MAGA is much worse. Their happily adopting it is irrelevant. It's a ripped off label from Reagan that is a propaganda lie, every time it's used it repeats the lie. trump chump is accurate and each use reminds that they have fallen for the con jobs. You don't want them smiling as trump opponents say "MAGA", you want them squirming as they say "trump chump".
Why call groups of people derogatory names in the first place?
Have you considered asking Trump that question?
I don't think it does something wrong; they need to be referred to as a group for discussing issues, and I think this term helps as a standard one, each time reminding that they are people who fell for lies.
It's not as such 'something wrong' to do. But H Clinton's unfortunate 'basket of deplorables' phrase shows the difficulties of getting the term you want to stick in the ways you want it to stick.
Wow! I'm so stunned by your opinion. Your factual base for these is a bit iffy, but then democrats don't like facts, they much prefer their own created fiction. Trump Russian Collusion hoax.
Yes, but this is different than deplorables, and I don't think has the same downsides. I think it's a useful name for the reasons above. Calling them MAGA is not as good and even counterproductive, they already have a cult-like situation, a name they see as positive for the cult doesn't help.
Hmm - 'Trumpista'? As per the 'Perotista' of this forum. And since -ista is a Spanish language formulation (Madridista—supporter of Real Madrid, Madrileño-someone from Madrid) it also has an f u drollness to it.
The truth is painful to a MAGA.
Can I offer a runner-up for that? I like the Spanish angle, but it misses the very important poke every use of the people having fallen for lies, and the rhyming.
Nice, another runner-up, but I'd spell it trumpets to make the 'pets' clear'. But I do think it still lacks the 'punch'. It's a bit insulting but basically for supporting the person they support, which doesn't have much effect.
Aren't you clever?
