What you are saying is, more or less, literally the point of the article: That it might sound good but it's a bad bad development because a lot of what used to motivate people to commit extremist acts is now getting normalized within "the system." You stopped reading exactly one paragraph too early.
They were willing to sell 10,000 cameras anyway. The point of making it into a public tweet is to publicly gargle the ballsack so everyone knows where they stand.
It wouldn't be racist if you had said they were bigoted (Although I do think it would be wrong, I think the issue is more awareness and education than it is just innate bigotry. They obviously didn't fully know what Trump was about, by definition, or they wouldn't have voted for him.)
Since you said the whole grouping is hypocritical and lacks compassion, that's the racist part. IDK how you can't see that, but it seems like you're just determined not to see it for whatever reason.
Hey, try this instead:
"We have an armed response force ready to protect you against ICE if they come to try to snatch you. We have lawyers at the ready, and we're fine mobilizing the state's National Guard if it comes to that. If you're in another part of the country and worried about your safety, come to Vegas! You can do some gambling and see the sights without worrying if you're going to make it home to your family or not."
Guaranteed spike in tourism. Don't just ask for what you want. Earn it.
"The lack of compassion and hypocrisy among the blacks came back to bite their own community in the ass"
"The lack of compassion and hypocrisy in the LGBTQ+ community came back to bite their own community in the ass"
See the problem now?
It's not automatically racist just to discuss significant problems in a particular racial community in a direct fashion of course... but just dismissing Latino support for Trump as a problem of "it's because they are bigoted hypocrites QED" is a bunch of racist crap.
My guy this is racist as fuck
Well, that's not fucking terrifying
乖乖听话 小同志，Cowbee 老师 在讲课！(Listen here young comrades, Mr. Cowbee is teaching us a valuable lesson!) /s
I feel like some people on Lemmy like to do counter-trolling by being an extra obvious obnoxious version of their "enemy" group
George Bush says we are losing the War on Drugs. You know what that implies? There's a war being fought and people on drugs are winning it!
What does THAT tell you about drugs?
Some smart, creative people on that side. They're winnin' a war and they're fucked up!
"Are we winning?"
It's like, they fight the War on Drugs like the colonials fought the Indians, right? They're walking in a straight line in red coats. Drug users are like Indians, they're up in the trees going, "[puff puff puff puff] Are they fightin' us?"
You never see a positive drug story on the news, do ya? No.
Always negative. News is supposed to be objective, isn't it? Supposed to be? THE news? But every drug story is negative?
Well, hold it! I've had some killer times on drugs!
I'm not promotin' it, but I'm not denying it. Let's hear the whole story!
Same LSD story every time. "Young man on acid thought he could fly, jumped out of a building. What a tragedy."
What a dick!
Don't go blaming acid on this guy. If he thought he could fly, why didn't he take off from the ground first and check it out?
I'd like to see a positive LSD story, would that be newsworthy? Just once? Hear what it's all about?
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather!"
"Gol'. Did you see the news?"
Courtesy of Bill Hicks
Honestly, I think the most credible answer I can come up with is what Tim Snyder called "The Weak Strongman." Trump didn't invent it and he's not the only one, but he is one huge example of a very particular way of leadership: Basically, he's not strong or popular enough to succeed fairly, so he's made a whole strategy out of undermining anything effective or popular that he runs across. Once the whole field is polluted, and anyone who sticks out as an alternative to him gets destroyed, he can succeed within the wreckage and he looks like a winner.
I don't think he really would explain it that way, but that's my best guess for what's going on and why he wants to destroy cancer research. He just has an innate hatred for anything that people like that isn't him.
Hey, that's a really good point, the last time "gullible Democratic voters" took power, the guy they put in charge did spend about half a trillion dollars on various climate actions, the biggest single action on climate change probably that ever has happened. It moved the needle significantly (although Trump is now undoing a bunch of that stuff). Of course, it's not enough, but that is precisely why it would have been a good idea to continue and accelerate it instead of taking a hard right turn and deciding to move materially in the exact opposite direction.
Gullible Democratic voters electing Democrats really does have a material impact on the climate, and I'm glad you brought it up, so thank you.