Trump Insists Edited Abrego Garcia Pic Is Real in ABC News Interview
www.rollingstone.com
Donald Trump repeatedly insisted that a clearly edited picture of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's tattoos is real in an ABC News interview with Terry Moran.

This should be the sticking point to invoke the 25th. Officials need to be loud and make a stink about how Trump can’t tell fact from clear fiction and therefore cannot perform the duties of the office. Make the people of America see the image on the news everyday and make those on his side say out loud if they think it’s fake or real. Half of the masses will never be convinced that he lacks the morality to lead until they’re already in his camps. This is the earliest clear as day moment to act on that which cannot be held to subjective scrutiny or partisanship.

  • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
    101·
    1 day ago

    Weird, seems to me most people in this thread saw it and said “oh hey, isn’t that a Nazi symbol?” so I’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, coach.

    Not to mention, the context here is also not being plastered on someone known for their devout Christianity or obsession with history or historic symbology.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 day ago

        I think, with how quickly you responded, you may have missed the addendum I edited into my comment shortly after posting.

        It unfairly makes your comment look like you completely ignored it, so felt I should bring your attention to it. My b.

        • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
          26·
          1 day ago

          Try googling those symbols and see how much actual nazi\neonazi shit you find… because it isn’t much. Opinions and facts are not the same.

          • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
            8·
            1 day ago

            Ah, so we are ignoring that bit about context. In that case:

            Often white supremacists will use the Jerusalem Cross in association with the term “Deus Vult”.[33] Tom Hill, president and executive director of the Center for Peace Diplomacy, said that the combination of these two symbols “when used in combination . . . are ‘an invocation of the claim that crusader violence and its atrocities (including the massacre of civilians) was legitimate.’”[33] “It is this bloody, militant intent that comes first when seeking to understand its current usage as a symbol for those pledging their allegiances in contemporary politics — and this is why it has been appropriated by the so-called ‘alt right,’” Hill said.

            Wikipedia source

            • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
              16·
              1 day ago

              No, I’m explaining the history of a symbol that SUPPOSEDLY is related to modern Neo Nazi’s… which so far no one has provided a shred of evidence to support that. /shrug

              It’s amazing how many of you don’t read the conversation or just assume everything is in bad faith.

          • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
            13·
            21 hours ago

            you know if you actually read the entire Wikipedia article that he had linked earlier you would see that like 99.5% of that article is about the Christian history of the symbol versus a paragraph that vaguely references some modern white nationalist usage and even the Anti-Defamation League doesn’t recognize it as a symbol of hate.

            You guys jump to conclusions way too quickly.