Jump to content

What if I don't want to go back to the 50s?


Recommended Posts

Guest El Chalupacabra

Hey! All you SJWs out there- MG, pong, cerina, tank, etc., guess who came out in favor of letting transgendered people use whatever restroom they want?

 

Trump!

 

 

So- you guys gonna join me on the Trump train now, or what?

Big deal. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Crying Game

Yes, a transwoman's gender will differ from her genetic sex and vice versa.  But... who cares?   I guess that's what I will never get. If you are creeped out by somebody else, but there is no actual h

Justice can't AFFORD three bathrooms, you bigot.

Oh pong, you know I'm just f-cking with you when I put you in that list right?
[...]
I don't think you're an SJW. I do think that you can get emotional on a few issues (don't we all), some of which overlap with SJW pet issues, but you don't really have the same rhetorical style or temperament of an SJW. That doesn't mean you're in the Kurgan camp- don't get me wrong- but you're pretty clearly outside the SJW camp too.

Oh, no offense taken whatsoever!

 

While I truly despise the "smug style in American liberalism" (even if I regrettably find myself partaking in it from time to time), I am on solidly on the liberal/progressive/leftist side of most social issues, no doubt about it.

 

And of course I have emotional attachments to certain issues.

 

But I think it only really comes out when something sets me off. And one of the easiest ways to do that (even if I generally agree with the argument) is for somebody to make their case with emotionally manipulative bull****. Post a picture of a suffering animal or dead kid, add a headline with loaded words that change or omit pertinent facts -- for me, it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Exhibit A: all the people who I pretty much only interact with during election years via Snopes or other fact-checking expeditions. I just can't help myself; it's a freakin' sickness.

 

So ya, given some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue, I think it was inevitable that my feelings of attachment and bull**** rage would intersect at some point, and they definitely have!

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're an SJW. I do think that you can get emotional on a few issues (don't we all), some of which overlap with SJW pet issues, but you don't really have the same rhetorical style or temperament of an SJW. That doesn't mean you're in the Kurgan camp- don't get me wrong- but you're pretty clearly outside the SJW camp too.

You know, I was just gonna say: if Pong's your idea of an SJW ... cripes. I'd think they miss you over at Stormfront there, Carrie. "My camp" is actually quite liberal. We tend to think ourselves the true liberals, actually. If you thought I was contributing to The Right Stuff or anything like that ... sorry to dissapoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's worse than Cruz on flopping around on issues. Still Trump over Cruz for me. I like to imagine that the following four years after this election cycle will have an impeachment exercise. Something I don't think Obama's even had or the Bush's. This has been perhaps the best election I've lived through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, regarding the above backtrack: I saw it and was not surprised, given how Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, and all the far right lunatic twatburgers went into full meltdown over Trump's toilet comments during the day. Right wingers be all "SEE, I TOLD YOU A HUNDRED TIMES HE WAS JUST A NEW YORK LIBERAL AT HEART AND YOU STUPID VOTERS DIDNT LISTEN AND NOW BARRING A MIRACLE OUR ONLY CHOICES ARE BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON IN A PANTSUIT OR HILLARY CLINTON WITH A HAMSTER ON HER HEAD!!!"

 

Since Trump seems immune to charges of flip-floppery, I would imagine he decided sometime before Hannity that maybe he'd miscalculated and it was too early for the full pivot as had been discussed earlier in the day with the RNC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mellowing a bit on His Orangeness. I'm re-realizing that the POTUS ain't that big a deal. So, he's becoming a bit more entertaining to me.

 

My first thought on the bathroom thing was; he's a businessdude and would see all the money North Carolina's losing, so his position make sense.

Now, I wonder if he's playing a game to see if he can get both sides to support him by taking both positions?

 

If nothing else, this is a fascinating social experiment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I wonder if he's playing a game to see if he can get both sides to support him by taking both positions?

That would be my guess.

 

He is a brand looking to maximize his appeal. Not that I could claim to know the dude's soul, but I do believe the only genuine thing about him is that he wants to become president. There is nothing terribly ideological about him, and he has even admitted as much without saying so (all the "I'd be happy to make a deal with Democrats to get stuff done" talk that infuriates the truconservatives). I think most people get it on a gut level, which is part of how he's able to get away with picking positions on issues like a dog circling around 7 times to poop. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich? They would be a "flip flopper" or "panderer" if they tried that. Trump gets to say "I'm not a politician!" and "I'm just interested in making deals that will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" and average people (who are generally not ideological, either) are like "OK bro, no big deal."

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL did you guys actually read what was in that article (I'm using the word 'article' very loosely here).

 

It's just clickbait. The words in the headline are nowhere in the article. If you actually read it, Trump says he still thinks the law is silly. He just adds a little clarification that he would leave these types of matters up to localities/states instead of making federal policy.

 

Not sure in what world that counts as a backtrack.

 

Also- pong- the reason why Trump is "immune" to flip-flopping charges is because he's never really flip-flopped on anything. The things he actually cares about (nationalism, immigration, trade) you can find videos of him in the 80s basically saying the exact same sh-t. He's always been consistantly more in the realist IR school than in the interventionist/neo-con school. The only things he appears loose on are social issues, and that's because everyone knows he doesn't really give a f-ck and just says whatever pops into his head at the moment.

 

It's not like people who have votes on the record like Rubio (who tried to pull off a sudden 180 on immigration and failed), or someone like Romney whose signature legacy as governor was the same thing he suddenly despised as presidential candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, I wonder if he's playing a game to see if he can get both sides to support him by taking both positions?

That would be my guess.

 

He is a brand looking to maximize his appeal. Not that I could claim to know the dude's soul, but I do believe the only genuine thing about him is that he wants to become president. There is nothing terribly ideological about him, and he has even admitted as much without saying so ("

 

See above. I think it's half true.

 

Social issues yes. However, there are a group of other issues that he's been very consistent on for many decades and pretty clearly cares about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Social issues yes. However, there are a group of other issues that he's been very consistent on for many decades and pretty clearly cares about.

Fair enough. Placing a lower tax burden on businesses and the middle-class seems like something he's been fairly consistent in supporting (I'm sure you can name others; I couldn't without researching). I guess I'm so used to the current "unless it's the WHOLE loaf, it sucks!" brand of activist politics, the idea of a more Reaganesque "If I get 70% of what I want and there is nothing completely unacceptable in the mix, it's a good deal" compromise politics actually seems kinda squishy :p

 

Also, I read the article and agree it's clickbait without substance... that said, Trump definitely dialed his position back a little after the radio guys and Cruz started sharping their knives. By the end of the day's news cycle, he obviously didn't even want it brought up any more. This is different than his usual tactic of flaming the **** out of his more vocal critics on stage or social media; my guess is he doesn't want to give too much ammunition to his enemies before he's more than just the presumptive nominee?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably. The quicker the story turns to something else the better. I guess it is a dialing back in the strictest sense, but his position allows him to placate liberals, while still not pissing off conservatives too much.

 

All about picking the battles. Trump knows this is an issue conservatives (outside the bible thumper wing), and Americans in general for that matter, just don't care too much about. The only reason it's even in the news is because of that NC law and it's slow right now.

 

As far as his consistant positions, moreso than taxes or middle class policy, I'm thinking about his nationalism. You can go back and watch interviews from him 25 years ago, he's always had this Jacksonian style nationalist streak in him. It manifests itself in different ways of course- for example, back then he talked a lot about Japan- now it's Mexico, China, and Islam. But he's always had this paleo-con/Buchanan-esque/'America first' way of thinking that seems to override anything else (e.g., why he can be a capitalist in general but not necessarily when it comes to international trade).

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...