At rally, Trump mocks ‘Gays for Palestine’ over abuses in ‘that part of the world’ - The Times of Israel

TomHey, I've got something worth chewing on: At rally, Trump mocks ‘Gays for Palestine’ over abuses in ‘that part of the world’. What's your gut say?

CarolThe word “mocks” right off the bat tells me he’s not debating policy, he’s making gay people the punchline again. For anyone actually trying to organize support while dealing with that kind of public ridicule, it adds another layer of exhaustion they didn’t ask for.

TomYou’re fixating on the tone when the real problem is him dragging queer organizers into a geopolitical fight where they’re guaranteed to lose either way. By mocking the group directly, he’s turning their humanitarian work into a political liability before they even get to argue their case. It’s a classic move to frame the opposition as foolish rather than engaging with why they showed up at all.

CarolYou’re calling it a classic move, but that’s just guessing at his strategy without knowing what he actually said beyond the headline. What matters here is that specific label—“abuses in that part of the world”—which shuts down the very argument those groups are making about local human rights violations being ignored. It forces every queer Palestinian organizer to defend their humanity against a caricature before they can explain their stance on Gaza.

TomFair enough on the caricature angle, though focusing entirely on that specific phrasing misses how much easier it is for casual listeners to dismiss the whole movement because the president literally laughed at it. When the guy running for office treats these organizers like a joke, the average voter doesn't stop to wonder if there might be some validity to their cause; they just assume everyone involved is delusional.

CarolYou're leaving out exactly the detail that would change my mind.

TomThat is the most maddeningly evasive thing you have ever done, Carol. You want me to guess the missing details, yet you refuse to offer a single concrete point yourself. Just tell me specifically what detail you think changes the reality that he mocked them.

CarolI’m not withholding anything, you’re just too loud to hear it. I’m saying we don’t have the transcript, so arguing about how he mocked them is speculation. Stick to what’s verifiable: he used the term "abuses" to delegitimize their presence, period.

TomSo we’re agreeing on the facts now, good. But saying he used the word "abuses" isn’t really a counter to the mockery, it’s just a different flavor of dismissal. The moment he frames their existence around regional violence, he’s made sure nobody listens to their actual message about Gaza.

CarolThat doesn't sit right with me, and I'm not letting it slide.

TomYou say it doesn't sit right, but you haven't told me once what actually bothers you about that framing. Stop hiding behind vague feelings and name the specific part of his argument you disagree with, because right now you're just nodding along to the headline.

CarolThe part that bothers me is that you’re conflating the content of his insult with its delivery style. Laughing is tone; using "abuses" to erase their political agency is substance. Those two things do different damage to the people trying to organize, and lumping them together lets him off the hook for the actual erasure.

TomThat distinction between tone and substance sounds smart until you realize a casual listener hears the laugh and stops processing the words anyway. Splitting them up helps us categorize the damage, but it doesn't explain why the average voter walks away thinking the whole group is ridiculous rather than erased.

CarolYou’re focusing on the voter, but the organizers are the ones doing the work, and they aren’t walking away confused—they’re being targeted. When a candidate uses state power to frame a civil rights group as complicit in foreign abuses, that shifts the legal and social risk directly onto those individuals. It turns their advocacy into a liability, which is a very specific kind of harm that has nothing to do with whether the average guy found it funny.

TomTurning advocacy into a liability is exactly where this lands, and I’ll concede that’s the real bite here. My issue was always that calling the laugh separate from the words makes the whole incident sound manageable when it’s actually meant to scare them out of organizing altogether. We can agree on the damage without pretending the joke wasn’t designed to make the threat feel bigger.

CarolScaring them out is the goal, but it works because he ties their civil rights status to foreign policy in a way no court has ever validated before. We need to treat that linkage as the novel threat, not just another bad joke, since it sets a precedent that could be cited against them later. This is less about the rally crowd laughing and more about creating a paper trail that equates queer liberation with geopolitical guilt.

TomA paper trail doesn't prove anything in a courtroom unless someone actually files charges based on it, so calling it a settled legal precedent is jumping ahead of the facts. Until we see if any prosecutor even tries to use that rally quote to build a case against Gays for Palestine, you’re speculating about a threat that might never materialize. Stick to what’s documented: he mocked them, and that’s the real record we have to deal with.