With Trump now the inevitable Republican nominee, in the wake of his big victory in Indiana, the Anime Nazis and sh*tlords and Milo Yiannopoulos fanboys who are some of Trump’s biggest supporters have taken to Twitter to … yell about cucks.
Which is pretty much what they do every night. Tonight, they just did it more. But let’s let them have their little moment. Because every time they call someone a cuck they cost Trump a vote in the general election.
https://twitter.com/Though_Criminal/status/727693711459557376
Heil Trump Heil Trump. Gas the cucks ,gas the cucks! https://t.co/ardrzWU5Jt
— Evandros Vanderbilt Kensington (@evandrus33) May 4, 2016
https://twitter.com/HonorAndDaring/status/727683084712325120
https://twitter.com/Roo_HXE/status/727682075050971136
https://twitter.com/Civis_Silas/status/727677339765776384
https://twitter.com/DatIbby/status/727678036599054336
https://twitter.com/TetsuoxYouth/status/727685538069684225
These cucks are so cucked they can't see the bigger picture. If the Jews hate Trump he must be Doin something right https://t.co/SmtwGRXJC8
— Midwest Values Entertainment (@counter_signal) May 3, 2016
https://twitter.com/DGilfry/status/727695644924743680
https://twitter.com/Civis_Silas/status/727687538316591105
https://twitter.com/CharlesMPowell/status/727675028808982529
https://twitter.com/ChrisTw1tterman/status/727691393930428416
@cuckservative Trump sized #Schlonging
— Scales 🇺🇸 (@MeatScales) May 4, 2016
https://twitter.com/genophilia/status/727688805046575105
https://twitter.com/MathFaithWorks/status/727680250407211008
https://twitter.com/_AltRight_/status/727664420642500609
https://twitter.com/Trainspotter001/status/727660322094522368
Yeah, Citizens United was 2010 and the dissenters were Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer – the last three nominated to the Supreme Court by Democratic presidents.
Ah! Yeah, that’s what it was, right. Thank you.
I’m about the same with you on Hillary, though she seems to only change her mind about progressive issues when the country itself reaches a tipping point – her position on LGBT rights tipped when they started getting majority support, not before. Is this a good thing? I don’t know. I’ve always felt that leaders should lead, and be a beacon of where the country wants to go. That’s sort of why I’m happy about Trudeau, though he also has his troublesome spots. Hillary strikes me as someone who says progressive things because they poll well, and will avoid saying them when they might get her in trouble.
This isn’t to say that she doesn’t want improvement or progress, just that she’s too pragmatic? Unwilling to risk saying something that might be unpopular, in any case. It’s that sort of calculation that allows corruption to blossom, and it worries me.
@ IP
I might be showing my age here a bit it’s always weird seeing nazi skinheads. In my youth skinheads were white kids who loved black music and the politics of the “Oi” scene was percussively anti fascist.
There still is a lot of that sentiment in ‘Oi’ of course, even though it got hijacked a bit. ‘Oi Polloi’ are a fantastic example (and they carry on the of tradition of clever band names, see also ‘Redskins’ and ‘Four Skins’)
Trump could win because he’s supported a mix of left and right views depending on the situation. But he won’t win if the opposition to his divisive positions is strong enough.
The US has been on the moderate left since at least the 1960’s. Reagan and the Bushes understood that and managed to appeal to both the “very conservative” voters and swing voters. Also a few of the Democratic candidates before the 1990’s happened to be less electable at the time (McGovern was further to the left than most Democrats and supported gay rights, Carter had a bad term, Mondale supported dismantling nuclear weapons, Dukakis was an open secular agnostic and opposed the death penalty, etc.).
The GOP is imploding right now because more traditional conservatives like Mitt Romney are not electable. Trump is a bit of a “test run” of a candidate who appeals to people who don’t like the Democrats.
@Alan
@ IP
Ha, that brings back memories. It was the Specials version that I was first introduced to though; I’m not quite that old for the pyramids version.
@Scildfreja
What everyone else said 🙂
My feelings for Hillary were complicated as well, but that cleared right up a while back: Do we keep the Iran deal, or naw? Do gays, and transpersons, and immigrants, and so on move forward, or naw? Do we lose Obamacare (or chunks of it), or naw? We’ve already lost Shelby (Voting Rights Act case), Citizens United+McCutcheon, Hobby Lobby, and Heller+McDonald (guns, guns, and more guns), and that’s just in the last few years. And now with Scalia gone, SCOTUS is primary. We stick it out, even without Berniac support, St Crispin’s Day style, and do what needs be done, while actually voting down ticket. My loins are girded
And I was just thinking, Trudeau would get mauled down here. Just being francophone, let alone anything else. Not pretty 🙂
Pretty much everyone was against gay marriage but supported civil unions before gay marriage had majority support (George W. Bush supported civil unions even though he pandered to the social conservatives for votes).
The main issue with gay marriage is that a valid marriage in one state is almost always recognized in other states. So it’s inevitable that gay marriage would be recognized federally and in every state and that would pave the way for outlawing discrimination against LGBT people everywhere.
Civil unions were a compromise where states could decide whether to prohibit discrimination or not. But civil union and domestic partnership laws turned out to be complicated. There are all sorts of issues beyond taxes and joint ownership, like whether communications between partners are legally privileged and whether the privilege is as strong as spousal privilege.
I just feel depressed as an outsider looking in. Hillary Clinton is obviously a much better POTUS in the making for Americans. As an outsider looking in, who has worked with people who are suffering as a result of American wars, I don’t feel that excited about her winning. The wars she’s been involved in, the wars she’s backed and actively been powerful during…I just can’t. This American election is all great headlines and anti trump which is a great thing but I can’t help but feel that no matter what we will end up with so many more dead, so many slain civilians and bombed countries no matter who wins. Clinton can sugar coat it better but at the end of the day when you spend Days trying to help people affected by these wars you kinda just end up lumping all these bastards together.
Sorry if that sounds very derailing, I’ve started volunteering in a centre here and it’s so goddamn awful. I want to quit already which is pathetic but I don’t think I can do this.
Scildfreja
I’ve always felt that what you said only works to a certain point in a representative government. Leaders need to balance “leading” with the “will of the people” and listen to what the majority want while trying to do what’s right and ethical. Not an easy task even without all the partisan fuckery!
@Ddog
The fact you can question yourself differentiates you from those who think “I good, them bad.” That way you can keep doing good. I would rather have presidency that doesn’t fuel a military complex that allows rape in mulitary bases, have millions sunk in extravagant vacation holes or shitty “humanitarian schools.”
Seriously though, keep doing what you’re doing. They win if you start thinking the situation is something normal and should be accepted.
@Chaos-Engineer
This was also a significant factor in Trudeau’s recent win up here in Canada; there was a coordinated effort to deny the Conservatives contested seats by asking NDP and Liberal supporters to vote for whoever had the best chance in their particular riding, whether or not it was their preferred candidate. And electing “anyone but Harper” turned out to be really damn effective, netting the Liberals a majority government. There were obviously a number of other factors, but the anti-Harper sentiment was strong enough that this became a pretty regular thing to see:
ETA: Also, our Aboriginal population voted in record numbers the last election (despite some shady election centre practices) – for very much the same reasons.
@Axecalibur, she does seem to get on the right side of the fence, and that’s great! It’s just that she seems to have to be led there instead of going on her own. I’m not sure what I think of that, to be honest. You don’t want a leader who does whatever they want without considering what the people want, after all (as was said!). Just, well. My concerns remain, for the reasons I talked about above. I’m glad that she generally does eventually come out on the right side, of course. Were I a voter in the States, in a state where my vote mattered, I’d certainly be voting for her.
(And I acknowledge that her foreign policy record is abysmal in the toll of lives lost. I just don’t think that a Trump presidency would be any better in that regard.)
As for Trudeau getting mauled down there? No question about it. It sort of demonstrates how different our countries are! While we seem so similar when visiting one another, looking at our politics makes it pretty obvious that we have a different set of national values. No doubt about it.
(I don’t think this a bad thing, either!)
@Scildfreja
Thanks, that’s all I could ever ask for. In December, we can grumble and whine about it. I’d just prefer the whining to the disaster movie level panic in the streets, should we give the military and the launch codes to the walking PSA for wealth redistribution
http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/XMen-Apocalypse-Missiles-2.gif
On that note, actually, it’ll be interesting to see which states “matter” come fall. NM, NV, OH, IN, NC, VA, IA, CO, and FL have swung in the last few elections and can again. PA, NH, MO, MN, and WI are reliable but not solid. Demo shifts, increased turnout (fingers crossed), and a growing anti Trump sentiment could lead to some headway in turning TX, AZ, and GA, if not this time then next. More people may end up falling into the “matters” camp than one might think
I don’t understand why Trump is a green toad thing? Can somebody explain it to this uneducated English person?
@Virgin Mary
That’s Pepe. He’s a meme, from the *-chans. He doesn’t have a particular meaning, and shows up in a wide variety of contexts.
Here, he’s a signal that indicates the level of discourse (level: dumbass shitlord).
Trump’s fanbase seems to be largely made of trolls, morons who think they’re edgy, and that kid in my eighth grade class who wore shoes with velcro on them and always talked about making his own bombs in the backyard. Also Pepe’s fanbase.
As to Hillary, her real introduction to the national stage was her role in trying to promote universal health care — nicknamed “Hillarycare” — and she took a pretty savage beating over that (with a strong dose of misogyny, of course — “How dare a First Lady involve herself in policy.”). I think it makes her very cautious, probably a bit too much so, but you can’t blame her for that. I always thought that she was more liberal than Bill, and stronger — he always wanted to be liked too much — and I always thought more highly of her than Bill. In my ideal world, she would have been elected President in 2008 and Obama would have been groomed for this election. But anyway.
Trump never had a chance with the black vote and he’s thrown away his chance for the Latino vote. I think he’ll do poorly with the millennial vote, assuming they actually do come out and vote. But what really interests me: he’s a year older than I am, so he’s been around for the whole 50-year history of the modern women’s movement, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in at all. It’s not just that he is sexist and misogynistic, it’s that he seems to have no clue about what’s sexist or misogynistic; he seems to be stuck in the 50s and the beauty pageant mentality. His tweets of an unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz next to a flattering photo of his supermodel wife shows that he has no sensitivity to the fact that (IMO) most women are pretty sick of being compared to supermodels and don’t like to see it done to any woman. I think he is going to continue to make sexist gaffes that will make it difficult for him to win more than 40% of the women’s vote, and maybe less than that — and you can’t alienate 52% of the electorate and expect to win.
I think his only chance to win — and it’s a very small one — would be a flukey situation where he loses the popular vote by a significant margin but squeaks by in the Electoral College.
If I were a woman, I would concentrate on making sure that my women friends were aware of how unacceptable his views are. I do it myself, but as a man my efforts are probably not as effective.
1) As a man, you’re more likely to be listened to because our society trains everyone, including women, to give male voices more weight.
2) Why only tell women about his terrible views?
David Futrelle,
Let’s hope you’re right, otherwise Trump maybe our president after November of this year. I fear that if Trump’s own misogyny, racism, Islamophobia and unwillingness to denounce his white nationalist supporters didn’t cost him the nomination, these guys won’t end up doing much to hurt him.
I want to point out that there is some fake controversy over Hillary Clinton’s expected support in the Democratic party. A Trump presidency only becomes remotely viable if large numbers of Democrats desert Clinton, and some news outlets have been trying to make hay out of concern trolling to this effect. “X% of Sanders supporters say they won’t back Clinton,” say some stories, or, worse, that X% of Sanders supporters would go with Trump instead of Clinton.
We are supposed to believe from this that there is a real danger of large numbers of Democrats abandoning Clinton and moving to vote for Trump. But this is bullshit. Those Sanders supporters who say they would never vote for Clinton, ever, are not Democrats. These stories conveniently forget in the copy that Sanders drew a ton of support from independent voters. There is no actual danger of a major split in the Democratic party between those who think Clinton is, at a minimum, an acceptable candidate, and those who could never vote for her. Without this split, a Trump presidency becomes extremely improbable, because there is a comparable split in the Republican party at the moment and I doubt this is going to heal sufficiently by November.
She doesn’t actually have a foreign policy “record.” Yes, she was Secretary of State. The Secretary of State implements the President’s foreign policy, not her own. It has been a long-ass time since we had a President who was so uninterested in foreign affairs that the Secretary of State was able to make policy. Obama is not in that number. The foreign policy record of the past 8 years belongs to him, and only to him.
She also has no record by association from being the wife of a past President. Bill Clinton’s foreign policy record does not accrue to Hillary Clinton, unless I have some reason to think that they agree on everything, or that she was somehow masterminding it all. I do not have such a reason.
You can criticize the foreign policy she is preaching today, and what that might look like if implemented, but her “record” on that front is currently empty. She’s pretty reluctant to criticize Obama’s foreign policy, and there are a fuckton of reasons for that, none of which imply that she set it herself.
AW wrote:
I don’t know if half is quite correct, but a lot of Canadian conservatives, even after a decade of Harper, would actually be seen by American conservatives as dangerously pink. Even Harper didn’t get too aggressive with considering privatised health care, because he knew Canadian style single payer health care is extremely popular. Then you have John Baird, who actually had a pretty good record as far as promoting LGBTQ rights issues internationally as Minister of Foreign Affairs, managing to piss off antifeminist group REAL Women in the process.
@Mary,
The green dude is named Pepe the Frog. 4Chan posters typically use Pepe as a kind of “everyman” and/or a self-insert. Since 4Chan is anonymous, no one on there knows what you look like; if you want to use a facial expression to communicate, you can borrow one from Pepe. So if you’re sad you can post a picture of Pepe being sad; if you’re smug, you can post a picture of Pepe being smug, etc.
4Chan posters who identify with Trump started using Pepe to represent the Donald. This makes them feel good about themselves, because if Some Internet Nazi=Pepe and Pepe=Donald Trump, then Said Internet Nazi = Donald Trump. And these guys desperately wish they were Donald Trump. It also makes them feel going about Trumpism as a political movement. The real Donald Trump is friendly with Nazis but doesn’t actually share their agenda. Pepe-Trump is a Nazi creation with Nazi values.
@Kupo
(1) In general you are right, but a man speaking of sexism to women is always in serious danger of coming off as mansplainy (as I’m sure I have been to some extent in my earlier post). I just think that in this case women will be more effective than any man in speaking to women about this subject.
(2) I do try to make the case to men also, but I think that women, in general, are not as susceptible to Trump’s BS as men are, and thus easier to convince to vote for HRC. Also, it is my belief that if we can keep Trump from peeling off any significant number of women from his present low favorability position, it will be effectively irrelevant whether he manages to convert any realistically possible number of men. I strongly believe that the women’s vote is the key to this election.
In other words, I think it will be easier to convince women that Trump is unacceptable, and more effective if women do the convincing. That’s just a pro-feminist man’s opinion, FWIW.
Also, POM makes some very good points. We all need to be careful about imputing Obama’s decisions to HRC, and (IMO) even more so about imputing Bill’s policies to her — particularly since a lot of the compromises Bill made (which I dislike a lot) were in the context of a major Republican’t wave.
For those who are interested in details, the map I’m linking here is very informative. If HRC takes the states shown in blue, she wins. Trump has to take ALL the states in red and flip one of the blue ones.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/gops-impending-florida-apocalypse.html
Nobody should get over-confident, but Trump really does have a very difficult path to the White House.
By the way, Trump was asked this morning about his statement to Chris Matthews a while back, in which he said that if abortion were made illegal, there would have to be some punishment for women who had abortions. (He later walked that back, stepping on his tongue as he went.) Here is his answer:
“No, he was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and, asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer! But of course not, and I said that afterwards.”
Does anyone have a clue what he was trying to say?