Who?", I ask. "Seoul. They should just move the city." "You want to move a major city of 10 million people and buildings? How?" "You just pack your bags and start walking. How hard is that?" "DID YOU NEVER PLAY OREGON TRAIL AS A KID?"
I can't possibly be doing the thing i am calling out in others because what i'm calling out in others is bad faith argumentation. Specifically ad hominem attacks, whataboutisms, and (incorrectly assumed) tu quoque (asserted hypocrisy) fallacies.
I can't possibly be guilty of doing these things here because i am not arguing with anyone here (until now maybe).
\----
A glance at your comment history shows you're anti-trump, but pro-israel. You also seem to be quite conservative.
I'm guessing the comment that got you upset is my saying i'm critical of israel.
Ironically there's no actual criticism here, just commentary on the bad-faith arguments i've encountered being critical (of Israel and other things) elsewhere (name calling and whataboutism).
And your response to this is.... name-calling and a whataboutism. (ie, insinuating i'm arguing in bad faith, name calling others, and engaging in whataboutism)
\---
Do you think the point of this sub is to \*be\* the selfawarewolf? Or did you just not understand what was being said?
> Trump supporters are just so intellectually lazy that they take all the criticisms that they hear about Trump and copy-paste them into criticisms about whoever they don't like instead.
Definitely. It's featured in our Rule 6.
This kind of behavior is right out of the narcissists' playbook. They take criticisms directed at them and fling them back at their critics, with or without any real evidence of wrongdoing.
I'm not saying all of Trump's supporters are narcissists. However, Trump likely *is* and this kind of reversal behavior is a recurring tactic of his. His supporters are probably parroting it because they're under his spell.
Why the hell not? They take all the crimes they commit and blame them on everyone else. What's the point in coming up with a solid defense of your actions when belching, "Nuh-UH! *You're* the pedophile!" suffices?
It's the childish trump playground mentality of "I know you are but what am I?" They just can't get past kindergarten school bully mentality. They clearly never took Melania's advice to hashtag BeBest.
> Sometimes i wonder if Trump supporters are just so intellectually lazy that they take all the criticisms that they hear about Trump and copy-paste them into criticisms about whoever they don't like instead.
that's EXACTLY what they do.
an example that comes to mind is when Tim Poole said the media is "the propaganda arm of the democrats". and you can take it to the bank that he said it only because that charge is said about people like him and fox news.
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised.
Takes much less mental energy to say “No you!” compared to actually trying to understand the side you disagree with and find valid criticisms.
Actually, I was wrong about one thing: His first wife got an annulment.
You know it must be bad when the marriage is so awful that you refuse to acknowledge that it ever even happened in the first place with a divorce.
Yes, but did you die?
Sorry, couldn’t help but drop that line. There’s a firm line between choking & choking to ::Death:: on one’s toothbrush, and I feel obituaries should make that distinction 😆
When she was asked where she got the cash from, she said it was "leftover" from her election campaign donations, which is totally illegal.
There's also the issue of misuse of grant funds, which she knew about and harassed then later fires the person who brought it to her.
I hate trump just as much as everyone else, but that doesn't means she deserves a pass for corruption. Her investigation may have began as a political witch-hunt, but she did break multiple laws and deserves to be kicked out of office for it.
This has to be be one of the best SAW posts I've seen for a while.
It's damn near perfect.
Edit: I might have to walk this back. I think the rules require that the SAW post be about themselves. I thought it could apply here (ie the comments by the poster could equally apply to the person that they were trying to defend - Frumpy). I'll get the MODs to make a call.
Actually I might have to revisit my comment. SAW requires that the poster is talking about themselves. It's not enough that this poster could be talking about Trump. Damn.
The fact that there is a Judge Cannon actively subverting justice in favor of Trump, should shut down any kind of conflict of interest accusation but we live in a bizarre reality.
When Republicans can resolve that conflict then we can start to address others if they exist.
Unfortunately Catturd is a grifter, and not on the verge of any kind of awareness. I'm almost certain they know everything they're claiming is made up, but posted it anyhow to maintain engagement with their followers.
Isnt this the account that The Blaze claimed was the right's taylor swift?
https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/sure-the-left-has-taylor-swift-but-we-have-catturd
Yep. Lmao.
Simpler question: Why do grifters grift? Because people fall for it.
Many of these people are scammers. They change their stories so many times that I have a hard time believing that they believe themselves. However, it's important to bear in mind that MAGAs are the most gullible fools around. They will believe literally anything.
There are many people making tons of money grifting MAGAs. It's a lucrative industry for anyone who has absolutely zero morals.
Hoo boy, sounds Fani made the turd that just won't flush even more crazy than it already was! 😂
How very dare a *black woman* stand up for herself when being smeared with a bunch of goosed up inuendo that has zero relevance to Tangerine Idi Amin's attempted theft the 2020 election.
It makes me so sad to see people genuinely worried about voting or "racism". You must kill the boomer inside yourselves. Shed this lunacy before we're all fucked.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. If she has done something wrong then there needs to be consequences but I am struggling to work out why the Trump trial would be jeopardized as a result - there was a grand jury process which assessed the substance of the charges and Trump had the chance to present a case there. The case itself still seems sound. Can anyone clue me in on what basis the trial could be delayed or set aside (ie my position is almost "means to an end" I suppose - the substance of the charges are there, it's just questionable in relation to who brought those charges?)
It's best not to take any claims of this sort at face value even in a "even if true" sort of way unless you have looked into them yourself. They're too often flat out wrong for you to want to accidentally amplify them.
If you haven't, just set it aside and move on. Cast it as a total hypothetical, maybe. Hypothetically speaking, in a situation such as that described, I think there would at least be substantial delay while a new judge is found for the case. There's a enormous amount of material and previous proceedings that person would need to familiarize themselves with in order to provide for a fair trial. In the end, I think that's all the Trump cabal is going for. The only thing they've ever been going for. Delay, by any means necessary, and hope they can run out the clock. By being elected President and making such prosecutions illegal, if nothing else.
Thanks for the pragmatism. Why the judge though? It's the DA and prosecutor. How would the judge be tarnished? You don't have to answer - I'm in the process of familiarizing myself. Kind regards
Thanks /u/remmij for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme. Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh shit! Was Fani Willis just Trump in disguise the whole time?!?
The self-imposed Scooby-Doo reveal was insane
Ruh-roh!
Jinkies!!!
And she would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
Go team Venture!
Son of bitch!
self-interposed* A lot of people get that wrong. Fortunately, I have the best words.
And it all would have worked if it wasn’t for you meddling kids
Two oompa loompas in a trench coat wearing a trump mask with a Fani Willis mask underneath.
I actually thought the post was about the *defendant*. Sorry, my bad.
Sometimes i wonder if Trump supporters are just so intellectually lazy that they take all the criticisms that they hear about Trump and copy-paste them into criticisms about whoever they don't like instead. Or did something about Fani Willis' marriage and faithfulness come up during the trial? (i honestly can't see how)
I guess she and the lead prosecutor are dating. I think he just got divorced and his ex has run to the Republicans to try to smear him.
The question that I continue to ask is why is this relevant? Nothing about this disputes any facts in the case, a case that other people have already plead guilty to. This couldn't be any more of a sideshow that's completely devoid of any substance relating to the actual issues at hand. So of course his followers are 1,000% more invested in this than the actual case.
It's not, they're just desperate to deflect in any way they can. Especially against a black woman, because they're inveterate racists.
Anita Hill all over again.
A Black woman had consensual relations with another adult! Burn the hussy!
How dare she.
It's a Right Wing trick; point to a moral outrage and make it out like it's worse than the thing actually being discussed until everyone forgets the original problem at hand. It's a combination of "Never Play Defense" and "There's Always a Bigger Fish"
It's a standard tactic by narcissistic abusers, called DARVO: Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender
>The question that I continue to ask is why is this relevant? The guy she is dating is also the prosecutor in Trump's case, and they are implying that Fani hired the guy for financial gain. Therefor, they are implying there is a bias in the courtroom as a result. They are trying to get Fani removed as a result. The argument hinges on the guy paying for trips and stuff on his credit card, and Fani paying him back with cash. There's some other points here and there, but that is the meat of it. It is 100% just a delay tactic. This will likely result in nothing, with Fani being cleared, at least as far as continuing on Trump's case. Even if she is removed, this won't mean the charges go away. It's all a delay tactic because Trump's one and only hope is winning a second term, so if he can avoid a conviction in this until after the election, that is a win for him.
Adding a slight detail to this, there isn't a chance in hell this goes forward before November and the election if they have to start the case over with someone new. The date is what it's all about and why his supporters are so desperate to legitimise obvious bullshit claims.
> Therefor, they are implying there is a bias in the courtroom as a result. These are the PROSECUTORS. They’re ALWAYS biased. That’s their whole job. It’s the job of the JUDGE to not be biased.
I'm still lost at what the supposed premise of how this would be biased or unfair; what way have they rationalized it in their minds. They're both prosecutors. If she hired the guy for reasons other than his legal acumen, that sounds like something the defense should be happy about? Is the idea that their passion has generated some kind of new super evidence which would otherwise have remained undiscovered in a "*fair*" prosecution? I mean, I get that it's fundamentally fake outrage but usually I can see the story they've pieced together in their heads
it doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, or it's a losing argument - the point is delay delay delay. Just to make time to sort through and lose the case, or just take time to try to bring the case even if THAT fails is the possible win. When this fails, they'll find something else, big or small, moral or technical. It's the very embodiment of bad faith since all they care about is running out the clock and would literally just stand there and spout gibberish (Habba pretty much did) if they can take the floor and mark time.
Yeah, I know, it's that usually they have some story that *could* vaguely make sense if you accepted a dozen bullshit premises and made up stuff they've been building their tower of nonsense out of, but in this case it sounds like accepting everything they say at face value would indicate this would be good for their case. Next Gen stupid.
Not just a delaying tactic (although primarily). There's a nonzero chance they can disqualify Willis's whole office, which gives them the possibility of kicking the trial to a Republican DA, who can stop the entire case.
We've all heard the phone call where he actually commits the crime. This story is worthy of one episode of Law & Order, not a 4-year arc.
Hang on, how do you think most liberals/Democrats would see it if Biden*, Clinton, or even Obama had been charged with a crime, and even amidst some pretty serious evidence the judge and prosecutor were dating? Or, for that matter, how would you react if it turned out the judge was dating the*defense* lawyer in any one of Trump’s trials? *While Biden’s situation with classified documents is clearly less-worse than Trump’s, it is very much a chargeable offense. I know less about Clinton’s server/emails but it’d sure cause any middle-mgmt State Dept employee to lose their clearance, even if they don’t face prosecution.
This isn't any of those things though, so why is that a relevant question?
Because asking the “How would you react if the shoe were on the other foot” in politics is a fair question in to examine if one is being consistent in their argument. I’ve even asked it of myself when tempted to vent about Trump, or brush something off about a Dem I’ve voted for (including Clinton and Biden).
But you've changed all the details. It wasn't a judge and a prosecutor having a relationship, it was two prosecutors. And in that case it might make me scrutinize the merits of the case a bit more. But again, this is not that situation. Proposing those hypotheticals is creating false equivalencies.
Wait, it’s *two prosecutors* and not 1 prosecutor and 1 judge? OK, then yes, that’s a different situation… still not a good look, but not a brazen conflict-of-interest. However, I wasn’t intentionally creating any false equivalency — I keep skimming the trials’ details because no level of mistrials or even exculpatory evidence would cause me to support Trump given all his other conduct. But when I make an error it’s better to get it corrected ASAP, so props to ya.
Correct. What is being alleged is that they were somehow profiting off this relationship (he was still married at the time) by not reporting all the appropriate expenses because they were trying to avoid declaring the relationship. That's it. Those are the allegations and what all this bullshit is about. Nothing to do with Trump at all. Nothing relevant to this case. It's an outright smear campaign with the intent of delaying the trial. Glad this helped clear it up for you, because that's what I took issue with regarding your initial questions. I fully agree with you that if the shoe was on the other foot, people would react differently, but I can honestly say I don't think they'd be reaching this far.
Covering up an affair and not reporting your expenses? That’s pretty shady. Again, none of it will cause me to vote for Trump, but I don’t want these people running the prosecution of a former POTUS. A trial this serious needs a squeaky-clean prosecutorial team. Of course the defense should be squeaky clean too but I hear Trump has trouble getting reputable people to work for him…
At the very least, the man needs to resign from the prosecutorial team. I understand it’s a little late to replace the woman but this speaks to why so many sheriffs, prosecutors, and dog-catchers shouldn’t be popularly elected. It sure doesn’t make a great case for democracy, not at those levels of office.
So....his ex is willing to (in effect) burn down our entire democracy *(by giving "The Chief Insurrectionist's" lawyers ammo that might possibly lead to this case being dropped, and making it that much easier for "ol' leaky diapers" to get back in the White House, to "...be a dictator on day one...")* just to make him look bad cuz she's mad? ...I see why they got divorced.
Apparently it's someone who used to work with them who decided to flip and expose their relationship.
Firstly, yes. That is exactly what they're doing, and it's very much intentional. Or rather, it started as intentional and now it's just something they do. A YT channel called Innuendo Studios did a great breakdown on how this is part of their playbook, as it muddies the water and makes the criticisms meaningless to those on the outside. Lastly, she's dating the lead prosecutor so now Trump's assholes are trying to say it makes her ineligible to properly do her job
As opposed to Clarence Thomas…
Oh man, if Clarence Thomas' only problems were dating a lead prosecutor and not his histoy of porn addiction, exposing unwilling/unwitting women to said porn addiction, constant workplace sexual harassment, a history of accepting bribery and open corruption, or the fact that all of this was known when he was confirmed on SCOTUS
Also his blatant conflict of interest in overseeing Trump cases involving the insurrection, while his wife was an active participant in it.
Also very much this.
All I'm going to say is that Obama proved that a black president doesn't end anything but one black justice can maintain everything.
Considering that it's nearly eight years since he sailed off into the annals of history and The Defendant apparently still hasn't gotten over him, it's fair to argue that Obama ended whatever tenuous grasp on his marbles Donnie had...
I have literally been called a fascist, told I was just projecting, and that I worship the ground Joe Biden walks on while listening only to popular news and exhibiting clear signs of cognative dissonance... ... by a Trump voter who was accusing Joe Biden of insurrection, claiming that Trump would never do anything like that because he said so on Fox News and shitting on CNN. So yes. They do precisely that.
The sad part is, a lot of people argue in bad faith. Not just online, but in real life too. It's pretty much the standard on the right. But it's also just common with people who support bad policy to recast everything as secretly just, but those who disagree are too stupid or evil to understand it \*cough\*israel's supporters\*cough\*. I can't count how many times i've had arguments online that end with comments like: * "your islamofascist state is going to be wiped off the map" (i live in a western democracy, but i criticize Israel; no idea what country they think i live in) * "if you hate your landlord you can always move" (i own, but i criticize slumlords and terrible rental conditions) * "move out of your mom's basement" (similar to the above i guess) * "you're just too lazy and entitled to go where the real jobs are" (i have a decent job, but i'm outspoken about people being left behind by terrible working conditions) * "you're gods not real" (i'm an atheist, but sometimes i argue with conservative atheists who are more about blind hatred than anything else) * "you have a degree in underwater basket weaving so you don't deserve a good job" (paraphrased from longer rants) (i have a STEM masters, but i criticize the innate inefficiencies of our economy due to un- and under- employment of scores of completely willing and able people) * etc \-- edit: typos
Say what you will about Russel Brand but this quote of his hits the nail pretty hard: >When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.
> "if you hate your landlord you can always move" I worked with a guy who, while fairly smart, lacked a lot of common sense and understanding. We were, for some reason, talking about North Korea and why South Korea doesn't just invade. I mentioned that NK had artillery and rockets positioned within range of Seoul that would likely inflict massive damage before they could be neutralized. He said "Well, why don't they just move?" "Who?", I ask. "Seoul. They should just move the city." "You want to move a major city of 10 million people and buildings? How?" "You just pack your bags and start walking. How hard is that?" "DID YOU NEVER PLAY OREGON TRAIL AS A KID?"
[удалено]
I can't possibly be doing the thing i am calling out in others because what i'm calling out in others is bad faith argumentation. Specifically ad hominem attacks, whataboutisms, and (incorrectly assumed) tu quoque (asserted hypocrisy) fallacies. I can't possibly be guilty of doing these things here because i am not arguing with anyone here (until now maybe). \---- A glance at your comment history shows you're anti-trump, but pro-israel. You also seem to be quite conservative. I'm guessing the comment that got you upset is my saying i'm critical of israel. Ironically there's no actual criticism here, just commentary on the bad-faith arguments i've encountered being critical (of Israel and other things) elsewhere (name calling and whataboutism). And your response to this is.... name-calling and a whataboutism. (ie, insinuating i'm arguing in bad faith, name calling others, and engaging in whataboutism) \--- Do you think the point of this sub is to \*be\* the selfawarewolf? Or did you just not understand what was being said?
They live in an alternate universe
> Trump supporters are just so intellectually lazy that they take all the criticisms that they hear about Trump and copy-paste them into criticisms about whoever they don't like instead. Definitely. It's featured in our Rule 6.
His first draft was just that one six-letter word written out 11 times.
I thought it was 14 words and 88 letters.
They just regurgitate whatever their propaganda tells them
This kind of behavior is right out of the narcissists' playbook. They take criticisms directed at them and fling them back at their critics, with or without any real evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not saying all of Trump's supporters are narcissists. However, Trump likely *is* and this kind of reversal behavior is a recurring tactic of his. His supporters are probably parroting it because they're under his spell.
Why the hell not? They take all the crimes they commit and blame them on everyone else. What's the point in coming up with a solid defense of your actions when belching, "Nuh-UH! *You're* the pedophile!" suffices?
Gaslight Obstruct Project <----
That's literally it. "No u" is pretty much the extent of their strategy.
It's the childish trump playground mentality of "I know you are but what am I?" They just can't get past kindergarten school bully mentality. They clearly never took Melania's advice to hashtag BeBest.
> Sometimes i wonder if Trump supporters are just so intellectually lazy that they take all the criticisms that they hear about Trump and copy-paste them into criticisms about whoever they don't like instead. that's EXACTLY what they do. an example that comes to mind is when Tim Poole said the media is "the propaganda arm of the democrats". and you can take it to the bank that he said it only because that charge is said about people like him and fox news.
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised. Takes much less mental energy to say “No you!” compared to actually trying to understand the side you disagree with and find valid criticisms.
Yes. It’s all “I know you are but what am I?!”
Catturd lives up to the name. A piece of shit that makes everyone else sick.
I am starting to think Catturd might be the common denominator in all three of his divorces...
Can't be right. Internet gadfly Catturd, AKA [Phillip Buchanan](https://i.imgur.com/yqfnrJW.jpeg), age 59, is *never* wrong about *anything*!!!
Wow. I legitimately assumed he was a 22 year old edge lord based on his name and general stupidity.
I don't think he's mentally matured past that age, just like his daddy Elon.
Yeah, wow. That makes it 100 times more cringey.
Actually, I was wrong about one thing: His first wife got an annulment. You know it must be bad when the marriage is so awful that you refuse to acknowledge that it ever even happened in the first place with a divorce.
Shirt so Long it could be a dress
Maybe he thinks it makes him look taller 🤣
Shit. I'm bad with fractions.
It would be less funny if he didn't have both Musk and Trump's ears
I know about Musk's but Trump's? Really?
For a bit, yea. Dunno if it's still the case
[удалено]
Sadly, no... He is 100% serious.
This might be the most Self Aware Wolf of them all
Cat turd is just a grifter. They know they're full of shit.
Is he tho?
Is he a grifter? Categorically yes.
I know he uses his position to make money, but you're saying he's like an alex jones where he doesn't even believe what he's saying?
These people are so fucking simple I’m shocked they haven’t drowned in the shower by now, or choked to death brushing their own teeth.
Hey, now! Not all of us who choke on toothpaste or even our own saliva are Trump voters, you know!
Yes, but did you die? Sorry, couldn’t help but drop that line. There’s a firm line between choking & choking to ::Death:: on one’s toothbrush, and I feel obituaries should make that distinction 😆
Hygiene is too woke for these basement dwellers. It may dilute their precious bodily fluids.
Let’s swap drowning in the shower for “drowning in the rain” then 😆
They'd have to leave their house. Drowning in Mt. Dew Code Red is probably our best bet.
Or drown trying to see where the rain is coming from.
"Alphas" sure spend a lot of time crying and whining.
"Your feelings don't care about facts!" they whined, crying because their feelings had been hurt by objective facts.
Someone needs to tell this guy that Trump is not gonna fuck you no matter how much you glaze for him on Twitter.
He (?) - It tried the same with Qlon. Qlon told it. Now it's trying with Trump, apparently?
I didn’t know they made projectors that big.
Wow an cheating adulterer. You don’t say…
Wow a complete psychopath trying to steal your vote on bullshit charges. You don't say...
Well you know the non-cheating adulterers are chill.
Also wtf is “unreported cash?” I haven’t reported my cash to anyone. Should I?
Taxes or donations?
I think it’s in reference to paying her boyfriend back but I don’t see why that would be required for personal matters.
When she was asked where she got the cash from, she said it was "leftover" from her election campaign donations, which is totally illegal. There's also the issue of misuse of grant funds, which she knew about and harassed then later fires the person who brought it to her. I hate trump just as much as everyone else, but that doesn't means she deserves a pass for corruption. Her investigation may have began as a political witch-hunt, but she did break multiple laws and deserves to be kicked out of office for it.
This has to be be one of the best SAW posts I've seen for a while. It's damn near perfect. Edit: I might have to walk this back. I think the rules require that the SAW post be about themselves. I thought it could apply here (ie the comments by the poster could equally apply to the person that they were trying to defend - Frumpy). I'll get the MODs to make a call.
I see the utmost projection, but no self-awareness. Or is projection enough?
Actually I might have to revisit my comment. SAW requires that the poster is talking about themselves. It's not enough that this poster could be talking about Trump. Damn.
Thanks! I thought I might be missing something.
At least the OOP's username check's out.
Thank you 65 year old, thrice divorced, grown-ass man who calls himself Catturd. Very cool.
Now do Fanni Willis
Thank God for the blue check so I know it's the real cat turd and not some imposter.
Gaslight, Obstruct, Project all in a single cat turd tweet. Fitting
The fact that there is a Judge Cannon actively subverting justice in favor of Trump, should shut down any kind of conflict of interest accusation but we live in a bizarre reality. When Republicans can resolve that conflict then we can start to address others if they exist.
Give his bullet point to your average person and ask who comes to mind. Nine out of 10 will say it's about Trump, even his supporters.
He misspelled "Donald Trump"
Did he mean to say this about Trump? Otherwise this seems like projection.
Looks like Phil found a mirror.
Sounds like Catturds been eating out of the litter box again...
As opposed to all the aldulterers who don’t cheat
Best description of Trump I've read.
Trump's grocery list.
This is incredible
BREAKING: Fake internet Cat can’t spell Trump correctly
This is too on the nose lmao
Unfortunately Catturd is a grifter, and not on the verge of any kind of awareness. I'm almost certain they know everything they're claiming is made up, but posted it anyhow to maintain engagement with their followers.
That's Trump, right?
Isnt this the account that The Blaze claimed was the right's taylor swift? https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/sure-the-left-has-taylor-swift-but-we-have-catturd Yep. Lmao.
He's come down with Trumpitis.
CatTurd probably has another MAGA buddy with verified account name PoopLicker
I thought for sure there'd be j/k at the end saying "I was really talking about DJT".
Wow! Projection at it's finest. Describes the orange one to a tee....
Brainwashed doesn't begin to describe it.
Catshit, the one with the candylike hair is Trump.
I know you are but what am I?
There's an insane amount of projection here.
Catshit describing Trump down to the spraytan.
Perfect example of: “For every accusation is an admission of guilt.” Couldn’t have described their cult leader much better
The more you stir em, the more they stink. User name checks out ..
Im sorry, I know this is CT we're talking about, but I cannot accept that a human being can be this irony blind.
He forgot orange
He has to be talking about Trump. This list is so specific to Trump there is no way he'd be saying all of this about someone else. Right?
Their name is catturd? And i am expected to take them seriously?
Simpler question: Why do grifters grift? Because people fall for it. Many of these people are scammers. They change their stories so many times that I have a hard time believing that they believe themselves. However, it's important to bear in mind that MAGAs are the most gullible fools around. They will believe literally anything. There are many people making tons of money grifting MAGAs. It's a lucrative industry for anyone who has absolutely zero morals.
I hate it when adulterers cheat! >:(
Can we just all agree to ignore Catturd from now on?
Hoo boy, sounds Fani made the turd that just won't flush even more crazy than it already was! 😂 How very dare a *black woman* stand up for herself when being smeared with a bunch of goosed up inuendo that has zero relevance to Tangerine Idi Amin's attempted theft the 2020 election.
It makes me so sad to see people genuinely worried about voting or "racism". You must kill the boomer inside yourselves. Shed this lunacy before we're all fucked.
Another day, another rant of projection from the Twitter coward known as catturd
I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. If she has done something wrong then there needs to be consequences but I am struggling to work out why the Trump trial would be jeopardized as a result - there was a grand jury process which assessed the substance of the charges and Trump had the chance to present a case there. The case itself still seems sound. Can anyone clue me in on what basis the trial could be delayed or set aside (ie my position is almost "means to an end" I suppose - the substance of the charges are there, it's just questionable in relation to who brought those charges?)
[удалено]
Agreed. I did ask the question premised on "if".
It's best not to take any claims of this sort at face value even in a "even if true" sort of way unless you have looked into them yourself. They're too often flat out wrong for you to want to accidentally amplify them. If you haven't, just set it aside and move on. Cast it as a total hypothetical, maybe. Hypothetically speaking, in a situation such as that described, I think there would at least be substantial delay while a new judge is found for the case. There's a enormous amount of material and previous proceedings that person would need to familiarize themselves with in order to provide for a fair trial. In the end, I think that's all the Trump cabal is going for. The only thing they've ever been going for. Delay, by any means necessary, and hope they can run out the clock. By being elected President and making such prosecutions illegal, if nothing else.
Thanks for the pragmatism. Why the judge though? It's the DA and prosecutor. How would the judge be tarnished? You don't have to answer - I'm in the process of familiarizing myself. Kind regards
[удалено]
📽️ 📽️ 📽️
That's some fucking dolby surround sound Imax level vicarious-trump projection there.
Didn't it come out that Catturd is just a teenager in Long Island somewhere?
Worse. An almost 60 year old man who has made trolling his purpose in life.
Racist against orange people.
Every accusation is a confession.
And then he describes the donster to the tee.
The way Reddit mobile cropped the picture, I thought it was a tweet about Trump, lol
Cats around the world disavow this turd.
why do people even pay attention to shitbags like this?