854
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
854 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
10991 readers
2225 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The post title doesn't make sense
Nah, it's weirdly structured but does make sense
It makes sense if you think everyone has good intentions and won't smear campaigns to imply their opponents are pedos or anything of the sorts. Which is why it doesn't make sense because someone will use it that way, especially with the existence of Gen AI. Just look at how Andrew Cuomo used gen AI commercial to make it seem like Mamdani was to blame for 9/11.
This is beyond any smear campaign. You act like there was credible evidence that every president before Trump was a pedophile and the public elected them anyway.
You might want to read your own title.
Sounds to me like you're saying you don't need any evidence because even questioning whether someone is a pedo is enough to invalidate their candidacy.
What a weak weak defense of donald trump..name any other candidate that amounts to half of what there is on trump.
Its sick how intellectually dishonest you are.
I wrote a big ass essay on what your words means and how stupid that meaning is, and then I deleted it because I doubt you'd actually read it. If you were that literate you wouldn't be vehemently defending the stupid shit you wrote.
How about you pull Trumps head out of your ass and apply your statement to ANY other past or future presidential candidate. Let's say in the future AOC runs for president and the republicans call her a pedo. Do you think that's enough to make her unfit to be president? Because that is exactly what your title is saying, that simply by questioning whether she's a pedo (doesn't matter how obvious the answer would be) she'd no longer be fit to be president.
Except they did exactly that with biden... youre ill informed and I can only assume a hopeless ideologue.
So I guess according to you Biden shouldn't have been the president?
Except, according to what actually happened I never faltered in my support and my opinion on trump remained consistent.
I see, you're republican-brained. Trump is bad so him having pedo accusations (regardless of evidence) makes him unfit while Biden is good so him having pedo accusations (regardless of evidence) doesn't make him unfit.
This is where we differ because I'm actually consistent in how I apply rules. If Biden gets called a pedo and there are no evidence I don't think it matters. If Trump gets called a pedo and there are no evidence I don't think it matters. Just because either is called a pedo it doesn't matter. The evidence of Trump being a pedo came after the election so, to be consistent, him being called one during the campaign doesn't matter. Had the Epstein files released under Biden there would've been evidence and that would make him unfit.
The only reason I "defended" Trump is because I was actually defending all presidents. Nobody should be considered unfit because of a baseless accusation, regardless of what you personally feel about the candidate. And just to be clear for your republican brain, because you think I'm wrong because you don't like me, I don't think Trump is fit to be president. He wasn't fit the first time around and based on his first presidency he definitely wasn't fit the second time around.
Fuck off you imbecile. Its not about bias its about severity. You truly lack critical thinking skills if you cant parse the rule that is vaguely being applied in the title. I cant give those to you. Please, kindly, fuck the fuck off.
Well then, please do a breakdown of your rule and explain how you get severity instead of bias. Show me how I'm wrong.
But somehow I doubt you're going to do that because deep down you know you're wrong and you just can't admit being wrong. Instead you're going to make some vague excuse how you can't be bothered to try and explain to an imbecile like me who truly lacks critical thinking and is intellectually dishonest. Don't be like every dipshit I've had the displeasure of talking to, be special, take a stand.
Do you understand the word severity? How about risk? Do you know any of these words little one?
I know what words means, none of those words are in your title so unless you explain how you get to those words from your title I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Of course you dont know. You dont have critical thinking skills.
Which is why I asked you to explain it. How about you use your superior critical thinking and actually understand what I'm saying?
Severity (trump):
How many allegations were made against Trump?
1? 2? Countless?
How many criminal convictions did Trump have?
1? 2? 34?
Did Trump have clear connections to known sex trafficker epstein?
Yes.
Severity (biden):
Were there any allegations made against Biden?
No
Has biden ever been convicted of a crime?
No
Did biden have any connection to any known sex trafficker?
No
See how Im doing all the hard thinking for you? See how Im actually weighing facts?
Try it sometime.
Really living up to that republican brain. Please read again what I asked.
Seems I need to spell it out what that means. This entire comment tree is about whether the title of your post makes sense or not. I'm claiming it doesn't make sense because if you apply it objectively to all the presidential candidates it makes it very easy to dismiss a candidate because only questioning is enough to consider someone unfit. You're arguing it makes sense because of "severity". You do not use that word in your title and I don't see a single instance of anything indicating anything about "severity". For your argument to make any sense you need to explain how severity is derived from your title. If you add severity after the fact then that just proves the original title didn't make sense.
Sorry, its obvious to me you dont understand context or how language is used. Its a two sentence title, not a thesis. Please, figure your shit out.
At this point I don't even understand what the fuck you're saying? Are you saying I can make false statements as long as they're two sentences or less? So I can call you a pedo and that's completely fine because it's a single sentence not a thesis?
If course you dont get it. Youre a dickhead.
So I do get it because that was two sentences?
Pretty much
I think they are saying that while it’s not 100% certain he was a pedo (imo it’s 100% but we’ll roll with it) that there are tons of other people to pick who are not implicated as a pedo.
And… yeah. I mean, obviously, we shouldn’t make pedos presidents, though there are also numerous other things that I think should have disqualified trump, too.
I'm stoned and was shorting my wires, so glad to see your comment, I thought I was losing it
Its clunky, for sure, but its not the worst job I've ever done.