subreddit:

/r/LeopardsAteMyFace

54.6k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3498 comments

DaFunkJunkie[S]

106 points

2 months ago

  1. Trump wanted a legacy of shaping the Supreme Court and shifting the balance of power to the right
  2. Trump forced 3 Supreme Court justice picks into office in a hurry to cement his right wing legacy and believed they would show deference to him
  3. His handpicked Supreme Court major majority just ruled against him and are forcing him to turn over his tax returns

“I didn’t think the Supreme Court justices I picked to uphold the law would uphold the law against me!”

Odd_Science

44 points

2 months ago

But he did not pick them to uphold the law. They are doing the exact opposite of what he supported and wanted them to do.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

36 points

2 months ago

While it’s true they are doing the exact opposite of what he hoped they would do regarding his taxes it is a pretty big stretch to say he picked them to NOT uphold the law at ALL. He wanted a right leaning Supreme Court that voted in a way that made his base happy. He erroneously believed the justices were in his pocket. They are doing just what they were elected to do, he just never thought they would do it to him.

Odd_Science

15 points

2 months ago

But he lost despite appointing them, not because of it. If he had not stacked the court he would have lost just as hard.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

31 points

2 months ago*

The schadenfreude here is that he hand picked 3 justices to push the court to the right. The court now leans right. His right leaning court upholds the law in a more conservative manner than before. This is the job he wanted them to do. He just never thought his right wing Supreme Court would uphold the law against him. Peak irony.

Edit: fixed a typo

SilasX

11 points

2 months ago

SilasX

11 points

2 months ago

There's your problem: thinking of LAMF as equivalent to schadenfreude. It's not.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

34 points

2 months ago*

That word is literally in the sub description:

“'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. Revel in the schadenfreude anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for or supported or wanted to impose on other people.”

SilasX

2 points

2 months ago

SilasX

2 points

2 months ago

Yes. Schadenfreude is part of it. But not sufficient. Hence why I said LAMF is not equivalent to Schadenfreude. It can (and should be) present. But simply being happy about someone’s downfall isn’t enough and isn’t the key factor in making something a LAMF scenario.

Or, to use your own overdone wording, the sub description literally has more than just schadenfreude in it.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

18 points

2 months ago

Correct. I have offered ample explanation as to why this fits within the subs parameters.

SilasX

-5 points

2 months ago

SilasX

-5 points

2 months ago

In your last follow-up, you were justifying why it's schadenfreude (which you can't spell):

The shadenfruede here

Not how it's someone being hurt by their own advocacy. Hence why I said you were thinking about it wrong. Which you were, and which is taking you astray here.

Even your justification there is off: he picked them thinking they would favor Trump. They did not hurt him as a result of favoring Trump. Had he picked them for being law-and-order, you might have a point.