4mo ago

No, Trump Did Not Endorse a Military Assault on People 'Simply Because They Oppose His Candidacy'

reason.com No, Trump did not endorse a military assault on people 'simply because they oppose his candidacy'

"Never before has a presidential nominee—let alone a former president—openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they

The former president's authoritarian tendencies are alarming enough without inventing new outrages.

You're viewing a single thread.

43 comments

UniversalMonk@lemmy.world "Socialist Mormon Satanist" stats generated @ 10/21/2024, 11:43:45 AM EDT
Account created 74 days ago (8/8/2024, 9:21:38 PM EDT)
6,059 contributions (= 1,892 posts + 4,167 comments)
81.9 average contributions / day
11.7 mins average time between contributions (assuming 8 hrs of sleep / day)
82,007 downvotes accrued
-64,891 net reputation points
~1.3 mins between downvotes on average
~14.4 average downvotes / submission
0.21 upvote to downvote ratio
233,294 words written as comments, 57,206 words written in posts
~79 mins / day writing comments (40 words / min)
~32 mins / day making posts (40 words / min + 30 secs / post)
~137 hrs commenting/posting in the past 74 days which breaks down to
~111 mins / day
~32.4% of a full time job
11.6% of their waking hours
See the modlog for more info.

None of this takes into account time reading others' posts/comments, or alts this user may secretly have.
lemmy.ml banned this user yesterday for being a troll. Isn't it about time that lemmy.world did also? For Christ's sake, there is an election going on, and it's been beyond clear for two months that this user intends to sway it, and fully opposite anything resembling a leftist goal.
- Agreed, it's absurd that such an obvious bot or shared account has gotten a free pass this long. If there's a legitimate desire for discussion on these articles, someone else can easily post them, but this account in particular reeks of pushing a narrative in spite of the community's desire for sincere discussion.
  
  The mods are really pussyfooting around this guy. Just fucking ban him already.
  Update: @UniversalMonk@lemmy.world was banned lmao.
  
  If the script I wrote to expose this troll/sealion doesn't change any minds, literally nothing will.
  
  Actually, your script goes a long way to convincing me the account is not a bot or shared account but a regular person.
  111 mins / day
  So the guy gets a full 8 hours of sleep, does a full 8 hours of work at a job and has a reasonable commute, spends less than 2 hours on the fediverse, and still has quite a few hours of personal time for other things like catching the latest movie?
  (Alternatively, guy works at home, checks in on the fediverse frequently on his work computer while also doing his regular job, and maybe stays logged on for 10 hours a day instead of the required 8 to make up for the difference.)
  It's certainly possible that this is a guy who is a GOP and MAGA supporter, and is being less than fully honest about his motives in promoting third parties.
  But it's also possible that what's written on the tin is in fact accurate - he's a person who dislikes the duopoly in the US and wants to vote 3rd party no matter what, and wanting to share his thoughts on the election in an unfiltered way.
  Which one is the truth? I'll let you, the voter, decide.
  But, that aside, I think this comment from our mod explains it best,
  https://lemmy.world/comment/12661845
  The consensus is, yes, they have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not against the TOS.
  The comments and downvotes do their job exposing just how shitty their opinions are.
  
  You're bending far over backwards to be contrary. Just so you know, it's not of concern to me.
  
  Ah, sorry, I see now that it was not you but gsfraley who was accusing of a shared or bot account (when even you have provided evidence to the contrary on that point).
  Speaking of being contrary - well, just how far backwards can I be bending if I have independently come to the same conclusion as the mods here?
  
  Yes, the mark of being non-contrary -- cherry picking the opinion you already agree with as evidence
  
  Not cherry-picking, I said I came to the same conclusion independently of the mod.
  But in a way, you could consider me a test. If you can change my mind with your arguments and statistics, then perhaps jordanlund would also be convinced by the same post replies.
  (I'm not guaranteeing it, in fact considering that I'm not a mod here, I'm probably a lower bar to convince than jordanlund or the other mods.)
  
  You're clearly picking the less popular opinion. This is either obvious to you or it isn't. The numbers are there, and you chose your reading of them. I cannot do anything about that.
  
  No, I agree. My conclusion puts me on the less popular opinion on this one matter, and that's obvious to me. However, I was replying to a thread asking for someone to be banned, and - just as we don't automatically convict folks in court on the basis of popular opinion, I feel that it would be nice if stronger standards also applied before someone got a ban.
  (Not saying the full criminal defendant protections should apply mind, as this is just a ban on one magazine or one instance in the fediverse, so it's not like we need to apply the full protections against depriving someone of their freedom as they are locked in jail, here.)
  That said, if my reading of the numbers is wrong, I am open to having that explained - that is I'm open to admitting I'm wrong. (If one checks my history, they'll find that I've done so multiple times.)
- Beautiful 😍
  
  It's heartening to get positive feedback like this, I appreciate it. I've been calling this guy out for a while and it disgusts me how often people defend them.
  
  You're doing a good job, keep it up!
  
  There seems to be a new one who just showed up as well: @Dot@feddit.org
  
  Amateur numbers though ;)
  Dot@feddit.org "Dot." stats generated @ 10/21/2024, 11:35:27 AM EDT
  Account created 4 days ago (10/17/2024, 3:14:40 AM EDT)
  162 contributions (= 131 posts + 31 comments)
  40.5 average contributions / day
  23.7 mins average time between contributions (assuming 8 hrs of sleep / day)
  385 downvotes accrued
  5,248 net reputation points
  ~15.0 mins between downvotes on average
  ~4.4 average downvotes / submission
  14.63 upvote to downvote ratio
  505 words written as comments, 259 words written in posts
  ~3 mins / day writing comments (40 words / min)
  ~18 mins / day making posts (40 words / min + 30 secs / post)
  ~1 hrs commenting/posting in the past 4 days which breaks down to
  ~21 mins / day
  ~6.2% of a full time job
  2.2% of their waking hours
  See the modlog for more info.
  
  Total 2 exact dupes found.

43 comments