The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!
Uh oh! Donald Trump, the great orange hope of America’s internet nazis, is facing a teensy bit of controversy, including some rather intense criticism from fellow Republicans, for his refusal to unequivocally condemn former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and all the other white supremacists who love him so dearly.
On Twitter, the assortment of nazis and trolls and nazi trolls who seem to be his most enthusiastic backers are rallying around their man. And saying “cuck” a lot.
Here are some highlights — by which I mean lowlights — from the, er, discussion so far.
https://twitter.com/ChateauEmissary/status/704403592510369792
https://twitter.com/ChateauEmissary/status/704408949223727104
https://twitter.com/ChateauEmissary/status/704405411416432640
(I’m pretty sure ChateauEmissary is none other than our old friend Heartiste.)
https://twitter.com/Yann_Perrod/status/704382226457190400
https://twitter.com/TheNeoCohen/status/704147353624707072
https://twitter.com/theothertoolbox/status/704132500864573440
https://twitter.com/PizzaPartyBen/status/704382897675841537
https://twitter.com/RecycledSpoons/status/704393042967527424
https://twitter.com/Western_Triumph/status/703675348551081984
https://twitter.com/SamBowersGW/status/704169440628191233
https://twitter.com/cuckservative/status/704088212759830528
https://twitter.com/ragingAchilles/status/704076332414562305
https://twitter.com/voxday/status/703992645291528193
These low T cuckservative types are absolutely terrified of a man like Trump. The weak always fear the strong.
— Kurisu Kitsune (@Kurisu_Kitsune) February 28, 2016
Oh yes it is, Trump is the high energy lightening rod of our rage, the avatar of the American soul incarnate. Deal. https://t.co/mxXZoYh9x9
— Kurisu Kitsune (@Kurisu_Kitsune) February 29, 2016
https://twitter.com/occdissent/status/703928769904517120
https://twitter.com/JackBurtonReflx/status/703826180806316037
https://twitter.com/Anthonylefevre3/status/703926313032155136
Classy.
https://twitter.com/paulrdube1/status/704036548984107008
Alas, Paul D is probably right.
EDIT: Or not. Trump isn’t winning them all.
David. Please listen carefully. I’ll use small words.
There are lots of different issues in politics. Some people vote because of wars and bailouts. They might have reasons not to vote for Democrats. But other people vote because of race issues, gun control, global warming, women’s rights, gay rights, and lots of other reasons. They have very good reasons to vote for Democrats. Just because you ignore the issues they care about doesn’t make them wrong.
Does that make sense?
Wow, a whole day dedicated to Our Living Saint David Futrelle, and with such festivities! What a glorious time to be alive.
@David N-T, I just don’t understand. This is not a “ra-ra go Democrats!” thread. This is not a “the US federal election process is just great”* thread. The only claim that’s being made here, on a post where the OP is about Neo-nazis and their love for the likely Republican nominee, is that the US would be better off with a Democrat in charge. Not that it would be perfect, not that no reform is needed, not that people are patting themselves on the back for being great heroes when they vote, not that Democrats are pure of intention, none of that.
*In fact, from the outside, it seems extremely expensive and long and convoluted, and I’m sorry you all have to deal with it as-is.
Even the idea that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad on economic and foreign policy is nonsense. Republicans are the party of torture, killing terrorists’ families, and “nuke the desert until it glows;” I mean, there’s hawkish, and then there’s war crimes. And as for economic policy, well, this.
But at some point you just can’t argue with someone who keeps saying “They’re all the same!” When you get to the point where you’re arguing that Hillary Clinton, one of the Republican Party’s biggest bogey(wo)men for 20 years, is basically a Republican, you’re so far detached from reality that there’s just no conversation to be had.
To be fair, it’s easy to be cynical about politics because, among other reasons, so much of it is theater. And not necessarily good theater, either, but the dreary and tedious drone that you have to wade through to support your friend who has recently discovered a passion for amateur re-enactments of famous speeches.
Some of it, of course, is so diabolically good theater as to be invisible.
And some, as we can currently see, is all about the theater of fear. Fear of the Other, fear of the future, fear that success and happiness and joy are all zero sum and for anyone else to share in them necessarily means that I will have less.
Nothing, of course, could possibly farther from the truth. Remember that old saw used to such great success in the Reagan era? “A rising tide lifts all boats.” This is actually true, as it turns out; but the tide has to lift from the bottom up, not from the top; otherwise it doesn’t raise my little boat – it swamps it.
Also, here’s hoping Fingie is feeling better today.
Well, if you look at it from the PoV of a privilege-blind, middle-to-upper-class, able-bodied, neurotypical cishet white man of an accepted religion/nonreligion who has no health or employment issues and isn’t a rape survivor, and egocentrically ignore that everybody else exists and is human…
… You give yourself a headache, for starters.
Even given that, you’d think they’d still have an opinion on the question of whether or not to start a nuclear war. The Republicans are proposing offensive first use.
Nobody is saying that the Democratic party is above criticism, but that we have the argument that they’re the same in a thread about Trump being the white supremacist candidate, is mind blowing.
This isn’t the 1990s and disengaging from the whole process is not going to help progressive causes.
Regarding the “both sides are just as bad” thing, the phrase that comes to my mind is “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”
Thanks, EJ.
David N-T:
The problem is that you don’t present an alternative action plan that might do any good.
Here’s a few, but they’re all long-term solutions:
1: Get a SCOTUS ruling that ends gerrymandering, hard. This would almost completely demolish the GOP’s stranglehold on the House, without any voters actually changing their opinions. It would also weaken their control of many state legislatures.
2: On the state and local levels, push for changes that allow more third-party participation in the process. A strong Green or Socialist movement in a state can signal the candidates that it’s time to veer left.
Now, here’s the thing: That first one? Yeah, that isn’t gonna come from a SCOTUS packed with states-rights Republican nominees. We’ve got an opening since Scalia passed, but the GOP knows this and are stonewalling anyone Obama might care to name. So it’s likely going to come down to the next President. If that person is not a Democrat, option 1 is going to be off the table for the next four years, at best (and more likely, 8-10).
The argument here–the sole argument, really–is “less shit piled on top of us is better than more shit”. And the party of less shit is the Democrats.
I’d say it’s more like shit piled on top of us vs. flaming shit-bombs. Shit may be stinky and annoying, but the flaming shit-bombs can and do actually harm you.
@Anarchonist
This is brilliant! You’ve written my new talking points.
@Imaginary Petal
I’m glad that Fingie is doing well! Kitty health can be a worrisome thing.
The GOP members of the Judiciary Committee met with the President today and confirmed that they will not even meet with any SCOTUS candidate he nominates.
Harry Reid says this has never been done, in the history of the country. Nominations have been shelved, but never has the Committee simply refused to entertain the idea of a nomination.
The evil side of me *really* wants Obama to nominate the most conservative qualified judge he can find, just to hear the spines cracking.
I’ll accept that amendment, with the further notation that ultimately, even non-flaming shit can be toxic. It’s a slower harm, but it shouldn’t be ignored entirely.
I’ll be derailing things here, I think, but YURGH. There’s a Teddy Beale tweet in the bunch that David posted.
Quick edit: Ninja’d by ej.
Fucking hell, American politics are awful.
There’s really no need to talk down to me like that.
I don’t ignore the issues you bring up: they are emblematic of what I’m talking about. Sure, Democrats clear the incredibly low bar set by Republicans on the environment, racism, women’s rights, gun control and gay rights. However, their positions/proposals on these issues are so watered down and middle of the road that it sometimes comes across as nonsensical. Compare the way Democrats reacted to police killings of young black men with Black Lives Matter. Compare the way Barack Obama talks to what Malcolm X or MLK said over 50 years ago. Compare the environmental policies proposed by the Obama administration with the demands of environmental groups and the scientific consensus.
Does that make sense?
Wow. Literally the most dignified and political discussion ever.
Yes there is, honey.
David, I just… What is your point for coming here?
We know that the system is corrupt and that the Democrats aren’t amazing saints that will fix everything that’s wrong with the country. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
But you have not used that information to come to any kind of conclusion about WHAT can or should be done about it, and have come to spout your nonsense on a page that is suggesting that the best current option is to have the Democrats in power instead of the Republicans, which implies that you disagree with this conclusion.
With your lack of any kind of suggestions about how the system might be changed, the conclusion that can be drawn from your posts is that you think people should just give up voting or influencing how others vote and instead simply whine about how the system sucks, while letting the Republican party get enough votes unopposed to seize power and negatively impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of already marginalized people.
Wow, you guys are really bad at civil disagreement and arguing with people without insulting them and making assumptions about them.
Katz, you are my favourite person. That is all.
@mockingbird – that utility issue is a tough one. But pols are under a lot of pressure and a lot of people want something from them. They have to sift through people pretty quickly. It’s unfortunate. Even the nice ones have to do it. Some of them are genuinely more ruthless in their political aims. Karl Rove is a ruthless operator, but I read an account of where he’d been invited to the home of someone who didn’t share his political views (their kids went to the same pre-school) and Rove was jovial and engaged and just all around a nice guy in the context of this kids’ party.
People say bad things about Hillary Clinton – I’ve only met her once. I was absolutely a NOBODY at that time (and in the context of US politics I still am), not a donor, not a mover and a shaker, and given that I was a student, not even a statistically reliable voter – but she could not have been warmer or more engaged. She made me feel important. I politically ‘fell in love’ with her on that one meeting.
She is a wonk. I get that a lot of people don’t like that. But I’m a wonk, too and I love that she’s a wonk and I think that having someone who actually cares about policy and its intended and unintended consequences in the White House is a GOOD THING. Certainly it’s better than the alternatives – especially Cruz or Trump (I don’t know how much Rubio is wonkish or not) who simply don’t care.
One, we’re not here to argue about politics or anything, we’re here to mock. It’s right in the header. David marched in here and said something objectionable, thus, people are responding.
Two, you’re really bad at knowing what a civil disagreement is. Civil disagreement isn’t always “you sit down and you patiently explain to someone why they’re wrong while they come in here and fling shit everywhere”.
This is civil. People aren’t just going “Lol, you’re an idiot, David! Shut up!”, they’re actually sitting down and explaining why they disagree. They’re having a conversation. David got condescending, so people replied in kind. That much would have been apparent had you read the posts before knee-jerking into Whine Mode because we didn’t pat someone’s head and take their fee-fees into consideration before responding to them going “but you’re all wrong and you should do things my way, because I’m assuming you’re making x argument!” ad nauseum.
Three, anyone else catch a whiff of Eu de Backup Sock?