Jump to content

The GQP: Trumpist Death Cult


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

Michigan woman Lori Levi: We are going to have a civil war.

It makes me wonder the following:  Is she saying that she'd shoot someone because they disagree with her?  Is she, herself, going to fight?  She appears to be in her fifties. She'd last about four seconds.  Who is she going to fight? How will she identify her enemies?    What would happen if Facebook and/or Gab got taken down? Would she be able to take it, emotionally? 

Also she says that Ted Cruz is a real conservative. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

It makes me wonder the following:  Is she saying that she'd shoot someone because they disagree with her?  Is she, herself, going to fight?  She appears to be in her fifties. She'd last about four seconds.  Who is she going to fight? How will she identify her enemies?    What would happen if Facebook and/or Gab got taken down? Would she be able to take it, emotionally? 

The "Civil War II" idiots seem to fall into two camps - those physically incapable of actually fighting anybody, and the cosplayers who are way overcompensating for something.  The thing is, both groups have a lot to lose in an actual shooting match.  A lot.  Their standard and quality of life would drop through the floor, and they know it.

If they truly felt they had nothing to lose, we'd have already seen some serious armed shit, and not the Ammon Bundy bullshit of years past, and not their stupid fucking rallies.

In 1860, 75% of Americans lived in rural areas, and had some means of supporting themselves independently of things going on around them (farming, cattle, gardens, etc.), and the number in the South was over 80%. In 2020, it's 19% of Americans living in rural areas, and even their standards of living are very, very high compared to their ancestors.  The rural in 1860s America could support themselves because they had to - there was no HEB down the street.  The rural in 2010s America need their Walmarts, their tractor dealerships, even their Amazon Prime.

For all of their bluster, these fuckers aren't ready or willing to engage in an actual civil war.  They simply have too much to lose.  And unlike the Civil War, where many of the wealthy actually stood to lose a shitload of property (slaves) and future profits (from slaves) and so they needed to whip up the poors to fight for them because the government could lay hands on their tangible assets, the wealthy these days have all kinds of ways to shield their money from the bogeyman (contrary to how they act).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Paul Gosar: We are already in a Civil War. We just haven't started shooting yet.

https://shero.substack.com/p/congressman-allegedly-declares-civil

Civil wars are pretty damn common in the Western Hemisphere. The fact that we've only had two* in Anglo-America makes us slackers.

Hell, if we were Mexicans we'd be on our 4th or 5th one by now. South of Mexico, I think they just count how many times there's NOT a civil war.

Anyway, Gosar ain't practicing any fire-and-movement drills, he just wants grammaw's social security check.

*The "Revolution" in the Carolinas might have been better called "Grab the gun, here  come the neighbors."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The civil war is the Right’s ongoing strategy to wrest control of the three branches, and thus the military, and then never yield that power. Trump’s abuse of office was never recognized as unConstitutional by SCOTUS, as if the man, and not the office, were the deciding factor in litigating those questions of Executive power.

Once the claim of legal authority is answered in the affirmative, war is won/lost.

 

Edited to add that vocal support for civil war is another way of supporting a new government, not bound by the Constitution.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Explained
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The civil war is the Right’s ongoing strategy to wrest control of the three branches, and thus the military, and then never yield that power. Trump’s abuse of office was never recognized as unConstitutional by SCOTUS, as if the man, and not the office, were the deciding factor in litigating those questions of Executive power.

Once the claim of legal authority is answered in the affirmative, war is won/lost.

 

Edited to add that vocal support for civil war is another way of supporting a new government, not bound by the Constitution.


The changing demographics in Texas aren’t nearly enough. R’s will be able Throw out votes from urban heavily democratic districts on false claims of massive fraud. Tx Supreme Court / the 5th / scotus are ready to rubber stamp this move before it even happens. The public is already being trained that massive fraud is rampant !!!

Edited by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

*The "Revolution" in the Carolinas might have been better called "Grab the gun, here  come the neighbors."

The Regulators' War fascinates me because the sides were exactly the opposite of what you would have expected in the Revolution that came just six years later -- most of the Regulators were Tories, and a large percentage of the Carolina militia who put down the uprising went on to either join the Continentals or, at the very least, joined up with the various guerrilla gangs in the Carolinas. Weird place. I think about that every time I hear my neighbors going at their target practice.

 

Edited by Walden Ponderer
Typo
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early 90s, I was not paying attention to Eastern Europe/Russia as things fell apart - I was concerned with other things.

But it feels like a lot of these Republicans/Trumpers/GQPers are acting like what I imagine people in power in Eastern Europe/Russia who were trying to maintain some semblance of power/control acted.  

The really savvy ones were leading the privatization waves, cashing in on the changing atmosphere, etc., but the dumbasses who couldn't get out of the past were doing everything they could to try and drag everybody backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, it literally is a new version of Superman, namely his son.

Quote

The new Superman, Jonathan Kent — who is the son of Clark Kent and Lois Lane — will soon begin a romantic relationship with a male friend, DC Comics announced Monday.

That same-sex relationship is just one of the ways that Jonathan Kent, who goes by Jon, is proving to be a different Superman than his famous father. Since his new series, Superman: Son of Kal-El, began in July, Jon has combated wildfires caused by climate change, thwarted a high school shooting and protested the deportation of refugees in Metropolis.

Quote

Tom Taylor, who writes the series, said in an interview. He said that a “new Superman had to have new fights — real world problems — that he could stand up to as one of the most powerful people in the world.”

Superman fighting wildfires, thwarting school shootings, protesting deportation of refugees.  Not going to lite, I'm going to enjoy the GQP tears over this though.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And comic book nerds are going to have to switch their argument from whether Superman's sperm would blast a hole through Lois's womb, to whether Superman's sperm will blast a hole through...the anal canal of his bf (unless Supes Thoops prefers to be the receiver).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

If Superman loves someone named Louis then yeah he probably is gay.

This.  There's no-ass, no-tits, girl next door if you grew up next to an accounting firm Lois Lane, and Superman just has to have her.  

Then you got Chesty LaRue's twin sister, with ample-buttocks, Ms. Teschmaker and Superman wants no part of it?  Or any of the other half billion attractive women on the planet near the yellow sun?  Fucking lame!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I TOLD Y'ALL IT WAS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHEN THEY TRIED TO MAKE MISTER POTATOHEAD GAY, BUT, NOOOOO...YOU LIBTARDS WOULDN'T LISTEN!!!  AND NOW SUPERMAN IS GAY!!   I HOPE YOUR HAPPY THAT YOUVE RUINT AMERICA!!!

It started with the frogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

“Hollywood is trying to make Superman gay and he is not.”

To truly understand the stupidity destroying America, study that sentence. The right wing persistently opposes progress in the real, objective world in service of cherished fictional narratives. That is almost a definition of right wing politics today.

I can’t believe I have to explain this, but here we are. Superman is neither gay nor straight. Because he is not real. Every one of Superman’s traits is entirely fictional, concocted solely in the mind of various authors and illustrators of Superman stories over the years. There is no basis in objective reality against which we can test the truth of any statement about Superman. Superman’s character traits are subject entirely to the fickleness of human imagination. If an author wants Superman to be gay, he can be. Because there is no objective, real-world caped superhuman alien-born hero against which we can compare any given’s authors claims about this character’s fictional sexuality.

The right wing, however, operates under the illusion that Superman is somehow an actual person and that, like Greedy Jesus and Patriotic Confederates and That Part of the Constitution That Says That Pence Should Have Anointed Trump Despite The Election Results, he is part of what it means to be a True American. Any attack on this entirely fictional, preposterous character is viewed as an attack on our nation’s cherished values. Never mind things like freedom of the press or the separation of church from state. America was founded on the simple belief that an alien baby from the planet Krypton arrived in a space cradle and grew up to shoot laser beams out of his eyes and bend steel girders and fuck women and only women

*sniff* God Bless the USA.

Next thing you know, Libs'll go after Captain America, and his perfect Anglo makeup.  And they already took Spidey and made him black.  Wait, are comics now our nations history books? Is it the US of Stan Lee?  Guess I better get to re-reading X-Men Apocalypse to see what happens to our good nation.   

And nothing wrong with Superman and all the other non queer dudes always wearing tights as part of their superhero unis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I TOLD Y'ALL IT WAS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHEN THEY TRIED TO MAKE MISTER POTATOHEAD GAY, BUT, NOOOOO...YOU LIBTARDS WOULDN'T LISTEN!!!  AND NOW SUPERMAN IS GAY!!   I HOPE YOUR HAPPY THAT YOUVE RUINT AMERICA!!!

They won't tolerate a gay Superman.  But an incestuous one in love with his mom - that's okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, that's her ass...right?  That's not like daddy/daughter dance at the wedding where it's still a little weird 'cause she's in white and 30YO...but at least his hands are way up on the top of her hips, or preferably one on her mid-back and one holding her hand out wide...and it's at least set to music for shit's sakes?  This is just an on-stage greeting with no music, and that's lower-hip into upper-thigh region (which I love, btw) for the palm.  The fingertips are working roughly "mid ass-cheek."  

I don't know what I expected from a man who loves both biblical testaments the exact same amount. 

I mean if his fingers were normal man size, he'd practically be pulling an Urban Meyer on her ass.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...