The United States of Stupid. I mean, really, REALLY stupid ...

273 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Somehow I think this thread is in for a renaissance after the past couple of days of executive orders.

On the other hand, I am noticing how many of his ideas Trump lifted directly from Stephen Harper who, evil as he is, was in no way stupid.

I think Trump has issues but I don't think he is stupid. It is worse than that. He is doing this on purpose.

His followers, on the other hand, well.....

Unionist

ikosmos wrote:

The way you're posting these questions just seems wrong-headed to me. I'm more inclined, especially seeing the bi-partisan unity on so many issues between Dems and Republicans, to call the Dems the fake liberals and the Repubs the fake conservatives.

They seem to have more in common that differences. And I would add that for those, like myself, who see the urgency and necessity of fundamental change in the USA, this other way of looking at them is more productive because it leads people, or should, to put their energies into more long-term activities that challenge the "corporate party" with its two wings (dems and repubs), and less in propping up candidate from either party.

When a patient is gravely ill, extreme measures are sometimes called for. And the US is a very sick country, governed by a plutocracy of the 1%, an Empire whose collapse would really benefit the whole planet and not just Americans.

You may be surprised by this, but I really wish for Americans to succeed. Just not at the expense of the rest of humanity. The country that produced Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Emily Dickenson, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer, Martin Luther King, etc., etc., should not come to such an ignimonious end as it seems to be currently headed.

Well said, ikosmos. 

6079_Smith_W

Has anyone claimed that there isn't an overarching power structure, of which the Democrats and Republicans are to some degree both a part?

I don't think so.

But there were very real differences in policy, and differences in simple capability, which we are seeing very clearly in the week since inauguration. Might seem small on the global scale. Not so much if you were hoping to immigrate, or apply for refugee status, or keep your health coverage, or terminate a pregnancy.

Or if you are one of the federal scientists working on climate and environmental issues, or if you live in one of the sanctuary cities which saw their federal funding cut. Or if you were one of the people refused a right to vote this time around, hoping it might change next time. Or if you are anything but white.

And it has only been a couple of days.

These might not be the only questions, but they are not wrong questions.

 

josh

If someone does not see a difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least on domestic policy, after seeing Trump's executive actions, cabinet appointments, and upcoming Supreme Court selection, then I don't know what to say. Other than they are willfully blind, or blinded by dogma.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

The way you're posting these questions just seems wrong-headed to me. I'm more inclined, especially seeing the bi-partisan unity on so many issues between Dems and Republicans, to call the Dems the fake liberals and the Repubs the fake conservatives.

They seem to have more in common that differences. And I would add that for those, like myself, who see the urgency and necessity of fundamental change in the USA, this other way of looking at them is more productive because it leads people, or should, to put their energies into more long-term activities that challenge the "corporate party" with its two wings (dems and repubs), and less in propping up candidate from either party.

When a patient is gravely ill, extreme measures are sometimes called for. And the US is a very sick country, governed by a plutocracy of the 1%, an Empire whose collapse would really benefit the whole planet and not just Americans.

You may be surprised by this, but I really wish for Americans to succeed. Just not at the expense of the rest of humanity. The country that produced Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Emily Dickenson, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer, Martin Luther King, etc., etc., should not come to such an ignimonious end as it seems to be currently headed.

Well said, ikosmos. 

I honestly don't mean this as some sort of posthumous(figuratively speaking) pile-up on Ikosmos, since I suspect he doesn't know much about the person in question, but...

Bobby Fischer?! THIS Bobby Fischer...?

"They're lying bastards. Jews were always lying bastards throughout their history. They're a filthy, dirty, disgusting, vile, criminal people."

That was typical Fiascher political commentary.

Other people on Kosmos' list arguably lived worse lives, eg. Jefferson was a brutal slave owner, but I recognize they're included because of their influential political ideas(there is a reason Orwell cited Jefferson's Preamble as an example of writing that would be illegal under Ingsoc). You can't say the same thing about Fischer, whose ostensibly anti-imperialist "commentary" was never far from devolving into a Jew-hating diatribe.

http://tinyurl.com/kcxunxl

I'll do Kosmos the courtesy of spiritually substituting Fischer with Noam Chomsky and leave it at that.

 

 

 

Unionist

josh wrote:
If someone does not see a difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least on domestic policy, after seeing Trump's executive actions, cabinet appointments, and upcoming Supreme Court selection, then I don't know what to say. Other than they are willfully blind, or blinded by dogma.

Thank you for omitting foreign policy from your claim that there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats. If that were true, the people of the world would be heaving a sigh of relief.

On domestic policy:

I watched the obscene spectacle, in one of the "debates", where Trump "accused" Clinton of secretly favouring single-payer health care. She laughed it off, of course. Because neither party supports it. 

I saw Obama shed tears and speak eloquently after every shooting massacre under his 8-year watch. I strained to hear - let alone see - how he was proposing to solve the problem. If the two parties differ (I mean in real life, not in pious pronouncements) on gun control, I need to see the evidence.

I remember Obama and McCain issuing a joint statement (!) in mid-campaign 2008 about how much the ailing economy meant to them. I'm no expert, but you'll have to explain to me the fundamental difference between George W. Bush's 2008 bailout and Barack Obama's 2009 bailout - besides the $700 billion vs. $787 billion cost estimates, that is. Did one of them bail out the authors of the crisis, while the other bailed out the victims? I don't follow these things very closely, so I'll need a reminder.

On social issues, from treatment of minorities to rights of women to incarceration rates to provision of public services to the rights of workers (no, not the "right to work"), the U.S. (it seems to me) is the most regressive of all "western" societies. If there were concrete Democrat measures to narrow that gap, please identify. I certainly remember the historic advances of the 40s, 50s, and 60s in some of these areas. But they seem to have halted in recent decades, in a bipartisan sort of way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm with ikosmos on this one. But I'll admit something you might not like. I care much more about the devastation that the U.S. wreaks daily on the rest of the world, and on the planet, than what it does to itself. The latter is up to progressive-minded folks, like you, to repair. 

kropotkin1951

Trudeau is better than Harper because he talks the talk? Of course like Obama he does not walk the walk. If all you want is platitudes and crocodile tears then Clinton would have been just great. I guess I have a problem with the idea that one abuser is better than the other because they talk nicer and only hit the neighbour's kids not their own. 

josh

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:
If someone does not see a difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least on domestic policy, after seeing Trump's executive actions, cabinet appointments, and upcoming Supreme Court selection, then I don't know what to say. Other than they are willfully blind, or blinded by dogma.

Thank you for omitting foreign policy from your claim that there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats. If that were true, the people of the world would be heaving a sigh of relief.

On domestic policy:

I watched the obscene spectacle, in one of the "debates", where Trump "accused" Clinton of secretly favouring single-payer health care. She laughed it off, of course. Because neither party supports it. 

I saw Obama shed tears and speak eloquently after every shooting massacre under his 8-year watch. I strained to hear - let alone see - how he was proposing to solve the problem. If the two parties differ (I mean in real life, not in pious pronouncements) on gun control, I need to see the evidence.

I remember Obama and McCain issuing a joint statement (!) in mid-campaign 2008 about how much the ailing economy meant to them. I'm no expert, but you'll have to explain to me the fundamental difference between George W. Bush's 2008 bailout and Barack Obama's 2009 bailout - besides the $700 billion vs. $787 billion cost estimates, that is. Did one of them bail out the authors of the crisis, while the other bailed out the victims? I don't follow these things very closely, so I'll need a reminder.

On social issues, from treatment of minorities to rights of women to incarceration rates to provision of public services to the rights of workers (no, not the "right to work"), the U.S. (it seems to me) is the most regressive of all "western" societies. If there were concrete Democrat measures to narrow that gap, please identify. I certainly remember the historic advances of the 40s, 50s, and 60s in some of these areas. But they seem to have halted in recent decades, in a bipartisan sort of way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm with ikosmos on this one. But I'll admit something you might not like. I care much more about the devastation that the U.S. wreaks daily on the rest of the world, and on the planet, than what it does to itself. The latter is up to progressive-minded folks, like you, to repair. 

 

In your instance, unfortunately, I'd have to say you're being willfully blind.  You're looking at the areas where there's not a drastic difference between the two, while totally omitting the areas, such as those I mentioned, where the difference is night and day.  I never said they were different on every issue. 

Edzell Edzell's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I think Trump has issues but I don't think he is stupid. It is worse than that. He is doing this on purpose.

The movie "Hypernormalisation" reinforces that view for me. In its last section it proposes that a ruthless leader can behave in a deliberately erratic fashion so that no one is quite sure what he's up to or what to expect. The population becomes apathetic, losing faith/interest in the political system, and largely stops participating. This leaves the leader and his followers free to run the country as a business, friendly to their personal interests.

Despite Trump's apparent ineptitude, maybe it's all part of a plan

Apologies if my characterisation of Hypernormalisation's theory is inexact; it's what I take from my first viewing.

6079_Smith_W

josh wrote:
If someone does not see a difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least on domestic policy, after seeing Trump's executive actions, cabinet appointments, and upcoming Supreme Court selection, then I don't know what to say. Other than they are willfully blind, or blinded by dogma.

Or white.

Everyone else seemed to figure it out pretty easily on election day.

(those who weren't prevented from voting, that is)

 

bekayne
bekayne

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arkansas-abortion-law-t...

A pregnant woman's husband will have the power to stop her from having an abortion, even in cases of spousal rape, under a new law introduced in the US state of Arkansas.  

Most second trimester abortions will also be banned by Act 45 - the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act - which will make it possible for husbands to sue doctors who carry out abortions for civil damages, or get an injunction to block the termination.

The pro-life law, which was pushed through in just two months by the state's Republican government, prohibits all dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, in which the physician removes the foetus from the womb with surgical tools.

 

 

Ward

ez money for some couples

quizzical

Ward wrote:
ez money for some couples

i don't even know what to say about this.

i'll start with; if you think women are going to start having abortions for money you'd be way mistaken.

Ward

Surreal comment for a surreal law

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Ward wrote:

Surreal comment for a surreal law


Not funny, Ward.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Ha, this whle thread is funny.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Ha, this whole thread is funny.

Paladin1

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Ha, this whole thread is funny.

 

One of the concerns regarding Clinton winning was that the right would take up arms and revolt.  Armed resistance and assaults everywhere from right wing gun nuts. Streets red with blood.

Well trump won and we're seeing Trump supporters violently assaulted in the streets. Property smashed and set on fire. People kidnapped and tortured. I would have thought the right-wing gun nuts would revel at this turn of events and flock to the streets to make use of their CCW permits and automatic weapons.  Where's the firefights?

 

quizzical

we are??????? where's the kidnapping?

and yet we really are seeing 6 murdere in Canada by a Canadian Trump supporter and a rise in hate crimes both here and in the US.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You're also seeing peaceful and nonviolent protests on a massive scale, Paladin. The one protest where things were burned was protesting Milo Yiannopolous, a far right white nationalist, not Trump's election. And I dispute the claim that Trump supporters are being routinely beaten - most if not all those claims have proven to be Internet hoaxes. Could you please take your bullshit somewhere else?

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

we are??????? where's the kidnapping?

Chicago. An autistic man was kidnapped, tied up for 4-5 hours and tortured.  His assulters made him say stuff like Fuck Trump while they cut his scalp and made him drink toilet water.

The attackers posted it on Facebook and were upset it wasn't getting more likes apparently.

Quote:

and yet we really are seeing 6 murdere in Canada by a Canadian Trump supporter and a rise in hate crimes both here and in the US.

You got a point there, he was definitly a Trump supporter.

Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:
You're also seeing peaceful and nonviolent protests on a massive scale, Paladin. The one protest where things were burned was protesting Milo Yiannopolous, a far right white nationalist, not Trump's election. And I dispute the claim that Trump supporters are being routinely beaten - most if not all those claims have proven to be Internet hoaxes. Could you please take your bullshit somewhere else?

The massive scale non-violent protests are preferable to the violent, window smashing masked and armed protesting for sure.

They were protesting Milo Yiannopolous and free speech, yup.

Did you manage to catch the story about one of the potestors, who was laughing online about punching people, turned out to be a paid faculty member of Berkley?

 

 

 

 

Unionist

I'm so sorry to see Trump supporters being subjected to violent attacks. I'm even sorrier that I have to read about this in babble. If things get any worse, will Trump supporters need to create armed militias for self-defence? Just thought I'd troll this creepy conversation.

quizzical

Paladin1 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
we are??????? where's the kidnapping?
Chicago. An autistic man was kidnapped, tied up for 4-5 hours and tortured.  His assulters made him say stuff like Fuck Trump while they cut his scalp and made him drink toilet water.

The attackers posted it on Facebook and were upset it wasn't getting more likes apparently.

Quote:

and yet we really are seeing 6 murdered in Canada by a Canadian Trump supporter and a rise in hate crimes both here and in the US.

You got a point there, he was definitly a Trump supporter.

just don't know where to go with this.

from the reports i could find the police chief stated it wasn't politically motivated. i see no reason to disbelieve him. it was stupid kids treating a disabled kid badly from the accounts i found. i didn't go to "fox news" though.

it's not amusing how alt-righters change the discourse to fake shit to suit their personal bigotries and biases.

you proved yourself wrong in your own account too. not having likes on facebook says a whack about how the non alt perceive violence against others. from the accounts i read people were hostile to them.

 

 

Pondering

josh wrote:

In your instance, unfortunately, I'd have to say you're being willfully blind.  You're looking at the areas where there's not a drastic difference between the two, while totally omitting the areas, such as those I mentioned, where the difference is night and day.  I never said they were different on every issue. 

Which is better, a wolf, or a wolf in sheep's clothing? Democrats (and Liberals and NDP) all use socially left positions but none threaten corporate control or neoliberalism. Lead democrats stepped in to make sure Sanders didn't win by popular vote. Should they have been rewarded for subverting democracy by preventing his rise?

I can't say it is better that Trump won but I am not convinced a Clinton win would have been better. She probably would have signed TPP which would also have hurt women, POCs and immigrants. She is certainly in bed with Wall Street. I'm not holding my breath but maybe Trump will prove to be a catalyst. His travel ban is already being overturned.The women of the US are not going to stand for losing their rights. The more outrageous things he does the greater resistence grows. He is surrounding himself with is inner circle because he can't trust anyone else and I'm not sure he can trust all of them. There are plenty of Republicans horrified by him. People hoped that being President would tone him down but instead he is even more like his celebrity apprentice persona. There are a lot of people looking for reasons to impeach him because he is upsetting the applecart.

Throughout the world people are pissed at neoliberalism even if they don't know what it is and the far right is benefiting from it. Voting for Trump was an expression of rage against the machine. So was the support for Sanders.

 

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

just don't know where to go with this.

from the reports i could find the police chief stated it wasn't politically motivated. i see no reason to disbelieve him. it was stupid kids treating a disabled kid badly from the accounts i found. i didn't go to "fox news" though.

If you're actually interested I can find some links for you. Initially the mayor DID say it was just kids being stupid, then recanted and said they weren't really kids they were adults. In very short order the just stupid kids narrative turned into adults being charged with hate crimes.

If i'm standing over someone I have tied up and I'm cutting their scalp open while making them say Clinton is a bitch (among other political comments I believe) and broadcasting it on facebook I'm going to say that's quite political.

Quote:

it's not amusing how alt-righters change the discourse to fake shit to suit their personal bigotries and biases.

Not sure if you're implying I'm an alt-righter or just in general. I guess alt-right is the new catch phrase, like trash rebel media and their spamming of "cuck" and "cuckold" with practically every story on FB they put out.

Quote:

you proved yourself wrong in your own account too. not having likes on facebook says a whack about how the non alt perceive violence against others. from the accounts i read people were hostile to them.

People were hostile to the kidnappers? I didn't read that but if so that's great to hear.  Not sure how I proved myself wrong.  Also, is Alt-right more right wing than far-right wing?

voice of the damned

Paladin wrote:

Also, is Alt-right more right wing than far-right wing?

Are you asking if Alt-right is to the right of the far-right(iow ultra far right)? If so, I don't know if the issue is really one of place on the spectrum, so much as emphasis of issues.

I think so-called alt-right focuses mostly on immigration, with a tendency toward a racialist ideology. Less religious than the Religious Right(some of them are anti-religious, and like Trump they often claim to want to protect gays from Muslims), and less beholden to Chicago orthodoxy than neoliberals(see Trump's support for protectionism).  There is a Brit named Pat Condell who posts on YouTube, anti-Europe, anti-Muslim, also a self-proclaimed atheist. Watch a few of his videos, and you're pretty much got the alt-right viewpoint in a nutshell.

As for Rebel Media using the term "cuckservative", yeah, I've noticed that, and it's kinda bizarre, given that it was originally an alt-right term, rooted in internet porn culture, used to describe a conservative considered too beholden to Israel. But Levant and his Rebels are pro-Israel all the way.

I will say that "alt-right" itself is a term used by enemies of the movement, and possibly exploited by the Demcorats in the last presidential election. I do think it defines a discernible tendency among conservatives, though, one which I had been noticing since before the term came into wide use.

voice of the damned

If you want another, probably even more representative, example of what is called "alt-right", try ramzpaul on You Tube. He's more overtly racialist than Condell, and also(I think) more anti-Israel.

It goes without saying that all these videos are offensive by any progressive or even liberal standards.

 

quizzical

Paladin1 wrote:

quizzical wrote:
just don't know where to go with this.

from the reports i could find the police chief stated it wasn't politically motivated. i see no reason to disbelieve him. it was stupid kids treating a disabled kid badly from the accounts i found. i didn't go to "fox news" though.

If you're actually interested I can find some links for you.

i'm intersted. spent a good deal of time looking to back up  your claims which you should ALWAY link to or it's auto bs.

Quote:
it's not amusing how alt-righters change the discourse to fake shit to suit their personal bigotries and biases.

Not sure if you're implying I'm an alt-righter or just in general. I guess alt-right is the new catch phrase, like trash rebel media and their spamming of "cuck" and "cuckold" with practically every story on FB they put out.

Quote:

i was speaking about fox news and rebel media in this instance

Quote:
you proved yourself wrong in your own account too. not having likes on facebook says a whack about how the non alt perceive violence against others. from the accounts i read people were hostile to them.

...People were hostile to the kidnappers? I didn't read that but if so that's great to hear.  Not sure how I proved myself wrong. 

no likes on fb means means no support for actions and you're making claims like all those who oppose Trump are kidnapppers and abusers.

i don't appreciate it.

josh

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

In your instance, unfortunately, I'd have to say you're being willfully blind.  You're looking at the areas where there's not a drastic difference between the two, while totally omitting the areas, such as those I mentioned, where the difference is night and day.  I never said they were different on every issue. 

Which is better, a wolf, or a wolf in sheep's clothing? Democrats (and Liberals and NDP) all use socially left positions but none threaten corporate control or neoliberalism. Lead democrats stepped in to make sure Sanders didn't win by popular vote. Should they have been rewarded for subverting democracy by preventing his rise?

I can't say it is better that Trump won but I am not convinced a Clinton win would have been better. She probably would have signed TPP which would also have hurt women, POCs and immigrants. She is certainly in bed with Wall Street. I'm not holding my breath but maybe Trump will prove to be a catalyst. His travel ban is already being overturned.The women of the US are not going to stand for losing their rights. The more outrageous things he does the greater resistence grows. He is surrounding himself with is inner circle because he can't trust anyone else and I'm not sure he can trust all of them. There are plenty of Republicans horrified by him. People hoped that being President would tone him down but instead he is even more like his celebrity apprentice persona. There are a lot of people looking for reasons to impeach him because he is upsetting the applecart.

Throughout the world people are pissed at neoliberalism even if they don't know what it is and the far right is benefiting from it. Voting for Trump was an expression of rage against the machine. So was the support for Sanders.

 

This is just a long version of the the worse, the better, philosophy advocated by some in Germany circa 1932. One I never have, and never will, subscribe to.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..video just over 5 min long.

Racism is a mental health issue.


NDPP

 

A couple of weeks into the Trump administration and things are happening. Long time American political analyst Webster Tarpley on events and possibilities.

After Half Century of Relative Quiescence Renewed Politics of Protest Are Transforming Democratic Party and American Life in General (podcast)

http://tarpley.net/renewed-politics-of-protest-are-transforming-democrat...

 

Pondering

josh wrote:
This is just a long version of the the worse, the better, philosophy advocated by some in Germany circa 1932. One I never have, and never will, subscribe to.

Not the worse the better, the unmasked versus the masked. Police shot plenty of people, particularly POCs, under Obama. The assumption that things would be better under Clinton than Trump is not necessarily true. He may try to do worse things but that doesn't mean he will succeed. The better or the worst for whom? I've been reading there has been a march towards war with Russia. Trump wants to pull back the American military. Clinton is more of a hawk. It is quite possible that more people would have died under Clinton than will under Trump.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:
...The better or the worst for whom? I've been reading there has been a march towards war with Russia. Trump wants to pull back the American military. Clinton is more of a hawk. It is quite possible that more people would have died under Clinton than will under Trump.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. In fact Trump is every bit as much of a hawk as any Democrat, He has made it clear he will confront China in the East China Sea, that he will confront Iran, that he will confront anyone who stands in his way. He has already made it clear that much increased military spending is on it's way, and wanted a good ol' military parade for the inauguration.

And as far as the TPP, which some commend him for backing out of. he has also made it clear that he will initiate trade deals bilaterally, and given his recent orders to reduce that regulation of banks and financial houses, I doubt these new deals will be any less 'bad' than what they replace.

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
You're also seeing peaceful and nonviolent protests on a massive scale, Paladin. The one protest where things were burned was protesting Milo Yiannopolous, a far right white nationalist, not Trump's election. And I dispute the claim that Trump supporters are being routinely beaten - most if not all those claims have proven to be Internet hoaxes. Could you please take your bullshit somewhere else?

The massive scale non-violent protests are preferable to the violent, window smashing masked and armed protesting for sure.

They were protesting Milo Yiannopolous and free speech, yup.

Did you manage to catch the story about one of the potestors, who was laughing online about punching people, turned out to be a paid faculty member of Berkley?

 

 

 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-who-sent-thugs-berkeley-552577

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

That's an interesting conjecture by Reich. I would add to his list of incriminating evidence that there are videos of Trump supporters attempting to hire people to violently disrupt the inauguration.

Paladin1

voice of the damned wrote:

Are you asking if Alt-right is to the right of the far-right(iow ultra far right)? If so, I don't know if the issue is really one of place on the spectrum, so much as emphasis of issues.

I think so-called alt-right focuses mostly on immigration, with a tendency toward a racialist ideology. Less religious than the Religious Right(some of them are anti-religious, and like Trump they often claim to want to protect gays from Muslims), and less beholden to Chicago orthodoxy than neoliberals(see Trump's support for protectionism).  There is a Brit named Pat Condell who posts on YouTube, anti-Europe, anti-Muslim, also a self-proclaimed atheist. Watch a few of his videos, and you're pretty much got the alt-right viewpoint in a nutshell.

Thanks for the indepth response. I wasn't sure if alt-right was a serious thing or just a new catch phrase. It seemed to come out of no where. I'll be checking out the names and videos you mentioned.

Quote:
As for Rebel Media using the term "cuckservative", yeah, I've noticed that, and it's kinda bizarre, given that it was originally an alt-right term, rooted in internet porn culture, used to describe a conservative considered too beholden to Israel. But Levant and his Rebels are pro-Israel all the way.

 

I've actually never seen Cuckservative before. Anytime I've called out the Rebel or their masses for racisim, anti-muslim speech and stories clearly intended to incite anger I would start getting abuse and threats with lots of "you're a cuck". When I looked the world up it came back that apparently I like watching men have sex with my wife? I still don't understand *that* relation to politics racisim and hate speech.

I just laugh at these catch phrases that trend and get used ad nauseam.

 

 

 

quizzical wrote:

i'm intersted. spent a good deal of time looking to back up  your claims which you should ALWAY link to or it's auto bs.

I've found people often ignore links completely if they are not open minded about possibly being wrong. Spending 15 minutes providing a bunch of links to cooralate a comment is a lot of work, especially if someone just fucks it off. That's why if someone is genuinely interested in a topic and not going to forget it in 20 seconds I'll put more effort in.

Quote:

i was speaking about fox news and rebel media in this instance

Ah okay sorry Quizzical I wasn't sure. Thank you for not suggesting I was Alt-right.

Quote:

no likes on fb means means no support for actions and you're making claims like all those who oppose Trump are kidnapppers and abusers.

i don't appreciate it.

Well the context of the comment was that the kidnappers were getting upset that they weren't getting more likes/comments about their live feed. They thought it was funny and wanted more attention. It was some kind of closed group as I recall and one of the watchers reported it.

Paladin1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

That's an interesting conjecture by Reich. I would add to his list of incriminating evidence that there are videos of Trump supporters attempting to hire people to violently disrupt the inauguration.

 

I'm certain there are paid, professional protestors on both sides.

 

 

One of the masked protestors at Berkley went online to laugh about punching someone in the face. Possibly a paid Trump agent provacteur.

 

 

 

Someone however doxxed him and Eugene turns out to actually be Ian Miller, a paid staff member at Berkley.

Rev Pesky

Paladin1 wrote:
...I've found people often ignore links completely if they are not open minded about possibly being wrong. Spending 15 minutes providing a bunch of links to cooralate a comment is a lot of work, especially if someone just fucks it off. That's why if someone is genuinely interested in a topic and not going to forget it in 20 seconds I'll put more effort in...

How could you possibly know whether someone goes to a link or not, especially how could you know in advance whether they will or not?

voice of the damned

Slate.com has a good article from last August about the origins of "cuckservative"(can't do a liink...)

"Why a racist, porn-inflected slur started haunting GOP politics"

The article doesn't mention it originating iin anti-Israel discourse, so maybe that wasn't the first usage. I'm pretty sure I've seen it used that way, though.  

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Here's a link to that Slate article.

voice of the damned

Thanks, Michael.

voice of the damned

@Paladin

re: the meaning of "cuckservative"...

I think the original idea was that just as a man with a cuckold fetish gets off on watching other men have sex with his wife, alleged cuckservatives get off on seeing their country "getting screwed" by foreign entities. I think the term was orignally a reference to neo-cons who supposedly like seeing America get "screwed" by Israel, but the idea has now been extended to those who are supposedly over-beholden to Muslims, immigrants, multiculturalists, etc.

In the Rebel video I saw, the woman used "cuck" to mean a left-wing dude(the guy involved in the fracas at the demo in Edmonton), so I guess the prefix is being extended generally now, not just to conservatives.

As for whether "alt-right" is a real thing or a catch-phrase, I think it's both. Like I say, there has for a while now been a noticable group of right-wingers who are fairly obsessed with race and immigration, in a way that differs somewhat from the old Reform Party-style obsession. The ones I'm familar with, though, don't identify by name as alt-right, and it may or may not have originated as a deprecatory term by their opponents on the left.

Jacob Two-Two

I'm sorry Paladin, but you're falling for a line of right-wing agitprop bullshit. The rise of hate crimes in the wake of Trump's victory is real and statiscally significant. Outside of a few scattered incidents, there is no real and verifiable rise of attacks on Trump supporters. It's no more real than the war on Christmas, and being pushed as a narrative by the same people.

Sean in Ottawa

Paying people to protest Trump sounds like a waste of money when you consider that there are so many who want to do it. Any paid ones would get lost amid the volume -- unless you wanted to pay them to be violent jerks in order to tar the others. I cannot see any purpose in it. It would defy logic. Trump pretending that these are paid protests has not said who he thinks could afford to pay for millions around the world to do this.

Just like a lot of the fake news coming from the Trump side it does nto stand up to any logical thought.

Of course if you go trolling for false news, with all that is said I am sure you can find some on any side -- mistakes, overly enthusiastic etc. But here we go into the world of falce equivalency. You know the trump army is looking for stuff and it is remarkable how little they can find so they label so many htings that have objective proof as false in order to feed the narrative.

 

Rev Pesky

And given the 'alternative facts' of the Trump sycophants, it is not beyong possibility that they're just making stuff up. My default position regarding anything Trump or his suppoters say from now on is 'prove it'.

I'll just add that I don't think it's going too far to say that posting unsourced stories showing these 'attacks', is trolling.

Paladin1

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm sorry Paladin, but you're falling for a line of right-wing agitprop bullshit. The rise of hate crimes in the wake of Trump's victory is real and statiscally significant. Outside of a few scattered incidents, there is no real and verifiable rise of attacks on Trump supporters. It's no more real than the war on Christmas, and being pushed as a narrative by the same people.

What are you basing your opinion off of?

I started poking around websites to get a better idea.  Lots of websites are suggesting there is an increase in hate crimes after Trump was elected, however, white people can and are also considered victims of hate crimes too so that increase could indicate them as well. ie white people being attacked for supporting Trump. I'm guessing that's not what you meant of course.

I'm trying to find the article again but I think it was from the Southern Poverty Law Center that indicated Muslims represented 1.6% of the victims of hate crimes in the US in 2016,  whites represented 12% or 18% of the victims and African Americans were over 50%.

It looks like hate crimes against LGBTQ are dropping but rising against Muslims and immigrants.

 

Southern Poverty Law Center is a pretty interesting sight. In 2015 they were tracking 892 active hate groups. Interesting map here too.   https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Cody87

WRT: "cuckservative"...this term is essentially used to denounce conservatives who give away what they are supposed to protect. Eg. Conservatives are supposed to stand up for smaller government, less taxes, less regulations, nationalism vs. globalism, etc. So elite globalist conservatives who (for example) push for amnesty in the U.S. (as was widely the case until very recently) would be called "cuckservatives" by self-identified "real conservatives." It still has a ton of sexist implications that are clear as day and I don't support or endorse the term in any way, but that's what it means.

WRT: "cuck" started because of a viral article that came out a couple years ago arguing it was feminist to let your wife sleep with other men. So now "cuck" gets used as a slander against men perceived to be feminsts or feminist allies (ie. on the left). It's basically just a meme.

WRT: Paid protests...Have you seen the signs at these "spontaneous" protests? Most of the protestors are organic but let's not pretend there's no organization and planning behind most of the protests themselves. And @Sean, it's well known which globalist billionaire the right blames for the paid protests...I've seen it mentioned even on this tiny forum quite recently.

WRT: Hate crimes. It's impossible to know if there's been a significant change or "who has it worse," because we only know the stories that get reported and even then we cannot be sure of their veracity. And it should be abundantly clear by now that the media selectively reports stories that fit whatever narrative they are pushing on that given week. So it's quite possible that there are more attacks on identifiable groups (whether that be minorities, Trump supporters, or both), but anyone who claims to know either way is bullshitting because they don't know either.

6079_Smith_W

@ Paladin

If you can't find a couple of good corroborating sources (not two blogs using the same source) there is a good chance it might be propaganda.

That is so for both ends of the spectrum and everyplace in between.

Same goes for buzzwords like the one mentioned above being a sign of where some people are coming from.

Pages