Printable View
Shot:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsjHRxoW...jpg&name=small
Chaser:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fska6Dea...png&name=small
As much as I enjoy mocking Dread's young proteges, I can't help but feel some alarm at the extent to which lil baby fascist LARPers appear to have infiltrated every single level of organized Republican politics.
The ones who have some sense of shame aren't involved in local politics for that very reason.
This seems like a feed-back loop, does it not? If only the shameless, indeed the Proud Boys (!), are the only ones who bother, well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sadly the passion of youth, lacking the temper usually gained later with the acquisition of experience and wisdom, does leave them particularly vulnerable to cults of personality.
They look like they're in their 40s!!
I saw it first hand at the university level. First (2015), the College Republicans split between ideologically-committed conservatives and libertarians on one side and Trumpists on the other (mostly the former). Over the span of a few years (~2018), all the new students would join the Trumpists. Not only that, but Turning Point (a more extreme version of the Trumpists) used outrage to steal a lot of the Trumpists. Now the only non-extremists are those who are ideologically malleable and want a career in politics. Virtually no ideological conservatives or libertarians left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
This is the future of the GOP (I assume an intern tweeted that): https://mobile.twitter.com/NRSC/stat...61709488017408
I have a hard time shedding tears for ideological conservatives (what even would those be? Teddy Roosevelt?), let alone ideological libertarians, given that it's a fairly common "joke" that ideological libertarians are most interested in lowering the legal age of when a child is permissible to have sex with.
Well, there was that video from 2016 of that rather obese libertarian man stripping to reveal his Nazi tattoos, too. He may have been ideologically conflicted, though.
But be that as it may, I would argue that mister Trump is simply the logical end-point of the process that Richard Nixon started. He is more of a weather-wane than Reagan, but Reagan was also an idiot who pandered to the worst of humanity. He just had the aw-shucks demeanor trained into him by General Electric, and mister Trump seems ruder and cruder, but it's still all the same stuff, hurt women, hurt "the fags", etc. I find it difficult to see what an "ideologically committed conservative" would possibly bring to that table that is worth preserving.
You'd be hard-pressed to find parts of the standard GOP platform that pre-2016 Trump supported other than lower taxes on the rich, "tough on crime" approach, and some racism.
Okay, but what does that tell us? You will recall that the pre-2016 "GOP platform" still included the chuckle-fucks who said they want a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. What sort of custodians of society could these people purport to be?
That part was always bullshit. The GOP since at least Bush Jr. has been entirely disinterested in spending cuts.
The point is that a New Yorker with a long history of supporting abortion rights, no links to the NRA, and no connection to major GOP donors would have no chance of winning before some combination of the US getting a black president, the rise of social media, and a hard right turn for Fox. Heck, in both 2008 and 2012, the most moderate of the main GOP candidates won the GOP nomination.
Spending cuts are hardly the measure of the government disappearing, and you know this.
Hard right turn for Fox? I don't see where the turn happened.
You keep saying that mister Trump embodies the "wrong" values, and then you go on to state that Mittens and McCain both lost, whereas mister Trump won. So, again, I ask you, what are the "true" conservative values that mister Trump violated, and which were not somehow already in the "true" conservative lexicon beginning with Strom Thurmond? Was he an apostate too? How far back in history do we have to go?