I think it’s a pretty big difference, if Trump was campaigning on a strategy of invading Canada from the start, I see things playing out very differently.
if Trump was campaigning on a strategy of invading Canada from the start, I see things playing out very differently.
Obviously, but irrelevant. Like I said… Electing someone based on what they say (promises) instead of based on what they did (specially to others) is a form of “not giving a fuck”.
Trump will not campaign on being aggressive towards allies. He’ll do it after securing power. During campaign, that’s what the “America First” rhetoric means: vote me to strong-arm everyone I can. People voted him in for this, now we’re seeing it.
There was ample evidence that he would be belligerent against allies.
I see your points, but it also seems you’re trying to make your adversary a whole lot smarter than they actually are in order to feel more righteous in your upset.
These are not deep thinkers. They are often poor and poorly educated, quick to fall for a scam. They don’t think, they believe. The best reaction is ridicule, it strikes at the heart of their biggest insecurity. Though anger is understandable and I’ll help make sure it’s heard.
I don’t know why you think I’m assigning Trump voters any intelligence. I am certain they’re incapable of critical thinking.
I’m not saying people are interpreting what “America First” means. What I’m saying is that the meaning of “America First” is clear to anyone who thinks it through, and it takes a moron to not to consider that eventually Trump’s aggression will turn to allies, and to large swaths of his own voter base as well.
But the fact that the meaning is obfuscated in discourse doesn’t change that people voted for this, because there was ample evidence of the true meaning, evidence that can only be ignored purposefully. They voted for this, they voted him for “America First”. It’s like driving home without thinking, with the brain fully on autopilot. People know what they’re doing, even if they’re not thinking it through.
I think it’s a pretty big difference, if Trump was campaigning on a strategy of invading Canada from the start, I see things playing out very differently.
Obviously, but irrelevant. Like I said… Electing someone based on what they say (promises) instead of based on what they did (specially to others) is a form of “not giving a fuck”.
Trump will not campaign on being aggressive towards allies. He’ll do it after securing power. During campaign, that’s what the “America First” rhetoric means: vote me to strong-arm everyone I can. People voted him in for this, now we’re seeing it.
There was ample evidence that he would be belligerent against allies.
I see your points, but it also seems you’re trying to make your adversary a whole lot smarter than they actually are in order to feel more righteous in your upset.
These are not deep thinkers. They are often poor and poorly educated, quick to fall for a scam. They don’t think, they believe. The best reaction is ridicule, it strikes at the heart of their biggest insecurity. Though anger is understandable and I’ll help make sure it’s heard.
I don’t know why you think I’m assigning Trump voters any intelligence. I am certain they’re incapable of critical thinking.
I’m not saying people are interpreting what “America First” means. What I’m saying is that the meaning of “America First” is clear to anyone who thinks it through, and it takes a moron to not to consider that eventually Trump’s aggression will turn to allies, and to large swaths of his own voter base as well.
But the fact that the meaning is obfuscated in discourse doesn’t change that people voted for this, because there was ample evidence of the true meaning, evidence that can only be ignored purposefully. They voted for this, they voted him for “America First”. It’s like driving home without thinking, with the brain fully on autopilot. People know what they’re doing, even if they’re not thinking it through.
People who aren’t thinking things through know what they’re doing? If you say so….