Donald Trump 2018

[burntorangebongos 10809]

Vox has a good article by Max Fisher that explains their rise in ifluence and speculates that the decline has occurred for sure with candidates like Trump and Cruz. About a 20 year reign. Its called Twilight of the Neoconservatives.

[Brisketexan 106698]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I choose Communists.

The commies usually have looser women.

The fascists typically have better booze.

 

Quite the conundrum.

[relapse98 634]

I think CNN has treated him humanely.

[David Dennison 19444]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The commies usually have looser women.

The fascists typically have better booze.

 

Quite the conundrum.

I don't drink and Commies love weed, so . . . 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Instead, our entire political culture is tilting to the extremes, with nothing in the middle.  Look at the kind of "enthusiasm" Trumpism is building on the other end -- a shitload of those folks think Bernie Sanders is the solution.

Sooner than you think, we're going to end up with modern versions of the Communist Party and Mussolini's Fascists running against each other.  Yay.  What a win.

This is where we disagree.  It certainly appears the way you’re portraying but I honestly believe the most successful upcoming campaigns will run on emotional appeal to the shared values America is supposed to have, Sally Yates and McMaster types running as Democrats. 

Yes, the extreme liberals will gain ground during this period but I don’t think America is going to be forced with a binary choice of two extremes.

Trump has awakened a large segment of the electorate that just wants their elected officials to do the right thing and govern with integrity regardless of political party.

[Anastasis 23706]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

"Are we actually going to bemoan the death of the Czars?  They had multiple chances to govern in the interest of the people.  Burn it down!"

How do we feel about the Czars' replacement?

"Are we actually going to bemoan the ousting of the Shah?  He had multiple chances to govern more openly, without the secret police.  Burn it down!"

How do we feel about the Shah's replacement?

 

We can do this all day.  "Get rid of X" is a fucking stupid-ass desire unless you have a viable plan to replace it with something better.  We took an underperforming GOP and replaced it with a group that slings shit everywhere -- onto our food, our water....even in our raccoon wounds.  Even worse...I don't think that a new counterbalance will be formed.  Instead, our entire political culture is tilting to the extremes, with nothing in the middle.  Look at the kind of "enthusiasm" Trumpism is building on the other end -- a shitload of those folks think Bernie Sanders is the solution.

Sooner than you think, we're going to end up with modern versions of the Communist Party and Mussolini's Fascists running against each other.  Yay.  What a win.

Interesting that you picked the overthrow of autocratic authoritarians for both of your examples of when you should not challenge the status quo. Maybe you should have picked another one to round it out.  Someone like King George maybe.  Bunch of dumbasses, doing crazy shit to challenge the status quo without their viable replacement plan all mapped out and shit. 

We need a major restructuring of our political alignments in this country. I actually think that we agree to a very large extent on our trajectory and where we are going as a country.  The status quo ends in a tightening political death spiral.  The GOP will not be saved, it is infected with cancer. But I do agree that we need to be thinking about what comes next. And it's more than just realignment of political coalitions. We have to make some fundamental changes to address money and special interests in politics.  I don't know all the answers, and that is ok. 

[Hank Kingsley 21626]

2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it is. The average Fox News viewer is 68.  I say there is no way their indoctrination rate exceeds their death rate at this point.  

I guess it depends on how you define Trumpism.  Here is a good excerpt from the Economist article: 

"What (Trump) offers politics is not a conservative agenda. It is not an agenda, or an ideology, at all. It is a set of feelings—about patriotism, about who is a proper American and who is not, about foreigners, about elites, about sovereignty and about power."

When I think how things will change when the olds die off, it's more about social issues. 20-30 years from now, the rights for women, minorities, LGBQT, etc. will all be celebrated and accepted by the vast majority of Americans. 

To me, Trumpism has nothing to do with with actual political issues. It's a state of mind. The willful ignorance to believe a pathological liar and declare anyone against him as "fake news". The complete lack of sincerity. The conviction to be disingenuous. These are psychological issues that won't just go away.  BTW, I only call it "Trumpism" because it's been brought to the forefront over the last 2-3 years.  The psychology has always been around, but it was basically stamped out until Donald re-lit the fire and gave it legitimacy. 

Assuming Trump's presidency continues to be a complete failure, I feel pretty comfortable saying people inflicted with Trumpism won't just admit they were wrong 5-10 years from now.  Really, the only way I see this psychology waning is if Donald Trump completely fucks everyone in this country over and is fully blamed for it. Impeachment doesn't do that ("witch hunt"). Voting him out in 2020 doesn't do that ("rigged election").  It would need to be something catastrophic like WWIII, but at that point we're all doomed. 

Politically we might see a run of Democratic Presidents for a couple of decades, but a significant portion of Americans will still be infected.  And if we as a country can't morally agree on basic thought processes, it's hard to be optimistic about the future. 

 

 

[Chad Fuck 18104]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This, in a nutshell, is why I think the burn-it-down guys are the worst. You’ve got the greatest 75 years of human freedom, peace and prosperity in the history of the western world and these jerkoffs want to blow all that up and risk fire and fury to settle their pissant beefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quoted for mother fucking truth.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Vox has a good article by Max Fisher that explains their rise in ifluence and speculates that the decline has occurred for sure with candidates like Trump and Cruz. About a 20 year reign. Its called Twilight of the Neoconservatives.

He saved Latin.  What did you ever do?

[bolverk 30257]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Are we actually going to bemoan the death of the Czars?  They had multiple chances to govern in the interest of the people.  Burn it down!"

How do we feel about the Czars' replacement?

"Are we actually going to bemoan the ousting of the Shah?  He had multiple chances to govern more openly, without the secret police.  Burn it down!"

How do we feel about the Shah's replacement?

 

We can do this all day.  "Get rid of X" is a fucking stupid-ass desire unless you have a viable plan to replace it with something better.  We took an underperforming GOP and replaced it with a group that slings shit everywhere -- onto our food, our water....even in our raccoon wounds.  Even worse...I don't think that a new counterbalance will be formed.  Instead, our entire political culture is tilting to the extremes, with nothing in the middle.  Look at the kind of "enthusiasm" Trumpism is building on the other end -- a shitload of those folks think Bernie Sanders is the solution.

Sooner than you think, we're going to end up with modern versions of the Communist Party and Mussolini's Fascists running against each other.  Yay.  What a win.

 

Only one party is heading toward the extreme (as of 2013). This was, of course, pre-Trump and the Republicans still were as far right as the National Front. This was from The Economist article.

[Chad Fuck 18104]

42 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Trump had know clue that "sleepy eyed" is a derogatory term for Jews. He was just parroting what he hears coming out of Stephen Miller's office several times a day, Stephen knows exactly what the fuck it means.  

Which, if anyone is sleepy eyed, it's that slack-jaw mother fucker.   

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Chad Fuck

[Brisketexan 106698]

Interesting that you picked the overthrow of autocratic authoritarians for both of your examples of when you should not challenge the status quo. Maybe you should have picked another one to round it out.  Someone like King George maybe.  Bunch of dumbasses, doing crazy shit to challenge the status quo without their viable replacement plan all mapped out and shit. 
We need a major restructuring of our political alignments in this country. I actually think that we agree to a very large extent on our trajectory and where we are going as a country.  The status quo ends in a tightening political death spiral.  The GOP will not be saved, it is infected with cancer. But I do agree that we need to be thinking about what comes next. And it's more than just realignment of political coalitions. We have to make some fundamental changes to address money and special interests in politics.  I don't know all the answers, and that is ok. 

We need a change.

Maybe - just maybe - shooting ourselves in the fucking dick isn’t a good change.

And watching fucksticks like you celebrating the bloody stump where our dick used to be, well, that’s just swell.

But hey, we DEFINITELY need to burn down the order that gave us 75 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity globally. Yay, bloody dick stumps!

[burntorangebongos 10809]

26 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Interesting that you picked the overthrow of autocratic authoritarians for both of your examples of when you should not challenge the status quo. Maybe you should have picked another one to round it out.  Someone like King George maybe.  Bunch of dumbasses, doing crazy shit to challenge the status quo without their viable replacement plan all mapped out and shit. 

We need a major restructuring of our political alignments in this country. I actually think that we agree to a very large extent on our trajectory and where we are going as a country.  The status quo ends in a tightening political death spiral.  The GOP will not be saved, it is infected with cancer. But I do agree that we need to be thinking about what comes next. And it's more than just realignment of political coalitions. We have to make some fundamental changes to address money and special interests in politics.  I don't know all the answers, and that is ok. 

Fundamental changes to address special interests and money is a fucking must. Maybe term limits need to happen too.

[Brisketexan 106698]

Fundamental changes to address special interests and money is a fucking must. Maybe term limits need to happen too.

You think Trumpism is getting us CLOSER to that?

Man, if so, take that comedy on the road, you’re a funny man.

[wildcat09 29569]

45 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Losing really bad forces the recentering is the point. 

There's a decent chance right now that the Dems get ~55% of the total midterm vote and still don't take the House. As of right now, it would take a near-miracle for them to take the Senate. Barring nuclear war or an economic catastrophe, Trumpism isn't going to lose nearly badly enough for the GOP to decide it needs to be abandoned.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You think Trumpism is getting us CLOSER to that?

Man, if so, take that comedy on the road, you’re a funny man.

Yep, Trump cut out the middleman.  Why elect a politician who sold his soul to special interests when you can elect the special interest directly.  His sole purpose is to grow his wealth.  I'd rather have a guy who takes a kickback to throw some largess Exxon's way, but who otherwise is interested in steering the country.

Edited April 23, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[NIUHuskies 505]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Maybe, but Trumpism can still dominate rural states and districts.  Given the electoral college and liberal clustering, Trumpists could lose the popular vote by 10 million and still keep the Presidency and Senate, while almost keeping the House.  The real question is how tyrannical can a minority voting bloc become before the majority has enough.

See America 1850s for this answer...

[High Plains Drifter 11164]

5 minutes ago, NIUHuskies said:

See America 1850s for this answer...

See America 1861.

 

I'm with Anastasis here. Burn it down. But by "it" I mean populism in general and Trumpism specifically (I don't really know what Anastasis wants to burn down, the two party system maybe?). We need a modern day Sherman to light a cleansing fire.

[burntorangebongos 10809]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You think Trumpism is getting us CLOSER to that?

Man, if so, take that comedy on the road, you’re a funny man.

No. I am saying we need to address PACS,  and campaign contibution laws and stem the tide of special interest money. 

[sachick 1189]

 

[High Plains Drifter 11164]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-22/a-trump-white-house-job-won-t-be-much-of-a-career-booster

 

Quote

One indication of the reputational decline of Trump is seen in the collapse of his once robust merchandizing businesses. The Washington Post reported on April 13 that only two companies still sell Trump-branded products, down from 19 listed by Trump in 2015. A Trump cologne, one of his few remaining items, costs $9.99 an ounce, marked down from $42.

Trump cologne. Wonder what that smells like?

[Anastasis 23706]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

We need a change.

Maybe - just maybe - shooting ourselves in the fucking dick isn’t a good change.

And watching fucksticks like you celebrating the bloody stump where our dick used to be, well, that’s just swell.

But hey, we DEFINITELY need to burn down the order that gave us 75 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity globally. Yay, bloody dick stumps!

I am not celebrating anything, in terms of the trajectory of our culture and our politics. Its not completely clear to me where we disagree on the big picture. You say that Trump has taken over the GOP, it's the party of Trumpkins, and as such represents a threat to the Republic. I say that the GOP has a cancer, and they brought this shit on themselves through their own failures, and will be a crippled political party for the foreseeable future. Good riddance, fuck the GOP. Then you start telling me about Czars and the Shah and why we should not challenge the status quo. I know that you don't think I am hysterical enough about Trump for your liking, but other than that I am not sure that we are too far apart. You just seem unwilling to commit to fact that the GOP is going to die and will be replaced by a new political coalition, whether it carries the GOP label or not. Maybe I am wrong, and if I am I am sure that you will regale us again with another metaphor involving your bloodied genitals.  I might suggest a bloody vagina next time though. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Anastasis

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fucking Gumps

 

[NoRagrets 1137]

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-22/a-trump-white-house-job-won-t-be-much-of-a-career-booster

 

Trump cologne. Wonder what that smells like?

Russian Vodka...and piss

Edited April 23, 2018 by NoRagrets

[HenryJames 67137]

2 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

Russian Vodka...and piss

So Drakkar Noir?

[bolverk 30257]

People Voted for Trump Because They Were Anxious, Not Poor

For the past 18 months, many political scientists have been seized by one question: Less-educated whites were President Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters. But why, exactly?

Was their vote some sort of cri de coeur about a changing economy that had left them behind? Or was the motivating sentiment something more complex and, frankly, something harder for policy makers to address?

After analyzing in-depth survey data from 2012 and 2016, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana C. Mutz argues that it’s the latter. In a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she added her conclusion to the growing body of evidence that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship.

“Instead,” she writes, “it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.”

“For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country,” Mutz notes, “white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.” When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (“all lives matter”), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.

This could be why in one study, whites who were presented with evidence of racial progress experienced lower self-esteem afterward. In another study, reminding whites who were high in “ethnic identification” that nonwhite groups will soon outnumber them revved up their support for Trump, their desire for anti-immigrant policies, and their opposition to political correctness.

Mutz also found that “half of Americans view trade as something that benefits job availability in other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans.”

Granted, most people just voted for the same party in both 2012 and 2016. However, between the two years, people—especially Republicans—developed a much more negative view toward international trade. In 2012, the two parties seemed roughly similar on trade, but in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s views on trade and on “China as a threat” were much further away from the views of the average American than were Trump’s.

Mutz examined voters whose incomes declined, or didn’t increase much, or who lost their jobs, or who were concerned about expenses, or who thought they had been personally hurt by trade. None of those things motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Indeed, manufacturing employment in the United States has actually increased somewhat since 2010. And as my colleague Adam Serwer has pointed out, “Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year.”

Meanwhile, a few things did correlate with support for Trump: a voter’s desire for their group to be dominant, as well as how much they disagreed with Clinton’s views on trade and China. Trump supporters were also more likely than Clinton voters to feel that “the American way of life is threatened,” and that high-status groups, like men, Christians, and whites, are discriminated against.

This sense of unfounded persecution is far from rare, and it seems to be heightened during moments of societal change. As my colleague Emma Green has written, white evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States, and 79 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life” chose Trump over Clinton. As I pointed out in the fall of 2016, several surveys showed many men supported Trump because they felt their status in society was threatened, and that Trump would restore it. Even the education gap in support for Trump disappears, according to one analysis, if you account for the fact that non-college-educated whites are simply more likely to affirm racist views than those with college degrees. (At the most extreme end, white supremacists also use victimhood to further their cause.)

These why-did-people-vote-for-Trump studies are clarifying, but also a little bit unsatisfying, from the point of view of a politician. They dispel the fiction—to use another 2016 meme—that the majority of Trump supporters are disenfranchised victims of capitalism’s cruelties. At the same time, deep-seated psychological resentment is harder for policy makers to address than an overly meager disability check. You can teach out-of-work coal miners to code, but you may not be able to convince them to embrace changing racial and gender norms. You can offer universal basic incomes, but that won’t ameliorate resentment of demographic changes.

In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what?

[Bozo_Casanova 26780]

So Drakkar Noir?

Laugh all you want, Drakkar Noir is fucking catnip.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brisketexan 106698]

8 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-22/a-trump-white-house-job-won-t-be-much-of-a-career-booster

 

Trump cologne. Wonder what that smells like?

[certified Surly response]  It's piss.  [/certified Surly response]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not celebrating anything, in terms of the trajectory of our culture and our politics. Its not completely clear to me where we disagree on the big picture. You say that Trump has taken over the GOP, it's the party of Trumpkins, and as such represents a threat to the Republic. I say that the GOP has a cancer, and they brought this shit on themselves through their own failures, and will be a crippled political party for the foreseeable future. Good riddance, fuck the GOP. Then you start telling me about Czars and the Shah and why we should not challenge the status quo. I know that you don't think I am hysterical enough about Trump for your liking, but other than that I am not sure that we are too far apart. You just seem unwilling to commit to fact that the GOP is going to die and will be replaced by a new political coalition, whether it carries the GOP label or not. Maybe I am wrong, and if I am I am sure that you will regale us again with another metaphor involving your bloodied genitals.  I might suggest a bloody vagina next time though. 

You think that the GOP is going to die and be replaced by some new political coalition.  You are bad at math.  There can be no right-of-center coalition in this country WITHOUT the Trumpkins.  They are too big a group for any other outcome.  And now, instead of them being a marginalized part of the coalition (look, every party, every family, every everything, has an embarrassing family member/group that they hide in the corner and are just cordial to on holidays and such), they are the DOMINANT force in the coalition.  And they don't listen to logic.  They don't listen to reason.  They will never fade back into the corner.

The outcome is that the GOP is the Trumpkin party.  It's not going to die.  It's going to survive.  And in response, the Dems are going to push back too hard the other direction.  You'll have your choice of a chunky shit sandwich, or a runny shit sandwich, but make no mistake -- once one of the major parties decided to go full-on shit sandwich, it is our destiny to be served shit sandwiches 24/7.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not celebrating anything, in terms of the trajectory of our culture and our politics. Its not completely clear to me where we disagree on the big picture. You say that Trump has taken over the GOP, it's the party of Trumpkins, and as such represents a threat to the Republic. I say that the GOP has a cancer, and they brought this shit on themselves through their own failures, and will be a crippled political party for the foreseeable future. Good riddance, fuck the GOP. Then start telling me about Czars and the Shah and why we should not challenge the status quo. I know that you don't think I am hysterical enough about Trump for your liking, but other than that I am not sure that we are too far apart. You just seem unwilling to commit to fact that the GOP is going to die and will be replaced by a new political coalition, whether it carries the GOP label or not. Maybe I am wrong, and if I am I am sure that you will regale us again with another metaphor involving your bloodied genitals.  I might suggest a bloody vagina next time. 

I think we often scapegoat many problems onto groups we perceive to be monolithic (GOP/MSM/Fox News/Liberals/Russians).

It’s us that are the problem, the voters that elect the shitty politicians, the consumers that allow themselves to be manipulated by bad actors, the people that play the victim of someone else’s malfeasance.  

The GOP is just a label made up of smaller political movements and ideologies. It has dramatically changed over time which is reflective of the population changing over time.

Bark at the GOP all you want but the problems don’t go away with the downfall of the Republican Party.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Jiggy-Z 3507]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

People Voted for Trump Because They Were Anxious, Not Poor

For the past 18 months, many political scientists have been seized by one question: Less-educated whites were President Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters. But why, exactly?

Was their vote some sort of cri de coeur about a changing economy that had left them behind? Or was the motivating sentiment something more complex and, frankly, something harder for policy makers to address?

After analyzing in-depth survey data from 2012 and 2016, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana C. Mutz argues that it’s the latter. In a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, she added her conclusion to the growing body of evidence that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship.

“Instead,” she writes, “it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.”

“For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country,” Mutz notes, “white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.” When members of a historically dominant group feel threatened, she explains, they go through some interesting psychological twists and turns to make themselves feel okay again. First, they get nostalgic and try to protect the status quo however they can. They defend their own group (“all lives matter”), they start behaving in more traditional ways, and they start to feel more negatively toward other groups.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This could be why in one study, whites who were presented with evidence of racial progress experienced lower self-esteem afterward. In another study, reminding whites who were high in “ethnic identification” that nonwhite groups will soon outnumber them revved up their support for Trump, their desire for anti-immigrant policies, and their opposition to political correctness.

Mutz also found that “half of Americans view trade as something that benefits job availability in other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans.”

Granted, most people just voted for the same party in both 2012 and 2016. However, between the two years, people—especially Republicans—developed a much more negative view toward international trade. In 2012, the two parties seemed roughly similar on trade, but in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s views on trade and on “China as a threat” were much further away from the views of the average American than were Trump’s.

Mutz examined voters whose incomes declined, or didn’t increase much, or who lost their jobs, or who were concerned about expenses, or who thought they had been personally hurt by trade. None of those things motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Indeed, manufacturing employment in the United States has actually increased somewhat since 2010. And as my colleague Adam Serwer has pointed out, “Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year.”

Meanwhile, a few things did correlate with support for Trump: a voter’s desire for their group to be dominant, as well as how much they disagreed with Clinton’s views on trade and China. Trump supporters were also more likely than Clinton voters to feel that “the American way of life is threatened,” and that high-status groups, like men, Christians, and whites, are discriminated against.

This sense of unfounded persecution is far from rare, and it seems to be heightened during moments of societal change. As my colleague Emma Green has written, white evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States, and 79 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life” chose Trump over Clinton. As I pointed out in the fall of 2016, several surveys showed many men supported Trump because they felt their status in society was threatened, and that Trump would restore it. Even the education gap in support for Trump disappears, according to one analysis, if you account for the fact that non-college-educated whites are simply more likely to affirm racist views than those with college degrees. (At the most extreme end, white supremacists also use victimhood to further their cause.)

These why-did-people-vote-for-Trump studies are clarifying, but also a little bit unsatisfying, from the point of view of a politician. They dispel the fiction—to use another 2016 meme—that the majority of Trump supporters are disenfranchised victims of capitalism’s cruelties. At the same time, deep-seated psychological resentment is harder for policy makers to address than an overly meager disability check. You can teach out-of-work coal miners to code, but you may not be able to convince them to embrace changing racial and gender norms. You can offer universal basic incomes, but that won’t ameliorate resentment of demographic changes.

In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what?

 

..the common clay of the new west..you know..morons.

[bolverk 30257]

1 minute ago, Jiggy-Z said:

..the common clay of the new west..you know..morons.

The first part of that phrase was actually used as the title to a section in that Economist article posted up-thread. It was gorgeous.

[Brisketexan 106698]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

In other words, it’s now pretty clear that many Trump supporters feel threatened, frustrated, and marginalized—not on an economic, but on an existential level. Now what?

Now....it all turns to shit.

Can whites and minorities get along in this country?  I think the answer is "as long as whites are completely comfortable with their prospects of maintaining total economic and cultural dominance, MAYBE.  But once white folks let fear of losing complete power control their thinking?  Not a chance in hell."

The dominant culture reached a point of magnanimity and decency in recent past decades because it had the luxury/could afford to do so.  And minorities saw their lot improve, significantly.  But now....the dominant culture fears that it won't maintain dominance.  And it's responding with a hale and hearty "fuck all the rest of y'all."  And it still has the numbers and power to do so.

It's going to get a LOT worse.  Note that I don't say "worse before it gets better."  It's just going to get worse.  There is no "better" on the horizon.

[sachick 1189]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fucking Gumps

 

Wait, they close state office to celebrate the Confederates? The state openly celebrates that they became traitorous to hold onto their black slaves?

[Brisketexan 106698]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bark at the GOP all you want but the problems don’t go away with the downfall of the Republican Party.

This.

The Trumpkins are here, they exist.  And they aren't going away.

Build a hypothetical "new GOP" WITHOUT the Trumpkins.  You know, a "new GOP" that will actually have the numbers to win political races.  You can't do it.  1) You can't build a new GOP without the Trumpkins.  And 2) the Trumpkins are never going to accept being put back into their cave/dark corner.  Those two facts mean that the GOP is now the TrumpOP, and will be for the foreseeable future.

[Anastasis 23706]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

[certified Surly response]  It's piss.  [/certified Surly response]

You think that the GOP is going to die and be replaced by some new political coalition.  You are bad at math.  There can be no right-of-center coalition in this country WITHOUT the Trumpkins.  They are too big a group for any other outcome.  And now, instead of them being a marginalized part of the coalition (look, every party, every family, every everything, has an embarrassing family member/group that they hide in the corner and are just cordial to on holidays and such), they are the DOMINANT force in the coalition.  And they don't listen to logic.  They don't listen to reason.  They will never fade back into the corner.

The outcome is that the GOP is the Trumpkin party.  It's not going to die.  It's going to survive.  And in response, the Dems are going to push back too hard the other direction.  You'll have your choice of a chunky shit sandwich, or a runny shit sandwich, but make no mistake -- once one of the major parties decided to go full-on shit sandwich, it is our destiny to be served shit sandwiches 24/7.

So we find another point of agreement @Brisketexan. We are in a tightening political death spiral. I hope that at some point we break out of it, and that is reflected in my hope that we are at the front end of an very much needed political realignment. But I am willing to concede that that might be simply naive optimism. The alternative is, well, not particularly palatable. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Brisket fatalism turned up to eleven today

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

33 minutes ago, sachick said:

 

I called that the second he denied staying over night.  His wording was something like “and talking about this with other people, they reminded me I left immediately and didn’t stay.”  Tell tale for bullshit when someone attributes the assertion to someone else while reserving the right to claim a lack of memory to themselves in case evidence is uncovered. 

[bolverk 30257]

2 minutes ago, sachick said:

Wait, they close state office to celebrate the Confederates? The state openly celebrates that they became traitorous to hold onto their black slaves?

As embarrassing as it is to admit, we in Texas have something called "Confederate Heroes Day" which is an optional holiday for state employees.

[Brisketexan 106698]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Brisket fatalism turned up to eleven today

It's just math.

Show me how my math is wrong, and I'll be thrilled.

Otherwise, scotch, comfy chair, deck of Titanic.  On the bright side, there's plenty of ice that crumbled onto the deck, so we've got that going for us.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's just math.

Show me how my math is wrong, and I'll be thrilled.

Otherwise, scotch, comfy chair, deck of Titanic.  On the bright side, there's plenty of ice that crumbled onto the deck, so we've got that going for us.

You have to give me a time frame here.  I think we might be fucked for a generation but it’s impossible for me to see past that.  Trumpism in some form or another will be noticeable for the next 20 + years in our culture.  

I think many Americans feel they have have a duty to mitigate/contain the consequences.  How swift and effective we can be on minimizing the damage remains to be seen but I’m hopeful we can avoid an apocalyptic catastrophe.

[Brisketexan 106698]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You have to give me a time frame here.  I think we might be fucked for a generation but it’s impossible for me to see past that.  Trumpism in some form or another will be noticeable for the next 20 + years in our culture.  

I think many Americans feel they have have a duty to mitigate/contain the consequences.  How swift and effective we can be on minimizing the damage remains to be seen but I’m hopeful we can avoid an apocalyptic catastrophe.

I think your answer is as accurate as we can be.

I think we're fucked for a generation+.  I don't think there's any way to see beyond that horizon.  And what's worse....I don't see how a pluralistic society (which we are, and will remain) can survive ingesting 20+ years of a poison like Trumpism and survive.

[David Dennison 19444]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think your answer is as accurate as we can be.

I think we're fucked for a generation+.  I don't think there's any way to see beyond that horizon.  And what's worse....I don't see how a pluralistic society (which we are, and will remain) can survive ingesting 20+ years of a poison like Trumpism and survive.

And if it doesn't, that's OK. The United States of America was never going to last forever as a going concern.

[bad_teammate 13485]

Hopefully we get fracturing of political parties so we can form a new type of government that isn't two-party dominated. Trumpists vs. money-conservatives, Lib-dems vs. socialists, etc...

[deadshank 24654]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Hopefully we get fracturing of political parties so we can form a new type of government that isn't two-party dominated. Trumpists vs. money-conservatives, Lib-dems vs. socialists, etc...

I, I, uh, I, uh, wow.  I find myself agreeing with you.  I'm off to have a drink or 20.

[Brisketexan 106698]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And if it doesn't, that's OK. The United States of America was never going to last forever as a going concern.

Except we're left with the question of "what fills the void?"

If we ended up like the UK after its empire faded, I'd be fine.  That's not what we're on track for.  We're on track for becoming a mob of morons whipped into frenzy by varying types of demagogues and oligarchs.  Oh, with a huge, powerful military that can project its power to every corner of the globe in minutes.  That seems like it will work out well for, oh, everyone on the planet.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Brisketexan

[retread 2951]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Hopefully we get fracturing of political parties so we can form a new type of government that isn't two-party dominated. Trumpists vs. money-conservatives, Lib-dems vs. socialists, etc...

Congress seems so screwed that it may be beyond repair. It's not about collaborating, finding solutions, or serving the American people. It's about the acquisition of raw power and maintaining that power. 

[bad_teammate 13485]

1 minute ago, deadshank said:

I, I, uh, I, uh, wow.  I find myself agreeing with you.  I'm off to have a drink or 20.

You should try it more often, I'm fuckin' brilliant

[Anastasis 23706]

Just now, deadshank said:

I, I, uh, I, uh, wow.  I find myself agreeing with you.  I'm off to have a drink or 20.

Same here.  Some form of proportional representation system.  I'm willing to try it. Will never happen though without a seismic shift in the two party power grip.  

[deadshank 24654]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You should try it more often, I'm fuckin' brilliant

Tap the brakes, BT.  

[David Dennison 19444]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Except we're left with the question of "what fills the void?"

If we ended up like the UK after its empire faded, I'd be fine.  That's not what we're on track for.  We're on track for becoming a mob of morons whipped into frenzy by varying types of demagogues and oligarchs.  Oh, with a huge, powerful military that can project its power to every corner of the globe in minutes.  That seems like it will work out well for, oh, everyone on the planet.

Being the cynic that I am, I think we've been that way for decades.