T 2.0

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:
"A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."
My reading of this piece is tempered by Irish ancestry - the portrayal of the British bears no relationship to the British as they pillaged, robbed and raped the planet. They were flat track bullies, Goliaths who robbed and F'd every David they came across, who punched down and kept punching to make sure they stayed down. All of this was well into the 20th century up to and including the Troubles in Northern Ireland, from which successful British governments are still hiding egregious behaviors ...

So kinda funny but with a kettle meet pot blindness.
 
You claim FEMA did not supply illegal aliens with food as they illegally enter our country?
No, I didn't. I asked you for a credible source for your post and provided the only thing I could find.

It's like you blindly post things because they validate what you are led to believe, but you don't do any due diligence to see if they are actually true.
 
My reading of this piece is tempered by Irish ancestry - the portrayal of the British bears no relationship to the British as they pillaged, robbed and raped the planet. They were flat track bullies, Goliaths who robbed and F'd every David they came across, who punched down and kept punching to make sure they stayed down. All of this was well into the 20th century up to and including the Troubles in Northern Ireland, from which successful British governments are still hiding egregious behaviors ...

So kinda funny but with a kettle meet pot blindness.
How is one writer responsible for the entire history of British imperialism?
 
How is one writer responsible for the entire history of British imperialism?
When his writing makes various claims about the British, i.e. he claims to represent their values in particular in this instance, which history most definitely demonstrates is a crock of shit. If he had substituted a generic "people" for British, I wouldn't be "annoyed" with the piece.
 
No, I didn't. I asked you for a credible source for your post and provided the only thing I could find.

It's like you blindly post things because they validate what you are led to believe, but you don't do any due diligence to see if they are actually true.
I’m not even talking about the “diverted” from NC second paragraph. But I did look up that FEMA supplied food to illegals as they crossed the border. Yes, yes, information hiding in plain sight, I know (now). But the Biden administration was gaslighting for his whole term about how he needed legislation to stop the illegals. Yet, they were able to supply them with food? If they were close enough to them to provide food, they were close enough to apprehend them and sent them back.
 
I’m not even talking about the “diverted” from NC second paragraph. But I did look up that FEMA supplied food to illegals as they crossed the border. Yes, yes, information hiding in plain sight, I know (now). But the Biden administration was gaslighting for his whole term about how he needed legislation to stop the illegals. Yet, they were able to supply them with food? If they were close enough to them to provide food, they were close enough to apprehend them and sent them back.
There is zero dispute that the Biden admin screwed up the border. They could also institute policy changes in the summer of 2024, which had a huge effect on stopping the flow, so that takes any excuse away that they couldn't do anything.

The assertion that you posted is that FEMA redirected emergency food from American national disaster needs to the border, and that does not appear to have any basis in fact, that I can find.

That does not mean that FEMA may not have provided resources on the border, but that's not the assertion being made.
 
Back
Top