|
The Guardian did an article on the secret world of Trump supporters, I thought this one was interesting since it seems to be written by the shittiest most vindictive rear end in a top hat in the country:quote:The anti-PC college professor (50, California)
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:
No. He makes his money in an entirely different manner than Wall Streeters, and he resents them because they think he is tacky and outre. He sees himself as a builder as opposed to the rent-seeking parasites of Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Guardian did an article on the secret world of Trump supporters, I thought this one was interesting since it seems to be written by the shittiest most vindictive rear end in a top hat in the country:
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:No. He makes his money in an entirely different manner than Wall Streeters, and he resents them because they think he is tacky and outre. He sees himself as a builder as opposed to the rent-seeking parasites of Wall Street. Well what's his end game here? Both ideally for him and for the country? Let's keep the GOP, and Conservatives out of it. We know what the rubes he's using are thinking he's going to do for them. ( "SEMPER FI. CLOSE THE BORDERS). That's more than likely the reason he's done so well. Do the people polling the lever for him in 'bama give a poo poo about his economic policies? No. It's all about making America "White" Again. But anyone can see he's playing them for that exact reason. Like Nixon and Reagan before him? He knows playing the Southern Strategy game in the primaries will win him the nomination. Beyond that, whether he gives actually gives a poo poo about it remains to be seen. In his model universe is he pretty much helping the same class of rich assholes that have been helped due to 40 plus years of reregulation? Or is it a new crop of rich assholes that we've not really focused on quite yet? We know that the Koch Bros. thrive in this society no matter who is in office save for someone like Bernie. But what do you think Trump sees in them and others like them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
He is running for the same reason as anyone else: he thinks everyone else is doing it wrong. In this case, he is correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
I heart the trumpenproletariat. The republican brand is loving vile. But it's vile in a polite way, so people give it a pass. Trump is 100% on brand but he isn't polite about it. I enjoy watching "smart" republicans realize they are in a loving toxic party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Cruz is worse, Rubio is more of the same, Trump is the wild card. Don't let the mystique of the wild card fool you though, how good or bad he is depends entirely on how much of the poo poo he follows through with, and more importantly, which poo poo that is. Which is where the threat of the republican congress comes in, because while they'll be amenable to the racism, they'll stop any protectionism or anything positive fairly easily. The Republican party has been doing everything in their power to try to derail Trump (trotting out Mitt, encouraging condemn letters, running attack ads 24/7 in primary states, yesterday's debate where they hammered him the entire time) ... what makes you think he's going to rubber stamp everything they want? Regardless rudatron posted:And are you sure to want to find out? Yes, if Hillary in the White House is the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Honestly? Help me out here. I'm being sincere, am I incorrect for feeling like this? I'm doing the same the other way round - Trump the strongman repulses me instinctively, Rubio does not, but on the whole I understand that they are both awful. So.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Guardian did an article on the secret world of Trump supporters, I thought this one was interesting since it seems to be written by the shittiest most vindictive rear end in a top hat in the country: This is a pretty great look into the idea of "rights are a zero-sum game"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Is there a reason I find Cruz and Rubio more detestable than Trump? I'm with you. Trump is awful and his presidency would be a living nightmare but Rubio/Cruz/Kasich are allowed to say and do horrible things while the media and pundits talk about how it's Trump that is the one who is going against conservative moral values. Trump is bringing white supremacy back, but the other guys have been leading the way just in a slightly more subtle fashion so if it wasn't Trump saying maybe we can't judge David Duke it would be someone else. They've been getting away with it since the country needs to pretend one of the two main parties isn't outright evil and Trump is the scapegoat for that, just like Shkreli is the "evil and bad" venture capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The Republican party has been doing everything in their power to try to derail Trump (trotting out Mitt, encouraging condemn letters, running attack ads 24/7 in primary states, yesterday's debate where they hammered him the entire time) ... what makes you think he's going to rubber stamp everything they want? "I don't care how many thousands or millions of lives are ruined by a Trump presidency, because mine probably won't be one of them and that bitch wont be in the White House."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
"I don't care how many thousands or millions of lives are ruined by a Clinton presidency, because mine probably won't be one of them and that Bloviating rear end in a top hat wont be in the White House." -WWN, probably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Is it surprising, or unsurprising that Trump isn't really having anybody come out and start campaigning on his 'platform' and ride his coat-tails to Congress, or is that every Republican pol anyhow? I suppose Republicans control Congress already so it isn't an issue to them. His "platform", such that it is, is just every plank of the GOP, but yelled louder and with less weasel words. People have been trying to get elected on that since the tea party existed, but no one has the charisma to make it appealing at the lower levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:26
|
|
?
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Is there a reason I find Cruz and Rubio more detestable than Trump? It's because Trump lets the mask slip and is bombastically offensive, and subsequently gets called out over it (albeit unsuccessfully), whereas Cruz and Rubio are spouting insidiously offensive poo poo and it all flies under the radar. They're more detestable than Trump because of the phrase "well maybe Cruz should be the nominee (instead)" isn't one that should ever be uttered by anyone with the slightest bit of human compassion and empathy, and yet here we are because Trump decided to haul out the foghorn rather than the dogwhistle. Like, I couldn't stand the early Republican debates because of Huckabee's theocratic horseshit, but the only reason the GOPe is attacking Trump is over their fear of their inability to win, rather than any genuine concern over their fellow human beings. It's the same feeling you get in the PoliToons thread when some moderately liberal cartoonist gets bashed for, say, depicting George Bush as a monkey, while Lester and McCoy and Branco shove out explicitly hateful and racist poo poo everyday and nobody ever gives a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The Republican party has been doing everything in their power to try to derail Trump (trotting out Mitt, encouraging condemn letters, running attack ads 24/7 in primary states, yesterday's debate where they hammered him the entire time) ... what makes you think he's going to rubber stamp everything they want? No. And why would he? He already got your vote, he doesn't need you, and hey, he's the master of the Art Of The Deal. And you know what the best kinds of deals are? The kind we're you're the ones walking away with everything, and all the suckers fight over scraps. That's you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
This is Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riy4God934c
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Vote Trump because everything Wilde says in "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" about charity is true of American politics as well. Of the current crop of GOP contenders, Trump is the one everyone left of center should want in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Vote Trump because everything Wilde says in "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" about charity is true of American politics as well. Of the current crop of GOP contenders, Trump is the one everyone left of center should want in the White House. If Trump wins... he'll be impeached, and if he isn't... the Democrats win the Congress in the mid-term and the WH in 2020. If he runs the country as well as he's run his business, then he'll be an incompetent moron and all of his new policy ideas will fail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:If Trump wins... he'll be impeached, and if he isn't... the Democrats win the Congress in the mid-term and the WH in 2020. Wow, this is incredibly stupid. Like "I can barely believe I'm actually reading this" level of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The Republican party has been doing everything in their power to try to derail Trump (trotting out Mitt, encouraging condemn letters, running attack ads 24/7 in primary states, yesterday's debate where they hammered him the entire time) ... what makes you think he's going to rubber stamp everything they want? So best case scenario is the previous 6 years, just with a white guy this time. Why is this preferable again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So best case scenario is the previous 6 years, just with a white guy this time. Why is this preferable again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What are the alternatives for 2016? So lesser of two evils then? I thought people criticized Hillary voters for not voting for her, just voting against [other candidates]. And they're doing the same thing here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So lesser of two evils then? I thought people criticized Hillary voters for not voting for her, just voting against [other candidates]. And they're doing the same thing here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
I'm probably just going to vote Democrat regardless of who gets the nomination this year. Not that my vote will count for anything. For whatever reason the majority of people in my state vote Republican no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Sorry, I meant with the GOP field specifically. Is a Rubio or Ted Cruz facilitating a Republican congress preferable to Donald Trump and obstructionism? Well honestly I don't really care because A) I'm not a Republican and B) I think whoever is going to lose anyway. In that context though, yeah I can see why Trump would be the least un-attractive one of the bunch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Guardian did an article on the secret world of Trump supporters, I thought this one was interesting since it seems to be written by the shittiest most vindictive rear end in a top hat in the country: The amount of wishful thinking and projection going on in that is really bizarre, people are vividly saying "what Trump would do" based on almost nothing, or off-the-cuff statements he's been happy to contradict. They'll go on about oligarchy and how politically savvy and how they see through everything, and then they'll take statements by Trump at total face value. It's like a Barack Obama effect where people are just projecting what they need onto Trump, only way dumber because Trump isn't half as good at it. Some of them are so emotionally charged and seem to have literally nothing to do with politics. quote:I am also “unemployed” (forced early retirement) and unable to get a job because, in my perception, I am too old, male and white. You may think that discrimination over these factors is illegal and therefore not practiced here. I can tell from my experience as a hiring manager that you would be wrong. There is not even any point in me showing up for an interview now. If I try to hide my age and race on my resume, it becomes clear when you meet me in person. For the first time in my life, I feel disadvantaged by factors over which I have no control. What the gently caress? Employers are very age-ist, so vote for Trump? Periodiko fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
It is more 'When you have lost everything, you are free to do anything'.
Maoist Pussy fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Ran Mad Dog posted:Wow, this is incredibly stupid. Like "I can barely believe I'm actually reading this" level of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's because Trump lets the mask slip and is bombastically offensive, and subsequently gets called out over it (albeit unsuccessfully), whereas Cruz and Rubio are spouting insidiously offensive poo poo and it all flies under the radar. In most ways, Rubio and Cruz ARE more extreme than Trump. They both vow to undo Obama's legacy like the ACA and the EA on the Paris Climate Talks. They both oppose abortions under just about any circumstances. Rubio's essentially Dick Cheney with hair on foreign policy and Cruz is a religious hardliner. And while Trump insults minorities, Rubio and Cruz actually supported legislation that made it harder for minorities to vote, so you could argue that they did far more damage in secret than Trump did in the open. What makes Rubio and Cruz (to a lesser degree) more acceptable to the GOP is the fact that they use dog whistles rather than wolf whistles. The plausible deniability it gives them for some of their uglier policies and attitudes is really important to them for some reason or another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's because Trump lets the mask slip and is bombastically offensive, and subsequently gets called out over it (albeit unsuccessfully), whereas Cruz and Rubio are spouting insidiously offensive poo poo and it all flies under the radar. It just bugged me to hear John Oliver say that about Cruz and Rubio. "Say what you will about them...but at least they're not con men and at least they have policies" Except...their policies are somewhat identical what to Trump has been spouting and in some cases? Even worse. Ted Cruz's plan for getting rid of the IRS, instituting a flat tax and dumping Obamacare is EXACTLY the type of poo poo that the 1 percent would lap up. This isn't even touching on his views on christianity and his background. His dad is a racist, homophobic zealot. Like what's been said? Cruz and Rubio keep getting to skirt around their awful policies without anyone giving them the same treatment that Trump has been getting. Cruz flat out refuses to answer for his mistakes, and when he's confronted? Throws a tantrum that would make Donald Trump seem loving civil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's because Trump lets the mask slip and is bombastically offensive, and subsequently gets called out over it (albeit unsuccessfully), whereas Cruz and Rubio are spouting insidiously offensive poo poo and it all flies under the radar. Its because cruz and rubio believe the same awful poo poo trump does(with a few exceptions) but more so. Its why they dont attack trump on real isane he poo poo he says like making the troops commit war crimes and and throwing out everyone. its because they sorta of agree with him. no one can attack him on his awful poo poo or from the left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Ran Mad Dog posted:Wow, this is incredibly stupid. Like "I can barely believe I'm actually reading this" level of stupid. Thanks for your posting analysis.  meristem posted:Yeah. I love that people already have a lesson in what a country under stupidity is like (George W.), but this time... this time.... Accelerationism will work! Eh, it's really just be being cynical as gently caress, man. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
meristem posted:Yeah. I love that people already have a lesson in what a country under stupidity is like (George W.), but this time... this time.... Accelerationism will work!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Erpy posted:In most ways, Rubio and Cruz ARE more extreme than Trump. They both vow to undo Obama's legacy like the ACA and the EA on the Paris Climate Talks. They both oppose abortions under just about any circumstances. Rubio's essentially Dick Cheney with hair on foreign policy and Cruz is a religious hardliner. And while Trump insults minorities, Rubio and Cruz actually supported legislation that made it harder for minorities to vote, so you could argue that they did far more damage in secret than Trump did in the open. What makes Rubio and Cruz (to a lesser degree) more acceptable to the GOP is the fact that they use dog whistles rather than wolf whistles. The plausible deniability it gives them for some of their uglier policies and attitudes is really important to them for some reason or another. Exactly. The only good thing about Trump is that at least it's open and we can have the discussion that white supremacy is a Bad Thing. With the other guys we have to pretend that they are not only acting in good faith but want what's best for people instead of just being monstrous assholes willing to pillage the country for personal gain. Kasich's "aw shucks I'm just a lovable moderate" identity has almost no pushback except from cable comedy shows since no one does even the smallest bit of research into his accomplishments or views and even if they did they wouldn't care. With Trump they can't hide it anymore and pundits are scampering to try and tell us why he's not a True Conservative despite having the same views just explained differently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Transplanting a discussion on whether or not right-wing populism is being fueled partially by SJW "censorship" on college campus and in other media:Mister Fister posted:They should be allowed to protest, they shouldn't be allowed to influence administrators from banning people from speaking. Why shouldn't they? Shouldn't administrators listen to what students actually want? It seems to me that the main reason why they cancel speakers that students protest against, is to keep things quiet so that alumni donors keep donating money. In fact, I know that's the case in at least some instances; my wife's on the alumni council at her alma mater. Totalizator posted:I'm just calling petty, holier-then-thou bullshit what it is when I see it. You say it's not prevalent, I see it a lot on these forums and in many places on the internet. You say words on the internet don't matter, then why did you just make a whole paragraph about how mad they make you. Who's "dictating," though? Someone objecting to what you say, calling it racist or bigoted, etc, isn't censoring you - it's criticism, and it may be fair or not, but you have every opportunity to defend yourself, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Transplanting a discussion on whether or not right-wing populism is being fueled partially by SJW "censorship" on college campus and in other media: Because students sometimes want stupid things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
menino posted:Because students sometimes want stupid things. Yeah, but so do administrators and alumni donors and professors. People make mistakes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Transplanting a discussion on whether or not right-wing populism is being fueled partially by SJW "censorship" on college campus and in other media: colleges are supposed to be places where your personal philosophies are challenged, how does that work if you only allow the RightThink speakers this isn't ITT Tech, its a place of ideas. Even if some of those ideas are sinister If colleges are turning into places where the customer is always right, degrees are even more worthless
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, but so do administrators and alumni donors and professors. People make mistakes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them. Right so all parties should listen to what others want and say yes or no on the merits of what is requested. Just because students want Ann Coulter banned doesn't mean they should get what they want from admin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
menino posted:Right so all parties should listen to what others want and say yes or no on the merits of what is requested. Just because students want Ann Coulter banned doesn't mean they should get what they want from admin. And it's up to the administrators to make that choice. But the problem here isn't that students are protesting against Ann Coulter speaking. It's administrators prioritizing keeping the peace and keeping protests from happening, in the name of getting more donor money, above the students' intellectual betterment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:02
|
|