The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

[tgb]

"Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag."

Just another way of saying kick out the Muslims.

Spoiler:

Not to mention the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews

[Default]

Jeez, what about the Rastafarians?


Won't someone think about the Rastafarians????

[killbot737]

Don't mess with Joboo!

Also all the atheists, Shintoists, Dudeists and Pastarfarians would have to be put on lists too! You know, until Trump verifies that they are good people. Not rapists or whatever.

So the atheists all get big black A's tattooed on their wherevers (hopefully not spouting blood at the time), Shintoists get Devo hats, Pastafarians make themselves known enough already that there's no need to do anything about them, Dudeists get cardigans or have to carry rugs around all the time. Maybe both.

[Rip]

Here you can watch Trump reading the Bible off a teleprompter and conflating patriotism with religion.

"There's a biblical verse that I've often read and I want to repeat it again because I think it is so important to what we're trying to achieve right now for our country. It's from 1 John chapter 4: 'No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.'

"So true, so True.

"Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag."

He's pretty much the least convincing Christian Conservative of all time when he tries this stuff. The creepy part is that he tries it.

Sounds like he is quoting the Pledge.

[Holman]

So no pandering whatsoever? Just good honest patriotism from a sincere Christian in whom God's love is made complete?

[GreenGoo]

Here you can watch Trump reading the Bible off a teleprompter and conflating patriotism with religion.

"There's a biblical verse that I've often read and I want to repeat it again because I think it is so important to what we're trying to achieve right now for our country. It's from 1 John chapter 4: 'No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.'

"So true, so True.

"Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag."

He's pretty much the least convincing Christian Conservative of all time when he tries this stuff. The creepy part is that he tries it.

Sounds like he is quoting the Pledge.

Which is hilarious because he's probably the least sincere person to ever quote it. Assuming he was quoting it. Which he wasn't. He hasn't a clue what allegiance even means.

[Chaz]

There's a fairly significant difference between the phrase "one nation under God" and "one people, under one god." The first just says there is a god, but doesn't specify which one. The second one implies that there's just the one, and context clues say he means that it's the Christian one.

Now, I'm totally not down with the "one nation under God" line in the pledge, and I wish that we could go back and remove it, but that won't happen in the current climate. However, I'm even less okay with Trump's "one god" line. It's one thing to enshrine that religion in general exists and imply that we should all take part. It's a way different thing when the State gets into the business of officially endorsing one in particular. Gets in the way of that whole first amendment thing.

[Default]

I think everyone is confused. He meant:

[LawBeefaroni]

There's a fairly significant difference between the phrase "one nation under God" and "one people, under one god." The first just says there is a god, but doesn't specify which one. The second one implies that there's just the one, and context clues say he means that it's the Christian one.

Now, I'm totally not down with the "one nation under God" line in the pledge, and I wish that we could go back and remove it, but that won't happen in the current climate. However, I'm even less okay with Trump's "one god" line. It's one thing to enshrine that religion in general exists and imply that we should all take part. It's a way different thing when the State gets into the business of officially endorsing one in particular. Gets in the way of that whole first amendment thing.

IIRC, it was officially put into the pledge to differentiate us from the godless Commies in the 50s. We are a nation that has religious faith, they are not.

The Pledge is mutable. It used to be accompanied by a one handed salute (the Bellamy salute) too. That was removed when the Nazis and other fascists made it passe in the '30s.

The Pledge is often held up to be some kind of sacrosanct recitation from the dawning of the Union. The fact is it's just some shit someone wrote over 100 years after the founding of the nation (and after our Civil War) and not officially adopted for over 50 years after that (pushed through during, you guessed, a time of war). There is nothing sacred about the pledge itself, just the idea it is meant to convey. An idea that can, unfortunately, be twisted to whatever ideological extreme someone wants to take it.

[GreenGoo]

Commie!

[Rip]

There's a fairly significant difference between the phrase "one nation under God" and "one people, under one god." The first just says there is a god, but doesn't specify which one. The second one implies that there's just the one, and context clues say he means that it's the Christian one.

Now, I'm totally not down with the "one nation under God" line in the pledge, and I wish that we could go back and remove it, but that won't happen in the current climate. However, I'm even less okay with Trump's "one god" line. It's one thing to enshrine that religion in general exists and imply that we should all take part. It's a way different thing when the State gets into the business of officially endorsing one in particular. Gets in the way of that whole first amendment thing.

IIRC, it was officially put into the pledge to differentiate us from the godless Commies in the 50s. We are a nation that has religious faith, they are not.

The Pledge is mutable. It used to be accompanied by a one handed salute (the Bellamy salute) too. That was removed when the Nazis and other fascists made it passe in the '30s.

The Pledge is often held up to be some kind of sacrosanct recitation from the dawning of the Union. The fact is it's just some shit someone wrote over 100 years after the founding of the nation (and after our Civil War) and not officially adopted for over 50 years after that (pushed through during, you guessed, a time of war). There is nothing sacred about the pledge itself, just the idea it is meant to convey. An idea that can, unfortunately, be twisted to whatever ideological extreme someone wants to take it.

It isn't only the pledge where their beliefs were kinda obvious.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.

[GreenGoo]

Even if Drumpf was correct, Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same god anyway, so he's automatically including Muslims when he says "One God". I wonder if his supporters understand that?

[Holman]

For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.

The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.

[geezer]

Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?

It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?

[hepcat]

That he doesn't like majority consensus unless he's in the majority?

[Rip]

For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.

The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.

done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.

Who is our Lord?

[Rip]

Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?

It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?

My point is criticizing Trump for saying under one god is silly.

[Holman]

For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.

The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.

done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.

Who is our Lord?

You're trolling, right? You must be.

"Year of our Lord" is equivalent to (and a translation of) "AD." It's utterly conventional in that usage.

[tgb]

For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.

The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.

done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.

Who is our Lord?

Ming the Merciless

[hepcat]

Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?

It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?

My point is criticizing Trump for saying under one god is silly.

And your complaints have all been the very model of serious.

[hepcat]

On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember Trump celebrating the fact that he now owned the tallest building in NYC.

"Forty Wall St. actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was, actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest," Trump said in an interview with Fox 5 New York when asked whether his building had been damaged. "And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it's the tallest."

[tgb]

On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember Trump celebrating the fact that he now owned the tallest building in NYC.

"Forty Wall St. actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was, actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest," Trump said in an interview with Fox 5 New York when asked whether his building had been damaged. "And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it's the tallest."

Perhaps it was his Muslim friends that he saw celebrating on that day

[geezer]

Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?

It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?

My point is criticizing Trump for saying under one god is silly.

Yet another example of his dog-whistle nonsense is silly to worry about?

[Unagi]

done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.

Who is our Lord?

Isn't that just an 'A.D.' dating convention?

[Archinerd]

On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember Trump celebrating the fact that he now owned the tallest building in NYC.

Trump has a history of exaggerating the size of his penis. I mean buildings.

The article is from November, 2001 so it may not have every example.

Trump Tower
721 Fifth Avenue
Claimed: 68
Actual: 58

Once lauded by the New York Times as "Mr. Trump's least bad bad building," with its peach marble, indoor waterfall, and gold flecked opulence, this dated Fifth Avenue landmark reeks of 1980s excess. According to city records, nearly 20 years after its completion it still hasn't sprouted those missing 10 floors.

[Zarathud]

It astonishes me that a party committed to spending billions in sham investigations to persecute (and demand prosecution of) its political opponents for "lying" would turn around and elect a known, proven liar as its candidate for the highest office in the nation.

By the Republican Party's own ridiculous standards, Trump is unfit to lead.

[Defiant]

Barbara Streisand sings "You're fired you clown"

[hepcat]

Trumputin's camp really needs to learn how to retweet without sourcing from white supremacist memes/groups.

Just two months after the Trump campaign got into trouble for tweeting an image that was widely seen as anti-Semitic, a member of the Republican nominee’s family is at it again. On Sunday, Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of Donald Trump, proudly promoted the above Instagram post, which includes a meme frequently shared by white supremacists. “Apparently I made the cut as one of the Deplorables,” he wrote, referring to a series of controversial comments Hillary Clinton recently made about Trump’s supporters. “All kidding aside I am honored to be grouped with the hard working men and women of this great nation that have supported@realdonaldtrump [sic] and know that he can fix the mess created by politicians in Washington.”

The image, which plays off Sylvester Stallone’s geriatric action movie The Expendables, shows Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his sons alongside such “hard working men” as prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Breitbart commentator Milo Yiannopoulos—who was banned from Twitter for inciting hateful rhetoric—and Pepe the Frog, an amphibian meme that has been appropriated by Trump’s “alt-right” followers, some of whom use the image to peddle racism, anti-Semitism, and white nationalism.

[tgb]

On this one I'm willing to cut Jr. a little slack. It's possible he retweeted it based on the word "Deplorables" without thinking about the other people depicted, and his reference to "hard working Americans" didn't necessarily refer to the losers, nutjobs, and basket cases in the picture.

Of course it's also possible that Pepe the Frog will emerge as a strong third-party candidate and walk jump away with the election.

[GreenGoo]

I don't cut him slack, but I don't hang him either.

I just think it's delicious that he's included actual deplorables while trying to sarcastically turn the word "deplorables" around. If we could get him to include some Manson memes, that would be nice.

[tgb]

You say brilliant, I say buffoon

People in Putin’s inner circle say that Putin considers Trump a buffoon, easily manipulated by flattery, without a scintilla of knowledge or depth about the world outside his golf courses. Moreover, Trump’s stated willingness to recognize Putin’s annexation of Crimea, to lift sanctions, not to object to the occupation of an area in Ukraine, to withdraw promises of support for NATO allies in the Baltic, and for NATO as a whole, is the Russian dictator’s dream..........

........Putin also knows Trump cannot resist a good deal, ie, that benefits him personally. If Trump were president, Putin knows he can offer bargain-basement terms on choice property in Moscow and in St Petersberg, for example, for Trump’s company to build hotels in exchange for geopolitical concessions from the U.S. that have no impact on Trump’s wealth.

And, here’s the kicker: Trump would walk away believing HE got the better of Putin, and brag about it!

[hepcat]

On this one I'm willing to cut Jr. a little slack.

As am I. However, I would think that they find it a bit disconcerting that zero retweets from the Clinton side include white supremacist links, yet they're on about their third or fourth.

[El Guapo]

On this one I'm willing to cut Jr. a little slack.

As am I. However, I would think that they find it a bit disconcerting that zero retweets from the Clinton side include white supremacist links, yet they're on about their third or fourth.

Yup. It doesn't really move the needle, exactly, since Trump's open call to ban members of a major religion from entering the country is really all one needs to know about Trump's bigotry. Still, this further illustrates the confluence between Trump's campaign and the alt right.

[YellowKing]

People in Putin’s inner circle say that Putin considers Trump a buffoon, easily manipulated by flattery, without a scintilla of knowledge or depth about the world outside his golf courses.

As everyone except Trump and his supporters have already figured out. The second I heard Putin say something nice about Trump, my bullshit detector went to DEFCON 1.

[GreenGoo]

There is some disagreement about Putin's original compliment, which had been brought to Drumpf's attention as "Brilliant" but many have translated as "flamboyant".

And this pre-dates this election cycle.

Not that explaining the mistake to Drumpf would make any difference.

[Pyperkub]

I've got a new nickname for the basket of deplorables. They should now be called WJW's - White Justice Warriors.

They're more sensitive and clueless than SJW's, but just as full of it.

[Biyobi]

[tgb]

I'd go with Duffel of Dipshits, but that's just me.

[Hipolito]

How about "bouquet of assholes?" (I learned that from Fallout 2.)

And this GWJ post makes me laugh hard:

"Hormel probably threatened to sue [Clinton] since they trademarked the name for a future product launch to compete with Kraft's Lunchables."

[Captain Caveman]

Or was it when he yet again announced he had a super secret plan to defeat ISIS, but couldn't tell us? I'm surprised he didn't also announce he had a girlfriend...but that she lived in Canada and that's why we could never meet her.

Trump, as explained by The Office: