What is a Trumpkin?

[Gil Bang 26,121]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

The argument I'm making is that the term is, per Rex, "juvenile".  You have an opportunity to show it is a term that has value in intelligent discourse - that the people using it aren't juvenile.

Trumpkins and "intelligent" have not one single thing to do with another. 

 

You're a trumpkin dude.   Maybe you're not in the line of dudes fucking the drugged, drunk chick at the frat house, but you're the lookout, and that makes you a rapist too. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Gil Bang

[Degenerate Gardner 4,104]

A. I don't use the word Trumpkin.  I agree that it's juvenile.

B. You support the most juvenile regime that this country has seen.  Tacitly, while holding your nose, whatever justification you think makes sense.  Your moral higher ground is non existent.  You can't have it both ways.

[ndawg 1,242]

There's building a castle in the sky, and there's moving in.

"Trumpkin" is a word that can be effectively used to mock a segment of the population that sees the world only through a primitive, tribal lens. They won't ever listen to reason, and there's no point in trying to bring a better argument to them. Pearls before swine, after all.

We should never indulge it to the point where we become what it mocks.

[ndawg 1,242]

*delete*

Edited May 18, 2018 by ndawg
Go home forum software, you're drunk

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Nope. This board does, just as Texags leans heavily right. To assert otherwise is fortifying your stupidity. 

So your argument is that this board is to the left of texags? That’s a good one chief. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by JimmyJames

[TahoeHorn 107]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So your argument is that this board is to the left of texags? That’s a good one chief. 

I think that's the first post of yours I've ever seen that showed an understanding of a post and drew the correct conclusion.  

[F250 28,990]

The way I see it, a Trumpkin is a member of the populist wing in the Republican Party that enthusiastically supports Trump. Their political agenda differs from the standard Republican conservatives as it's driven by emotions and not reasoned ideology.

 

Trumpkin

 

Not a Trumpkin

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

The way I see it, a Trumpkin is a member of the populist wing in the Republican Party that enthusiastically supports Trump. Their political agenda differs from the standard Republican conservatives as it's driven by emotions and not reasoned ideology.

 

...

That's my view.  And the 51 GOP Senators look more like the guy in the sailboat than the two guys at the convention.

[Gil Bang 26,121]

Sure, and, all those GOP sailors are taking their turn in the barrel

[Brian Fantana 6,727]

Anyone who, tacitly or not, approves of Trump despite all the evidence of him being a shitbag human being.

[Stros 153]

If you voted for trump over Clinton you’re a trumpkin. Because it was her turn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Newsflash for Rex:  Just about any major state university will be "left" of the state in which it's located.  That includes Texas, Cal (Berkeley), Oregon, Washington, Boise fucking State, Florida, Wisconsin, Vermont, etc. 

 

Aggy aside, of course.  

Thanks for the news flash. I wasn’t aware. Really appreciate your help here buddy. 

[In10se 175]

There's a new term... A tahoe. It's used to describe a person that is the embodiment of hypocricy and selfishness. Also known as a jackass. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

So your argument is that this board is to the left of texags? That’s a good one chief. 

Never intimated otherwise. 

[sugar 100]

22 minutes ago, Stros said:

If you voted for trump over Clinton you’re a trumpkin. Because it was her turn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hillary is was and always will be the better candidate. You hate women. And love crime.

[Gil Bang 26,121]

Thanks for the news flash. I wasn’t aware. Really appreciate your help here buddy. 

Happy to help.

[sugar 100]

Tahoe doesn't hate women, he is however a useful idiot for business criminals. 

[TornACL 7,767]

8 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

The argument I'm making is that the term is, per Rex, "juvenile".  You have an opportunity to show it is a term that has value in intelligent discourse - that the people using it aren't juvenile.  I'm "just asking a question".  But everybody understands the real point: the term is "juvenile", and I'm fucking with the juvenile posters.

How would anybody on earth think that any pejorative term "has value in intelligent discourse"? The entire premise of this thread is idiotic, and that's why you're being mocked. Yet again. 

[Fozzz 152]

Now this is a solid KlanHorn thread.  

[Fozzz 152]

8 hours ago, F250 said:

Not a Trumpkin

 

Just a racist piece of shit.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Fozzz

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,830]

12 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Nope. This board does, just as Texags leans heavily right. To assert otherwise is fortifying your stupidity. 

So you see a meaningful trend there, Corky?

[seven 1,368]

10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Trumpkins and "intelligent" have not one single thing to do with another. 

 

You're a trumpkin dude.   Maybe you're not in the line of dudes fucking the drugged, drunk chick at the frat house, but you're the lookout, and that makes you a rapist too. 

This is actually a very good analogy. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

So your argument is that this board is to the left of texags? That’s a good one chief. 

That doesn't say much. Texags may as well be a klan board. 

[Fozzz 152]

Some Stormfront posters would probably feel uncomfortable perusing the texags politics board.

[Biff Tannen 45,786]

Ruh roh.  Must be an upset ag lurking on here.  JILL.

[lemonlime 5,503]

10 hours ago, F250 said:

The way I see it, a Trumpkin is a member of the populist wing in the Republican Party that enthusiastically supports Trump. Their political agenda differs from the standard Republican conservatives as it's driven by emotions and not reasoned ideology.

 

 

 

This.  But the "not a Trumpkins" are worse.  They know better, but cater to the bigots, give legitimacy to the Trumpkins ignoring reality (eg. leaking the names of people cooperating with the FBI) instead of leaving the kool aid drinkers as a fringe cult, and are more concerned about their own power than the good of the country or the well being of their constituents.  

[jimmyjazz 46,526]

Apparently "Jack" doesn't like me.

[Brisketexan 105,701]

The question seeks to draw some line between true believers and cowardly, complicit enablers.

In any sane moral calculus, there is no difference.  To a jew heading to the gas chamber, his fate was equally cast by the Nazi overseer marching him to his doom as it was by the local building contractor who laid the railroad spur to deliver him, built the structure for the "showers," and then looked the other way when the Nazis started to do their dirty work.

Choosing to enable or support a deranged shitbag narcissist because hey, I get something out of it: I get to keep my cushy seat in Congress, I get a few judges I like, I get some sweet payments on my construction contract....well, that's a shitty and inexcusable choice.

It doesn't much matter if you're the one pulling the trigger, or if you're just happily handing magazines to the deranged gunman -- in either role, you're making sure we get our asses shot.  Oh, and just saw this -- also a solid description:

Quote

You're a trumpkin dude.   Maybe you're not in the line of dudes fucking the drugged, drunk chick at the frat house, but you're the lookout, and that makes you a rapist too. 

Sure, there are differences between true believers and enablers, but to the rest of the world, those differences don't make a shit.  Both of those groups have to exist in order to inflict the shitbaggery that is Trump on the world, and both are doing so willingly.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Brian Fantana 6,727]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Apparently "Jack" doesn't like me.

I'm getting hit by Jack and Jill 😂

['stache 21,928]

If you think CNN is “fake news,” you might be a trumpkin.

['stache 21,928]

If you think Robert Jefrees is a man of god, you might be a trumpkin.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Trumpkins and "intelligent" have not one single thing to do with another. 

 

You're a trumpkin dude.   Maybe you're not in the line of dudes fucking the drugged, drunk chick at the frat house, but you're the lookout, and that makes you a rapist too. 

So profound. God I admire you. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Someone who shows up at a mass shooting open carrying waiving a flag saying MAGA to the nearest camera. 

['stache 21,928]

If you called Bill Clinton morally unfit to lead and the Stormy Daniels affair a private matter, you might be a trumpkin.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A Trumpkin is someone that thanks Russia for helping Trump defeat evil Hillary.

 

 First of all Russia didn't have anything of consequence to do with her defeat. Second of all she had everything to do with her defeat.  Trump was the beneficiary of Hillary Clinton as an opponent.  That she couldn't capitalize on having him as an opponent only backs up the fact that she was the reason for her defeat.

That many of a certain stripe on the left can't accept this most basic of facts is sad, and just illustrates how out of step they are with a very large segment of America right now. That doesn't discount the fact the GOP is out of step as well.

Trump was a phenomenom that featured a perfect H.S. Thompsonian cast of players and timing.  

 

[Gil Bang 26,121]

I can't fucking believe that you believe that.

 

[Fozzz 152]

Onboard is right.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

8 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I can't fucking believe that you believe that.

 

I'm sorry what did a post that's not correct ?  

[jimmyjazz 46,526]

Onboard has no justification for his assertion that Russia had no influence on the election.  For starters, that implies that their part in the anti-Hillary social media blitz was nil, and that's not true.

It's pretty fucking silly to look at a candidate who won the popular election by over 3M votes and suggest that "nothing" could explain the electoral college results but her own inadequacies as a candidate.  That just doesn't pass the smell test.

Edited May 18, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[Fozzz 152]

His was point was that Russia didn't have anything of "consequence" to do with her defeat, which seems to be a fair point.  Even without their interference, Hillary most likely loses.  The Comey thing right before the election was a lot more salient.

[jimmyjazz 46,526]

It's not a fair point.  It's an unknown effect.  It would take very little voter manipulation, suppression, or even discouragement to swing the electoral states that made the difference.

It's a stupid point and it's likely wrong.

[Fozzz 152]

So your point is that since he can't prove Russian interference didn't cost Hillary the election, he's wrong?  I would think the burden of persuasion would rest on the side claiming it did have a meaningful effect on the result of the election.  Sure, it's possible it  had a meaningful effect, but so could a number of unfalsifiable things no one would seriously suggest.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

14 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think that's the first post of yours I've ever seen that showed an understanding of a post and drew the correct conclusion.  

Actually upon reflection I rate it as one of my dumbest posts ever. Which is why I suppose it’s not a surprise you appreciate it so much. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

33 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

His was point was that Russia didn't have anything of "consequence" to do with her defeat, which seems to be a fair point.  Even without their interference, Hillary most likely loses.  The Comey thing right before the election was a lot more salient.

This ^^^^ Russia did try to play some games, and it amounted to nothing. Hillary lost because Hillary.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

19 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

So your point is that since he can't prove Russian interference didn't cost Hillary the election, he's wrong?  I would think the burden of persuasion would rest on the side claiming it did have a meaningful effect on the result of the election.  Sure, it's possible it  had a meaningful effect, but so could a number of unfalsifiable things no one would seriously suggest.

Funny they've been trying  to prove the Russians did cost her the action, and darned if they haven't been able to yet.  But I guess cause you hold the opinion they did yours is the only valid argument for why she lost... 

 

She sucked and people were tired of her ass.

[TornACL 7,767]

It's weird how people on both sides keep forgetting that Russia didn't have to actually succeed at anything in order for Trump and all his idiot cronies to be guilty of very serious crimes.

[High Plains Drifter 11,085]

17 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you do a good job with the definition I can ask five different people to use your definition to classify someone (e.g. Lindsey Graham, my Congressman) and they'll all give me the same answer.  If you give a poor definition it will be like a Leftist political word ( e.g. any -ist) which means whatever you want it to mean.

You mean -ist words Leftists use like "globalist" or "socialist" or "Islamist"? Those kind of left words?

 

16 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Every insult instead of a coherent counter-argument makes me cackle.  It's a demonstration of their inability to argue their case.  sometime it's because they don't have the case; sometimes it's because they're too pissed to make the case; sometimes it's posters who just aren't too bright.  And I'm convinced that everybody knows.  They may get cheered, but everybody knows the score.  And I'm chuckling away.

 

 

Sometimes they are just tired of your bullshit rationalizations.

 

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The question seeks to draw some line between true believers and cowardly, complicit enablers.

In any sane moral calculus, there is no difference.  To a jew heading to the gas chamber, his fate was equally cast by the Nazi overseer marching him to his doom as it was by the local building contractor who laid the railroad spur to deliver him, built the structure for the "showers," and then looked the other way when the Nazis started to do their dirty work.

Choosing to enable or support a deranged shitbag narcissist because hey, I get something out of it: I get to keep my cushy seat in Congress, I get a few judges I like, I get some sweet payments on my construction contract....well, that's a shitty and inexcusable choice.

It doesn't much matter if you're the one pulling the trigger, or if you're just happily handing magazines to the deranged gunman -- in either role, you're making sure we get our asses shot.  Oh, and just saw this -- also a solid description:

Sure, there are differences between true believers and enablers, but to the rest of the world, those differences don't make a shit.  Both of those groups have to exist in order to inflict the shitbaggery that is Trump on the world, and both are doing so willingly.

You obviously haven't considered Hillary's e-mails.

[TSipper 176]

19 hours ago, sugar said:

Hillary is was and always will be the better candidate. You hate women. And love crime.

Where is that coming from? Hell, Hillary couldn't even articulate why she wanted to be President other than to be the first woman. Read Shattered, a book written by two Clinton sycophants who were dismayed at how little of message she had.

What were Hillary's credentials?

1) She was First Lady? Who gives a shit. Her husband would rather fuck pretty much anything else than her, so she fails as a wife.

2) She was a NY senator after living there for 6 months? She fucked that up too. She voted for the Patriot Act (twice) and the Iraq War. She can go fuck herself, which the Dems told her in 2008 primary.

3) Hillary has both a "private and public position" on things. 

4) Her handling of classified documents would have gotten other people thrown in jail.

5) She was a Secretary of State? LOL. Whatever your take on Benghazi is, that Hillary couldn't read a map and got an Ambassador killed. They had already attacked the consulate in April, attack the ICRC in May, blew a hole in the consulate wall in June, tried to assassinate the British Ambassador 4 days later and attacked the Tunisian consulate 8 days after that. Holy Hell, Hill-dawg, MAYBE, just MAYBE, you want to withdraw Stevens until things cool down a bit.

https://nypost.com/2016/09/27/hilllarys-time-at-state-really-was/

I get it, you hate Trump. But to act like Hillary Clinton deserved to be President is a fucking joke. Who cares how much experience a person has if they are always failing?

 

[sugar 100]

I love Hillary. She was and still is the most qualified person in America to be president, other than me.

[sugar 100]

The 2016 election was stolen from her. And now she and all women are exacting their revenge. See Stormy Daniels.

Edited May 19, 2018 by sugar