He is a global terrorist, the worst we currently have, but since he's the head of the nation that still thinks there a super power, all we can do is wait for that entire fucking nation to finally crumble or that Cheeto to have an aneurysm, after which that ex-empire will sink like a cake that imploded in the oven
this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
151 points (95.8% liked)
No Stupid Questions
48157 readers
969 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He is, but everybody's too scared to start shit because he has no concept of de-escalation, only escalation.
Things like that don't matter much when you're a dictator.
People do call him out on reddit, lemmy, and other social media. As for bigger names, it's not just a matter of what's true, but what the practical consequences would be.
Because Trump is so petty and vindictive, people tend to not want to say things that will tick him off. Foreign leaders might be of the mindset of "weathering the storm" in the hopes he's replaced by someone better, while domestic media outlets risk being cut out of press briefings if they say anything critical of him.
As for the Democrats, they have all kinds of screwed up priorities. They're constantly trying to appeal to the "center" and be accommodating to a fault. The right has criticized them for "promoting violence" when they do call someone a fascist or similar. They're all about bipartisanship and you can't really do that while calling the other side terrorists, regardless of the actual truth.
You'll never guess who's been put in charge in deciding who gets called a terrorist.
Well, usually it's the USA who points fingers and call others terrorists. They have exceptions, though, notably Israel. What I'm saying is that's their move, other countries do it scarcely, mostly when it's true.
Doing so might start a dialog with respect to the US two party system he hijacked. The system leaves us vulnerable to demagogues (in addition to limiting common input to governance.)
the one controlling trump is a greater threat but he funds enough propaganda and right wing governments to insulate himself. trump is a mere tool, and by chance the manosphere plays into this as well, you need sexually frustrated right wing men otherwise your power collapses without them.
Because the only difference between a terrorist group and an army is the size of their budget.
But last president atleast were attacked or provoked by recognized threat
Not to defend Trump but that's not true. US has been starting illegal wars of aggression for it's entire existence.
The Iraq war was "justified" largely for the same reason the Iran war is being.
That's not true. It mostly started after ww1
It was sporadic then. Since ww1 it's been a constant state of war profiteering
I thought it was because Bush Jr literally said, "God told me to kill Saddam".
The Iraq war was "justified" largely for the same reason the Iran war is being.
To distract everyone from the Epstein files?
That is the real reason, not how it was 'justified'.
SCOTUS got hijacked
Donestic Terrorist.
Unclear if typo, or the new correct spelling for that term.
Holy shit, I might’ve cooked 😭
Why dosent social media, traditional media, reddit, lemmy, democrats, ANYBODY ever call this gu ya terrorist.
We actually do all the time. He's the president of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth. Most presidents cannot contradict him even though they all think he is an idiot.
I mean, people do, although terrorist isn't a super accurate label for him. Terrorist implies using violence to create terror for a political gain. Trump generally is more acting out of sheer stupidity and malice rather than for any deeper political agenda. Terms like violent madman, fascist, war criminal, murderer or wannabe dictator are more accurate.
I mean, is he not? The rest of the world is just scared he'll nuke something if they push back in any real way.
He is, but the 1% like him because he helps them make money. My question is, how do we push this message to people on Facebook without giving Zuck more money?
This is all because he is the president of US and US citizens are dickheads for electing him and actually like his show. They dont care if some girls died or a country goes without food, that is why there is so much gun violence. They love violence and like to sing praisen of capitalism and democracy, even tho it is hurting them more but their pride wont acceot that.
Tbh, what really made me make this post was just the thought of those little girls getting instantly killed by tomahawk missles completely unprovoked, funded by my tax dollars from a president who hates people like me anyways.
you would be surprised about how little the average person cares about whether the president is a huge asshole. half the population is fed fox news, which means they'll get whatever narrative is handy to the rich. the other half is having a mental meltdown on social media which honestly doesn't help anyone. then there's the whole thing that i feel like america is just a fundamentally broken and sick society with like 50 problems (each of which feels like it should be lethal) and trump is yet another one of those.
Imagine this scenario: you have a group of friends. You're not equally close with all of them but you all hang out together and do stuff together and you all get along fine in general. You help each other out with tools and food, you lend each other your cars, you attend each other's parties, you defend each other against other people who are not part of your group, you might even date each other or each other's siblings. It's not always sunshine and roses but you're generally able to solve most issues that arise by working together. Any differences in opinion can usually be resolved or worked around.
And then one of you starts acting out. They seem to go through some really tough shit. Maybe something happened in their private life that they're not willing to share. Maybe there's some serious medical stuff going on. They yell at everybody, antagonise everybody, don't return the tools they borrow, don't contribute anything to the biweekly barbecue, and demand that everybody come around every Friday and do work around their house, for free. Because of all the things they did for everybody else in the past or something.
You wouldn't instantly kick them out of the group, would you? You'd try to reason with them, try to find out what changed, try to help with whatever issue they seem to have, maybe you'd try to sit it out and hope they get better on their own. You've been together in this group of friends for a long time and all of you have generally always benefitted from it. Also, you're still using their streaming account and you're only halfway through Last of Stranger Thrones.
It's going to take a while until the people in your friend group, one by one, reach their limit and are ready to tell the person who's making everybody miserable to fuck off. They're not going to do it on their own either, they'll be waiting for everybody else to signal their readiness, because they're afraid of being singled out of the group. You can only hope that by the time everybody is ready, your houses and cars and families are still intact.
It's infinitely more complicated on an international scale.
Your scenario suggests that the friend 'just started' to act out, but this breaks the analogy because the US has been doing war crimes for decades.
This isn't a friend that just started acting out, it's a friend that has a history of talking behind your back, stealing your stuff, crashing your car, sleeping with your SO, killing your pet, and offering you a cash bribe in return.
Why is this person still your friend? Why didn't people reach their limit when the friend killed a million innocent Iraqis?
Because they're the one with the streaming account.
We hold a seat on the security council which is essentially for the duration of the organization. It represents, or at least did, the largest, most influential countries in the world during much of the cold war. Russia's kleptocracy has diminished its strength considerably and Ukraine is bogging them down so badly it's ruin an already fragile economy.
France and the UK have diminished in scope now but the ratification in 1945 gave them the seats.
The USA is losing its softer powers which were usually economic control because we have the insane asylum patients at the wheel who understand geo-politics as well as a five year old quantum physics.
China is probably the only one whose gaining more power as others waver but that's not to say they aren't in some strained shape as well. China is second behind Japan for holding US Debt followed closely by the UK. The next country behind that is Luxembourg at roughly 40% of the UK. If the USA becomes heavily insolvent, which we're heading because of run away austerity, those countries are not going to be in a good position for long.
With all that, they're highly reluctant to consider the USA president a terrorist threat or more correctly a rogue national leader. It'd be a game of chicken where all parties would lose essentially.
It represents, or at least did, the largest, most influential countries in the world during much of the cold war.
They had their positions before the cold war started, as they are the "winners" of ww2 (despite Paris was occupied by the nazis).
True enough, ratified in 1945 but it wasn't that long afterward that the Cold War started.
He’s not a terrorist, doesnt match the definition. You may notice a lot of comparisons to hitler though. Trump is a better match for a despot
doesnt match the definition
oh really? what definition are you working with? mine is "using violence against civilian population in order to achieve your political goals". for example, if someone threatens to bomb civilian infrastructure of a country if the government doesn't do what he wants...
he is as much of a terrorist as putin or netanyahu
Yes, that term usually denotes a person or group not in power.
Google says
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).
Next, look at state sponsored terrorism
Sure , let’s move the goalposts
your own quote literally disproves what you said before it
(such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).
So, I see, you’re painting Trump and Putin as the underdog. Everyone pushing them around
no, i am painting trump and putin as a terrorists targeting civilians. and i am explaining to you that your own quote allows for a situation where the terrorist in not "underdog vs government", but it is actually the government.
Or you could read all the way to the end of your quote, and try basic reading comprehension
it is YOUR quote and it contradicts what you are trying to say. try basic reading comprehension. read multiple times. ask nearby adult for a help, if needed.
Google says
also, google doesn't say anything, google provides collection of links, more or less trustworthy, and these sources "say" something and can be cited.
A terrorist is someone who uses violence to change government policy, if you are the government then by definition you can't be a domestic terrorist.
Oddly enough, treason is actually the only crime defined in the US constitution.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/
Unclear that Trump has done those exact things.
In any case, the executive branch isn't going to prosecute its own head. The next president might, but then again it's a real possibility that Trump might not live long enough for that...
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on any of this.
He is a global threat. And probably is considered a terrorist by cuba, venezuela, iran and probably a few more.
But what can the world do against a mentally impaired toddler with the biggest nuclear arsenal's keys in his hands and an extremely short fuse?
He is a terrorist, he is a global threat, it's just that the find out phase will happen when he is not a threat anymore.
In irony you haven't seen Bush's consequences.
Why dosent social media, traditional media, reddit, lemmy, democrats, ANYBODY ever call this gu ya terrorist.
At least for the serious journalism, there is a valid reason: He has been elected as president, according to the democratic procedures of his country.
(Had he taken his power for example by military force, they might call him other names)
Lemmy
We do lmao, you're just in the wrong communities.
Yes I know the cliche saying of “every president is war criminal” blah blah blah. But last president atleast were attacked or provoked by recognized threat.
And there you are. What you're now doing for Obama, Bush and Biden the establishment is willing to do for Trump. Either they're all terrorists or none are. For the record I believe "terrorist" as a label does more harm than good; I prefer terms like "fascist," "imperialist" and "war criminal," but also half the things you just listed have nothing to do with terrorism and the other half has clear equivalents for past presidents.
No other president has caused this much global terror in the modern era.
Uh... ever heard of the War on Terror?
Now to answer your question, the reason Trump is (mostly, some people are doing so) not being called a terrorist is that "terrorist" is actually a pretty mild label in the grand scheme of things; other labels (again, like "fascist," "imperialist" and "war criminal") better reflect the sheer depth and breadth of the depravity.