Background: Trump recently posted "This show hasn’t been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention." See "'South Park' mocks Trump naked with Satan, White House labels episode 'desperate'" (LiveNowFox).Wait, so we ARE relevant?#eatabagofdicks https://t.co/HeQSMU86Da
— South Park (@SouthPark) August 5, 2025
August 6, 2025
"Wait, so we ARE relevant?"
Posts
96 comments:
they haven't been relevant since they conceded the global warming fraud, manbearpig, then not ridicule that mountebank Trudeau's reign of terror, from 2020-21,
1.5 billions says they are relevant.
Puzzling to me.
when they did Team America, that was the apex of their wit, with the dark twist on the Thunderbirds graphics and pointing out Al Queda was bad, also satirizing insufferable celebrities,
then after Time Square bombing, they groveled to Al Queda, with the silly dolphins excuse,
Even when it's satire that I don't think is particularly funny, I'm still all for satire.
was their any takes on the shambling jackalantern that was propped up for years, they should stick to aliens and poop jokes,
Keep the relevance, give me the funny.
South Park was a candle in the Bush era, but like most shabby guy Republicans they've been wrong about every single issue since 2015.
Keep being pimped by the New York oligarchy, it will never make you important.
they have gotten big for their britches,
I mean jasmine crockett, she's almost beyond parody or mike waltz,
Let me tell you, you take on South Park, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
Government social media types are like dad directing your TikToks. Just because they used you doesn’t mean your relevant…
…are any of these back and forth landing anymore? Again just because msm or your favorite podcast swoon at them doesn’t mean they’re shaping opinion…
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1953091979681624461 how does satire compete with reality,
South Park is funny. I voted for Trump, but he is a thin skinned asshole and he isn’t always right. He was the best choice in 2016, 2020, and 2024, but he is a dull moronic thin skinned asshole who is not perfect.
Parker and Stone remind me of Libertarians who are just louche, un-PC Democrats. They are fans and friends of Jared Polis. Polis, though, took every opportunity to court and play up to Trey and Matt. They were anti-Trump for years, so Trump never had that option.
“… but he is a dull moronic thin skinned asshole who is not perfect.“ Trump is neither dull nor moronic. It is dull and moronic to claim otherwise.
If the president complains about you, then you’re relevant.
“South Park is funny. I voted for Trump, but he is a thin skinned asshole and he isn’t always right.”
What? Trump is thin skinned? What are you talking about?
Every insult has been thrown at him and he keeps going on going on.
I’m always suspicious of the I voted for him but he’s an asshole or I’m Jewish but Israel is (pick your insult) or I’m a Republican but whatever. It’s irrelevant that you voted for him. He either is or is not thin skinned.
Having said that, comparing a man who has survived 2 attempts on his life to evil is stoking the hate to make the next attempt approach inevitably and it’s irresponsible at the very least.
a whole city burnt down because there was no water in the reservoirs, thats too painfully relevant, to the proles
“Let me tell you, you take on South Park, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
This is the typical Republican reaction. O don’t call them out, they’ll only say more mean things about you. Trump fights.
You're relevant, very relevant, a selfie-paradox.
South and Park is an instruction manual for ICE operation.
I enjoy Eric Cartman and Randy. I haven't watched them regularly, just in bits and pieces on reels and shorts. My TDS brother had me watch the Trump episode. A lot was funny and rude, but all's fair in satire. But don't, as most lib late night hosts do, pretend "Orange Man Bad" is satire.
Haven’t been relevant since they wouldn’t make fun of Islam
Slither. Don't walk. All's fair in lust and abortion. Planned accordingly.
Well Eva Marie, I didn’t vote for Trump and it wasn’t so much that he is thin-skinned. Not everyone folds under pressure, but not everyone goes out of their way to mock Gold Star families, judges, reporters, and fellow Republicans either. When someone sues comedians, lashes out at anyone who criticizes him, and demands loyalty pledges from party members, it’s not exactly the model of thick skin or strong leadership. I get that people can vote for him and still be critical—but calling it out doesn’t stoke violence. Holding leaders accountable isn’t hate. That’s democracy.
South Park is funny. I voted for Trump, but he is a thin skinned asshole and he isn’t always right. He was the best choice in 2016, 2020, and 2024, but he is a dull moronic thin skinned asshole who is not perfect.
I agree that South Park can be funny (though it makes me cringe a lot and I'm not a huge fan of cringe humor).
But let's take on the rest of the adjectives: "thin-skinned" - meaning he claps back when someone insults him? That seems more Queens than thin-skinned. Now, I agree that "desperate" is not a witty comeback - but I suspect it originated with staffers and not Trump himself, and for the purpose of a pat on the head to the many Trump supporters who DON'T like South Park.
"Asshole" - not an adjective, but certainly... evocative. He is, at times. He's also, by all accounts, a really nice guy at other times.
"Dull" - my goodness. It is going some to call Trump "dull." Even the media doesn't try to get away with that.
"Moronic" - here I'll just go with "s/he said not only without evidence, but in contrast to available evidence."
“Holding leaders accountable isn’t hate. That’s democracy.“
When did I say holding leaders accountable was bad?
COMPARING HIM TO EVIL is stoking hate.
calling it out doesn’t stoke violence
"Calling it out" - what, exactly, do you mean by that phrase? "Calling out" Trump as, say, a ready and rude responder to insult is not the same as even saying that he "demands loyalty pledges," much less saying that he's a fascist bent on permanent dictatorship and is implementing plans to throw dissenters into concentration camps.
Is it? Because that's what seems to be termed "calling it out" among today's left. And as MANY have noted, comparing someone to Hitler - unfavorably! - creates a permission structure that can easily be interpreted by the disturbed left (which as we know is, sadly, a majority, based on studies) as "BAMN and I do mean ANY."
"Your speech is violence, but our violence is speech," and all that.
the earlier link was about the sainted Robert Mueller, who was probably already gaga when Weissman was running the shop
Eva Marie is getting upset at anyone who points out Trump’s thin skin. Eva Marie is relevant, respect her opinion!
just like the Sainted Fauci, you can't make fun of mr Science either,
The South Park boys are good at what they do, but if they go over to the Left they are likely to make their appeal more selective, as the old saying goes.
And to paraphrase Don Rickles on a number of Dean Martin roasts, "Trey and Matt, I know you're big stars. You've told me this many, many times."
AI Overview on Trump’s thin skin…
“Observers, commentators, and political opponents have frequently accused Donald Trump of being "thin-skinned" in response to criticism. Examples cited to support this view include:
Reactions to unfavorable media coverage: Trump has consistently and strongly criticized news organizations and journalists who report negatively on him, labeling them as "fake news," "dishonest," and "enemies of the people." He has also sued or threatened to sue several media outlets over their reporting, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and The Conversation.
Use of derogatory nicknames for opponents and critics: Trump is known for assigning demeaning nicknames to political adversaries, such as "Crooked Hillary" (Hillary Clinton), "Sleepy Joe" (Joe Biden), and "Little Marco" (Marco Rubio), as a way to undermine and belittle them.
Public responses to hecklers at rallies: Trump has frequently reacted strongly to hecklers at his rallies, sometimes engaging in heated exchanges and even suggesting or condoning hostile responses from his supporters.
Dismissing criticism from officials and experts: He has often dismissed or expressed disrespect for the opinions of government officials, military leaders, and other experts who disagree with his views, claiming to have superior knowledge or instincts himself.
Efforts to limit the legal protections of social media companies: Trump's administration targeted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability for content posted by users, after platforms like Twitter began adding fact-checks to his posts according to the Council on Foreign Relations.”
If it pisses off Trump and gets a negative reaction from ice Barbie, it is relevant, and wonderful. they say out loud what the rest of us are feeling.
Appreciate the replies. I think it’s worth saying—I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler. I am pointing out that leadership should be held to standards of maturity and accountability, and I don’t think calling someone 'thin-skinned' or pointing to real-world behavior (like suing comedians or demanding loyalty) amounts to stoking violence. If we’ve reached a point where criticizing a political leader equals inciting violence, then we’re in more trouble than I thought.
There’s a difference between critique and demonization. If we blur that line, we shut down important conversations before they even start.
If calling someone authoritarian is off-limits, how would you suggest we respond when someone openly says they’ll be a dictator on day one?
Oh hush, Inga. I already addressed the "thin-skinned" things - not that Eva Marie needed my help. "Thin-skinned" as an insult could just as really be applied to Obama, he of the middle finger face scratch. It's just lame.
they slept through the jackalantern, trying to put the opposition candidate in jail, in four different venues,
oh no not the sainted obama, the groveling before that mountebank has still not be accounted for,
its like how can Spaceballs 2 satirize the sequel trilogy, thats unpossible,
Um… Jamie…I’m addressing Eva Marie. Hush yourself.
like Edward 17, that they ruined it by adding the hectoring Mark Ruffalo (who would be a proper subject for satire in his own right)
“If calling someone authoritarian is off-limits, how would you suggest we respond when someone openly says they’ll be a dictator on day one?”
Once again you’re mischaracterizing my words. It’s a straw man argument.
“If we’ve reached a point where criticizing a political leader equals inciting violence, then we’re in more trouble than I thought.” Huh? I never said criticizing anyone was bad.
@Inga. Thank you.
same with Pedro Pascal who seems to have deep sixed another generally positive Marvel film, because his haranges
(which he inherited from his communist inlaws) have a way of attaching to his roles,
Stone and Parker haven’t been the same since their gerbil 🐹 implants eleven years ago.
Smelly Victoria and her cats are feline frisky!
Not even a lobotomy followed by an induced coma have kept Inga's Stage 4 TDS in remission. The girl can't help it!
“Eva Marie is relevant, respect her opinion!”
I like it. I like it very much. Thank you again.
how could you tell, iman
South Park is a fantastic American institution. It's so inauthentic that there is a deep authenticity to it. That is to be expected in the quantum mechanical universe we find ourselves in.
I can only take South Park in small bytes. I actually enjoy watching my teenage grandsons watch South Park and Howell at all of the stupid gross jokes. That's really the intended audience Target: teenage boys getting their first big dose of testosterone.
If calling someone authoritarian is off-limits, how would you suggest we respond when someone openly says they’ll be a dictator on day one?
Now you're getting it!
Look for the quote, Ronald. Even the media, when they dared to use actual quotation marks, couldn't pretend Trump said he was going to establish himself as a dictator in the way that you clearly (and, I suspect, disingenuously) mean. In an obvious joke with a nod to policy, when asked whether he wanted to establish authoritarian rule, Trump said he'd only be a dictator "for one day," a day on which he would close the border and open the federal lands to drilling.
When omitting the quotes, the media - and many such as yourself - are egregious in pretending that Trump was basically "caught on a hot mike" saying he planned to seize power and tile for life.
And that rhetoric does carry a #resistance message of "BAMN and I do mean ANY," as I said above.
Your partial comment quoted herein is exactly what we see as the issue - your, and the left's, characterization of Trump as a would-be dictator, when he's complied with every court order and every statute as, say, Biden did not, leaves no room to #resist an ACTUAL WOULD-BE DICTATOR. No matter how "I'm just asking questions" you're trying to sound, you're part of the problem.
Eva, I’m not trying to mischaracterize your words, but I am trying to clarify where the line is. You said comparing Trump to evil is ‘stoking hate’ that leads to assassination attempts. That sure sounds like you’re saying some criticisms—even moral ones—are too dangerous to voice. That’s what I was responding to.
And honestly, if someone publicly says they’ll be a dictator on Day One, comparing that to authoritarianism isn’t a ‘straw man’—it’s a fair question. If that’s off-limits, then what’s the right way to talk about it?
Um… Jamie…I’m addressing Eva Marie. Hush yourself.
Fair enough. Sorry to both of you.
Jamie, thanks for the response. So let’s walk through this. Trump says—on camera—that he’ll be a dictator ‘only on Day One’ to close the border and open drilling. You say it was a joke with a policy nod. Fine. But since when does tacking on a smile or claiming it’s humor erase authoritarian intent? That’s a tactic we’ve seen before: say the quiet part out loud, then backtrack with ‘it was just a joke.’
You say I’m disingenuous or part of ‘the problem’ for even bringing it up—but I’d argue ignoring language like that is the problem. When we normalize that kind of rhetoric—especially from someone who’s repeatedly talked about prosecuting opponents, controlling media, and refusing to accept election results—we don’t leave ourselves any room to hold a real authoritarian accountable if they do come along. And that ny friend, is the real danger.
We've reached the point in our society where only the Comedians are capable of illustrating the true Reality we are all living under.
It's only the Court Jesters who are able to "tell it like it is" these days — while everyone else is still busy complimenting the emperor on his beautiful, invisible new clothes.
“Sorry to both of you.”
Don’t apologize to me. I love all your comments.
colbert stewart clown nosing, yes that has ended its usefullness,
someone who’s repeatedly talked about prosecuting opponents, controlling media, and refusing to accept election results
"Talked about" is a pretty milquetoast standard for judging a potential authoritarian when compared to "did."
Remember the Twitter Files? Russiagate, especially now that we know its ignominious origins and the actual points of very high-level involvement in getting it done? The umpteen "convictions" for a "felony" cobbled together out of an out-of-SOL misdemeanor that also had to somehow jump from federal to state jurisdiction - and that the governor of NY had to assure businesses wouldn't ever be applied to them?
Ronald J. Ward said:
"And honestly, if someone publicly says they’ll be a dictator on Day One, comparing that to authoritarianism isn’t a ‘straw man’—it’s a fair question. If that’s off-limits, then what’s the right way to talk about it?
**************
You seem to need the "Bad Puppy whacked on the nose with a newspaper for crapping on the floor" treatment.
Here's what AI offers as the actual statement:
"In December 2023. When asked if he would be a dictator if reelected, Trump replied: "No no... other than Day One. We're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator, OK?"
So please stop it with your psuedo-critique of Trump's dangerous rhetoric.
Go away now.
*********
Hey, Inga: DJT just responds to people who diss him. That's not thin-skinned, that's standing up for oneself. So sit down, Short Bus.
I don't think Trey Parker and Matt Stone were ever conservatives in any real sense. They may be "economic conservatives" now that they are richer than Croesus, but if anything they are libertarians -- essentially "economic conservatives" who want to be able to smoke pot and have sex without being scolded by religious fanatics.
"South Park" is all about skewering institutions and phoniness. It always has been. But Parker and Stone showed their economic hand by waiting until now to skewer Trump this much.
Jamie, that was a textbook pivot. You couldn’t refute that Trump has repeatedly said authoritarian things, so you shifted to ‘talk is cheap—look what Democrats have done.’ Classic whataboutism, padded with a flurry of half-digested buzzwords: ‘Twitter Files,’ ‘Russiagate,’ ‘felony,’ ‘statute of limitations,’ ‘jurisdiction’—as if throwing in enough noise might substitute for clarity.
But you're right about one thing: actions matter. And when someone running for president repeatedly talks about jailing opponents, controlling the press, and disregarding election results—those aren’t throwaway lines. Words from people in power carry weight.
And let’s not ignore Trump’s actual actions: trying to pressure election officials to ‘find votes,’ floating the idea of using the DOJ against enemies, and telling supporters to ‘fight like hell’ before a violent mob stormed the Capitol. He’s not just testing boundaries—he’s already crossed several.
We should hold every leader accountable. But if we can’t admit when someone is actively pushing antidemocratic ideas—just because it’s Trump—then we’ve already ceded the ground needed for real accountability.
Appreciate the colorful scolding Effin but quoting Trump saying he’ll be a dictator on Day One doesn’t exactly help your case—it proves my point. That’s not a fake quote. It’s not out of context. It’s not AI-generated. He said it. On camera. Hannity even tried to give him an out but Trump double downed.
You can tell me to “go away” or wave it off as a joke, but it doesn’t change the fact that a presidential candidate saying he’ll be a dictator—even briefly—is something worth talking about. If we can’t have that conversation without insults or demands to shut up, maybe that says more about the moment we’re in than anything I’ve written.
https://twitchy.com/warren-squire/2025/08/06/neil-degrasse-tyson-colonization-of-the-moon-n2416826 target rich environment
the shambling heap or his pen, emptied the strategic reserve so precipitously it damaged the retaining caves, where they were stored,
Wit. Just what I expect from those two guys.
Jamie, that was a textbook pivot. You couldn’t refute that Trump has repeatedly said authoritarian things, so you shifted to ‘talk is cheap—look what Democrats have done.’ Classic whataboutism, padded with a flurry of half-digested buzzwords: ‘Twitter Files,’ ‘Russiagate,’ ‘felony,’ ‘statute of limitations,’ ‘jurisdiction’—as if throwing in enough noise might substitute for clarity.
Was i unclear? Let me clarify: your point appears to be that we need to be able to criticize authoritarians in order to prevent them from putting their authoritarian plans into action. I agree, and believe that your side's hyperbolic and inflammatory "criticisms" of Trump for things he hasn't done weaken our ability to stop a real dictator.
My point is that you and the left deliberately and, I think but am not sure, disingenuously misinterpret things Trump says in order to be able to characterize him as a would-be authoritarian. You do this in spite of the fact that we now have a decade of data on what Trump says versus what he does: he insults people who insult him, he threatens actions against people who already took those actions against him but doesn't carry out his personal threats. He obeys the law and all court orders. Yet you continue to speak about him as if this time he must really mean it - his true authoritarian nature is finally out in the open!
If the left (I won't make this claim about you because I don't know how you felt about this) had ever criticized the Biden administration for its very effective efforts to stifle and even punish debate about, for instance, COVID vaccines, they might have a case - "We stand against authoritarianism from any quarter." But they didn't. The only potential authoritarianism they see appears to be Trumpian rhetoric - not Democrat action. Is that any more clear?
I am a long-winded commenter. If you don't understand the shorthand of, say, "Twitter Files," then I will expand on it - but on a cafe thread where I'm not taking up this thread any more than I already am.
But you're right about one thing: actions matter. And when someone running for president repeatedly talks about [but does not act on his speech] jailing opponents, controlling the press, and disregarding election results—those aren’t throwaway lines. Words from people in power carry weight.
Yes, they do - emphasis mine, since you don't seem to have realized that you've contributed to my point. Something that carries even more weight than the words of people in power is the actions of people in power - as you acknowledge, while saying that my pointing it out is "whataboutism." Such a convenient debate-stopper.
Irrelevant never forgets.
Jamie, thanks for the thoughtful reply—it’s more than most offer. But you’re still reinforcing the exact concern: that words from powerful people only matter if they result in immediate authoritarian action. And that’s exactly how authoritarianism gets normalized.
You're essentially saying, “Yes, he says authoritarian stuff, but he hasn’t done the worst of it yet—so stop calling it out.” That’s a dangerous bar to set. No, Trump hasn’t rounded up dissidents or banned the press, but he has threatened to, repeatedly, and he’s tested boundaries with real-world consequences: pressuring election officials, floating DOJ retaliation, and encouraging a mob on Jan 6. He’s not just flapping his gums—he’s laying groundwork.
You say criticizing this is weakening our ability to fight ‘real’ dictators. I’d argue the opposite: refusing to name authoritarian rhetoric when it comes from your own side is what dulls the public’s ability to recognize it. If we wait until it’s too late to take words seriously, we’ll have no credibility left at all.
And on ‘whataboutism’—it’s not a debate-stopper, it’s a misdirection-spotter. If the only way to defend Trump is to change the subject to Biden or COVID or the Twitter Files, you’re not defending Trump—you’re dodging.
a presidential candidate saying he’ll be a dictator—even briefly—is something worth talking about. If we can’t have that conversation without insults or demands to shut up, maybe that says more about the moment we’re in than anything I’ve written.
But we have been having that conversation. We've been having that conversation at great length. And I haven't insulted you or anyone who claims that Trump wants to be a dictator - ever. I've just argued strenuously that you're wrong.
"Having a conversation" doesn't mean "agreeing with you" (or with me, obviously). And I think an objective assessment of how political arguments run these days will certainly show that it isn't my side that uses insults ("racist," "fascist," "moron," "knuckle-dragger," none of which YOU have said herein, so thank you), shouting down, actual or attempted deplatforming to prevent "conversations."
I'm glad you're here. The presence on this blog of thoughtful and civil people from the other side enriches our discourse. (Where's Robert Cook, by the way?) And I think you're wrong on this point.
I hate to get into these types of stupidities but Ronald pushed my particular button: the lefty move of dismissing comparisons and pointing out hypocrisy with the term “what aboutism”. They do not believe that hypocrisy means anything. It’s a Christian-based belief. Sorry Ronald but your dismissal doesn’t resonate with many of the Althouse commentariats.
the bureau sent FBI agents after catholic priests and members of school boards,
how could you tell, iman”
Telltale nervous lashing out at all but those who are the problems, narciso.
Meh… I watched the episode and wasn’t impressed at all. I still watch SouthPark as it seems like it’s always on Comedy Central and it’s a fall back option when nothing else is on. They are still relevant and I appreciate that they pretty much skewer everyone.
This one was a bit disappointing. Trump was pretty much the same character as Saddam Hussein in “Bigger, Longer, Uncut” which I think I remember eventually walking out of. The voice and antics were the same so I kind of think that were doing that on purpose. At least it didn’t have the flopping dildo thing going on.
I’m sure those that hate Trump enjoyed the show. I normally do but that just went a little beyond what makes South Park genuinely funny.
Let the lefties have their meltdown, mewl their insincere - read faux - concerns. Most of what they have to say is total horseshit. After the 12 years of 0bama/Biden, what they have to say is meaningless and should be ignored.
For the good of this country.
If the only way to defend Trump is to change the subject to Biden or COVID or the Twitter Files,
Did I misunderstand? Isn't the subject authoritarianism?
Why did your side say nothing about those actual acts of authoritarianism? Why does your side continue to characterize a president who has invariably obeyed the law and never defied a court order as "worse than Hitler" while ignoring actual authoritarian acts from its own?
If all it takes for us to resolve this debate (without agreeing, of course) is for me to say, "Trump shouldn't threaten his political opponents with the same actions that they've already taken against him," then... well, I suppose I can say that, but I'm also not going to agree with your apparent contention that his words are worse than the actions that the leadership of your side have actually taken.
Jamie, I appreciate your tone here. You’re right—we don’t need to agree to have the conversation, and you’ve been more civil than many. But I think it’s fair to say that when someone replies to criticism of authoritarian rhetoric by downplaying it and calling the criticism itself dangerous, it becomes more than just a disagreement. It’s an attempt to make the conversation itself suspect. That’s the moment I was responding to.
And JL—I hear you. I get that “whataboutism” can sound like a cheap dismissal, but that’s not how I mean it. Pointing out hypocrisy does matter—but only if it’s in good faith, not as a way to dodge accountability. If the topic is Trump’s rhetoric, and the response is, “Well what about what Biden did?”—that’s not holding everyone to a standard. That’s moving the goalposts.
We can and should talk about the broader picture. But we can’t do it honestly if any critique of Trump automatically triggers accusations of exaggeration or moral failure from the left. That kind of climate makes it harder—not easier—to stop actual authoritarian threats, no matter where they come from.
they haven't relevant for a long time, see manbearpig grovel, rick and morty do some more edgy stuff, they really make a slightly disguised obama (played by keith david) as a butt of the joke,
putting 69 year old cancer stricken grandmas in jail for praying, thats funny right there,
when someone replies to criticism of authoritarian rhetoric by downplaying it and calling the criticism itself dangerous, it becomes more than just a disagreement. It’s an attempt to make the conversation itself suspect.
I have lots to say about this and the rest of your comment, but I HAVE to get out of this thread for everyone's sake and will therefore have to give you the last word. I'll take my leave with a reference to Inigo Montoya.
And I think an objective assessment of how political arguments run these days will certainly show that it isn't my side that uses insults ("racist," "fascist," "moron," "knuckle-dragger," none of which YOU have said herein, so thank you), shouting down, actual or attempted deplatforming to prevent "conversations."
Are you fucking kidding me!?
I have been called all those things (maybe not a "knuckle dragger") and more on this very forum. I have been called a pedophile, commie, antisemite, an asshole (even by Althouse herself at least twice). Achilles and others have wished me dead more than once.
Get off your high horse.
Contra Jamie, I'm not at all glad that Ronald is here - - I think he's every bit as much a bad faith commentor as Inga or Victoria, albeit much better-spoken.
To take just one example, that first day business of closing the border [to those who have no permission to enter, mind you - - it's very important not to elide that vital detail!] Is in no way an act of authoritarianism. Rather, it's taking care of that the laws be faithfully executed.
There seems to be a refusal to accept that Trump has consistently pushed authoritarian ideas and taken stances no prior U.S. president has even flirted with—let alone repeated. This isn’t about one offhand joke or bad comment. It’s a pattern: refusing to accept election results, pressuring officials to “find” votes, praising autocrats, calling the press the enemy, sending the military into Democratic cities, mass-firing officials who didn’t show personal loyalty, turning the Oval Office into something resembling a shakedown operation, floating DOJ retaliation against critics, and now openly talking about using a second term for “retribution.”
We’re not guessing who he is—he’s telling us.
And when the response to that pattern is to accuse critics of being the danger, it doesn’t weaken the case—it proves the point.
At some point, refusing to see it stops being about facts. It becomes about what people need to believe to protect their prior choices.
“That sure sounds like you’re saying some criticisms—even moral ones—are too dangerous to voice. That’s what I was responding to.”
So when I said “comparing someone to evil” you thought that meant something else than “comparing someone to evil.” You must be aware of the disgusting comments that elected Democrat leaders and high profile Democrats have said following the 2 attempts to violently remove a candidate from office. Comparisons to Hitler are standard Democrat rhetoric. (Remember BusHitler).
Fred Barnes researched the lynchings and other violent actions taken against Blacks from approx. 1860 to 1960. What he found was that the actual perpetrators had criminal histories. Regular Southern Democrats didn’t partake - but they were enablers. Their rhetoric, their lack of condemnation, led to an atmosphere psychopaths took advantage of.
It’s that violent rhetoric that it would be nice if regular upstanding Democrats would disavow instead of lecturing me when I say comparing a politician to evil is bad. Notice, I didn’t say it should be outlawed. I just criticized it. We’re ok with criticism, right? Because, yes, that sort of speech (not critical speech) creates an atmosphere where bad things can happen. And have happened. Twice.
“There seems to be a refusal to accept that Trump has consistently pushed authoritarian ideas and taken stances no prior U.S. president has even flirted with—let alone repeated.”
Ya think? Any attempts to express an alternative viewpoint is met insult and doubling down on the Cult narrative. Let’s be honest about who and what we are dealing with here. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking we can break through this cultish mentality. The Cult won’t be abandoned until it hurts the cultists themselves to a significant degree and with Trump’s financial policies that is already underway, unfortunately it will hurt all of us.
“an asshole (even by Althouse herself at least twice)”
She calls ‘em as she sees ‘em, Fredo.
“Are you fucking kidding me!?”
I know, my exact reaction too.
Althouse called you far worse “Iman”… JD. I know who you are and what you have said about Althouse in the past years.
I thought towely and Mr. Hankey were relevant. They were funny. Was there something else important?
Eva, I’m glad you brought up the danger of enabling violence with rhetoric—because we agree that it’s serious. But here’s the disconnect:
You’re treating criticism of Trump’s words and actions—things he has actually said and done—as somehow morally equivalent to rhetoric that enables violence.
That’s not a fair comparison.
When people raise alarm bells about authoritarian behavior—refusing to accept election results, calling for the jailing of opponents, undermining courts and the press—that’s not incitement. That’s accountability.
Criticism of those behaviors isn’t about “calling someone evil for fun.” It’s about protecting democratic norms before real damage is done.
I agree with you that irresponsible rhetoric from any side can feed extremism. But pointing to 20-year-old “Bush-Hitler” signs doesn’t erase what’s happening right now: a former president repeatedly signaling that he intends to rule through vengeance.
And as for historical enablers? You’re right again—they weren’t the ones pulling the trigger. But they looked the other way. I don’t want to be one of those people. That’s why I speak up.
well kenny kept dying in strange and gruesome ways,
futurama when it came back, wasn't very good either
https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2025/08/06/penske-responds-to-dhs-operation-n2416845
of the attacks on police and ice officers, championed by all these resistance leaders, you have been silent,
This is why Obama's extreme rhetoric, why Biden's extreme actions, and Democrats' wallowing in DEIst ideologies is a normalization of democratic (i.e. majority rule) in lieu of Constitutional constraints. The second war in Iraq after the first was conclusively resolved through trial, finally. The resolution of authoritarian progress with Obamacares forcing progressive prices in a successful bid for shifted responsibility with benefits. The repeal of Rainbow or politically congruent ("=") politics of equivocation and indoctrination of transgender spectrum corruption and other modalities. The relief of "burdens" of evidence in sanctuary states. American Civil Liberties Unburdened through immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform. The intersection of racism and sexism in black whores h/t NAACP. The violent nationwide insurrections carried out by far-left (i.e. authoritarian) corporate and incorporated entities under colored prosecutorial discretion. Judges and judgments in defiance of the law, too.
Mr. Hankey is one of the great fictional characters in American culture in the last century. Those who would deny it are dead to me.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.