Jump to content

The GQP: Trumpist Death Cult

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Biff Tannen

    1459

  • atomheartbevo

    1395

  • tx 3 putt

    1327

  • Brisketexan

    1193

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

aggie08
aggie08

This is such unbridled horseshit. I live in fucking California, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen a Fuck Trump shirt/flag/bumper sticker/whatever in person. I can't go a day without seeing Let's Go B

Jive Turkey
Jive Turkey

Did not have former Skid Row lead singer Sebastian Bach talking shit to MAGA cult members on my bingo card. But here we are.  

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

Yep. I was a George Will/Ronald Reagan/Al Laffer conservative.  I genuinely thought that if you cut taxes for the upper classes, then they would spend and invest and the economic result of that w

Posted Images

Macanudo

Macanudo 12972

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Lobo said:

I don't think CRT should be taught in K-8.  which works out well 'cause it's fucking not.  However, some white parents should just be happy there teaching anything in school.  I mean at least CRT involves reading and writing.  Which our kids can't do for shit anymore.  The ship sure as shit fucking sailed on STEM skills for most kids.  

I mean 90% of our nation's schools can't be in the Top 10,000 according to a study I've just invented.  There are 100,000 public schools in this country.  What the fuck actually goes on at the vast majority of them all fucking day?  We suck at the humanities, the sciences, and maths.  Shit, why not give CRT a try?  What do you have to lose...that Stanford scholarship burning a whole in your kid's transcript folder?  

Yep, let's just keep teaching Texas kids that the Texas Revolution was just and fair.   About keeping all men, except slaves, free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
landman

landman 559

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Yep, let's just keep teaching Texas kids that the Texas Revolution was just and fair.   About keeping all men, except slaves, free.

The Texas Revolution had very little, if anything, to do with slavery.  It had everything to do with the tyranny of Santa Anna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23477

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

This sorry ass motherfucker.
 

The irony of that situation wont be noticed by a single GQP rube. Cuban police removing people from the street (bad). US Police removing  people from a press conference who ask questions the GQP doesn't want to answer...good. I'm.......dare I say it......incredulous. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, landman said:

The Texas Revolution had very little, if anything, to do with slavery.  It had everything to do with the tyranny of Santa Anna.

 

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

haha what?

it had at least some part of the argument. to deny that is amazing.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

shit, now it's a collectible ala error baseball card. buy them all up and the auction them off!

Pos rep.  

(opening pack of Trump trading cards)..."Well, I'll be dammed.  Billy Ripken is a MAGA Trumper.  FUCK FACE!"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89592

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, landman said:

The Texas Revolution had very little, if anything, to do with slavery.  It had everything to do with the tyranny of Santa Anna.

5 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

haha what?

it had at least some part of the argument. to deny that is amazing.

2 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I really don't know if this is satire or not. No, seriously, I do not know.

It's some great satire is what it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7985

Posted
Posted

Trump supporter enraged by Biden's victory attacked elderly couple with golf club — and now he can't vote again

Quote

A Donald Trump supporter from Minnesota will be barred from voting for five years, after he admitted to attacking an elderly couple with a golf club, and punching the 80-year-old man in the head, because they were waving an anti-Trump sign on a street corner days after the November election. 

Mark A. Ulsaker, 51, of Lino Lakes, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of threats of violence in connection with the attack on Nov. 8, the Star Tribune reports. In addition to losing his right to vote for five years, Ulsaker was sentenced to five years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and barred from possessing firearms. The sentence means Ulsaker won't be able to vote for Trump if he runs again in 2024. 

 

Five days after Biden's victory, Ulsaker reportedly pulled up next to the elderly couple, ages 80 and 78, in his pickup truck before shouting a vulgarity at them, police said. He later walked up from behind the couple and began swinging a golf club at their heads, before punching the man in the head. 

According to a previous report, a witness said the elderly couple's sign read "Trumpers — thank God in greyhound he is gone." 

"The message roughly echoes the lyrics of a Roy Clark country song, 'Thank God and Greyhound You're Gone,' from the viewpoint of a man saying good riddance to his girlfriend," the Star Tribune reported. 

When police went to Ulsaker's home, after receiving his license plate number from a witness, he resisted arrest and took a swing at one of the officers. After the officer drew a taser, Ulsaker calmed down and admitted to being a Trump supporter who was upset about the sign, adding that he also drove his pickup truck toward the elderly woman — but only to scare her.

https://www.rawstory.com/amp/mark-ulsaker-barred-from-voting-2654413195?__twitter_impression=true

 

And now you have another FAAFO story.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

What the hell does that even mean?

i'm not sure what is unclear. 

slavery was at least part of the calculus for the texians to defy mexico. there were some other reasons, yes, but slavery was definitely part of it.

i'm trying to understand why anyone would deny that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15530

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm not sure what is unclear. 

slavery was at least part of the calculus for the texians to defy mexico. there were some other reasons, yes, but slavery was definitely part of it.

i'm trying to understand why anyone would deny that.

I don't understand the scope of what you're saying when you say "the Texians."  Are you talking about the body that declared independence?  Or are you talking about individual people?

As a body politic, Texas did not declare independence because of slavery.  The Convention of 1836 set forth the reasons for declaring independence in the descriptively named Declaration of Independence.  There were a lot of reasons.  Slavery was not one of them.  And don't tell me they were shy about it, because just 25 years later the Texas Legislature was not shy about identifying slavery as the predominant issue for its secession from the United States when it passed its Declaration of the Causes of Secession.

That's not to say that there weren't freebooters who were happy to promote the Revolution so as to establish the legalization of slavery.  There clearly were.  And those voices were certainly successful in getting slavery formalized in the Texas Constitution.

I mean, Travis clearly was a slaveholder who wanted to entrench slavery in the legal structure of Texas.  But Travis didn't declare independence.  

But when you say "the Texians," I think that is misleading.  It's like saying tariffs were the cause of Southern secession in 1861.  Like, I'm sure there were a few merchants in Savannah and Charleston and elsewhere that really cared about tariffs above all other considerations.  But that's not what caused the Civil War.  Not even close.  The representatives of the seceding states told you the causes in the Declarations that they passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17388

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Trump supporter enraged by Biden's victory attacked elderly couple with golf club — and now he can't vote again

https://www.rawstory.com/amp/mark-ulsaker-barred-from-voting-2654413195?__twitter_impression=true

 

And now you have another FAAFO story.

Losing the right to vote to own the libs?


CMU_DtRWoAAWrNe.jpg

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7985

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't understand the scope of what you're saying when you say "the Texians."  Are you talking about the body that declared independence?  Or are you talking about individual people?

As a body politic, Texas did not declare independence because of slavery.  The Convention of 1836 set forth the reasons for declaring independence in the descriptively named Declaration of Independence.  There were a lot of reasons.  Slavery was not one of them.  And don't tell me they were shy about it, because just 25 years later the Texas Legislature was not shy about identifying slavery as the predominant issue for its secession from the United States when it passed its Declaration of the Causes of Secession.

That's not to say that there weren't freebooters who were happy to promote the Revolution so as to establish the legalization of slavery.  There clearly were.  And those voices were certainly successful in getting slavery formalized in the Texas Constitution.

I mean, Travis clearly was a slaveholder who wanted to entrench slavery in the legal structure of Texas.  But Travis didn't declare independence.  

But when you say "the Texians," I think that is misleading.  It's like saying tariffs were the cause of Southern secession in 1861.  Like, I'm sure there were a few merchants in Savannah and Charleston and elsewhere that really cared about tariffs above all other considerations.  But that's not what caused the Civil War.  Not even close.  The representatives of the seceding states told you the causes in the Declarations that they passed.

I think these kinds of thoughts as I walk around Mayfield Park  to go check out Terry Allen’s rusted roadster in the trees there by the water, at Laguna Gloria. Land said to have been Stephen F Austin’s. 
 

I, too, am proud of what you say. But I know how much slavery impacted Austin’s life.

And then there’s the whole tension with Mexico thing, much of it dealing with slavery. That elevates slavery to the discussion, all by itself.

The folks who fought for the independent entity of Texas were a mult-National/racial/ethnic bunch with myriads beliefs. Likely everybody had an opinion on slavery. To argue it’s absence is intentional, and I like to think that so, is to say slavery was an influence. Don’t tell me the pro slavery types weren’t complaining on that score, and weren’t part of Austin’s tragic story.
 

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15530

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I think these kinds of thoughts as I walk around Mayfield Park  to go check out Terry Allen’s rusted roadster in the trees there by the water, at Latina Gloria. Land said to be Stephen F Austin’s. 
 

I, too, am proud of what you say. But I know how much slavery impacted Austin’s life.

And then there’s the whole tension with Mexico thing, much of it dealing with slavery. That elevates slavery to the discussion, all by itself.

The folks who fought for the independent entity of Texas were a mult-National/racial/ethnic bunch with myriads beliefs. Likely everybody had an opinion on slavery. To argue it’s absence is intentional, and I like to think that so, is to say slavery was an influence. Don’t tell me the pro slavery types weren’t complaining on that score, and weren’t part of Austin’s tragic story.
 

There is no question that slavery is an enormous part of the story of the Anglo settlement of Texas.  I agree with you that it is underappreciated how central the institution of slavery was to that settlement.

But the reasons for Texas's Declaration of Independence are a very distinct topic, and one in which slavery doesn't really play a role if you are to believe the Declaration itself.  So in order to argue that it was a motivating factor, you have to conclude that the Convention was being disingenuous when it wrote the Declaration.  And I really see no evidence of that anywhere.  And I think that conclusion is belied by the fact that, less than a generation later, Texas had no shame or embarrassment in declaring to the entire world that slavery was the reason for secession.

And so that's the ambiguity that I referenced when I initially responded to Hayden.  Definitely a bunch of people came to Texas for the express purpose of making an independent slave-holding nation (and many of them hoped to add it one day as a slave state to the United States). I certainly don't mean to deny or diminish that fact.

But that was almost certainly a small minority among the revolutionaries themselves, many of whom originally wanted Mexican statehood and a restoration of the Constitution of 1824.  In that regard, they were closely aligned with the revolutions that broke out against the centralista government in six other Mexican states at the same time.

So let it suffice to say that the issue is complex and nuanced.  I don't think anybody does much to capture the real situation with a pithy one-line post or a gif.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7985

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

There is no question that slavery is an enormous part of the story of the Anglo settlement of Texas.  I agree with you that it is underappreciated how central the institution of slavery was to that settlement.

But the reasons for Texas's Declaration of Independence are a very distinct topic, and one in which slavery doesn't really play a role if you are to believe the Declaration itself.  So in order to argue that it was a motivating factor, you have to conclude that the Convention was being disingenuous when it wrote the Declaration.  And I really see no evidence of that anywhere.  And I think that conclusion is belied by the fact that, less than a generation later, Texas had no shame or embarrassment in declaring to the entire world that slavery was the reason for secession.

And so that's the ambiguity that I referenced when I initially responded to Hayden.  Definitely a bunch of people came to Texas for the express purpose of making an independent slave-holding nation (and many of them hoped to add it one day as a slave state to the United States). I certainly don't mean to deny or diminish that fact.

But that was almost certainly a small minority among the revolutionaries themselves, many of whom originally wanted Mexican statehood and a restoration of the Constitution of 1824.  In that regard, they were closely aligned with the revolutions that broke out against the centralista government in six other Mexican states at the same time.

So let it suffice to say that the issue is complex and nuanced.  I don't think anybody does much to capture the real situation with a pithy one-line post or a gif.

Verdad.

I guess my take is the absence says volumes, much of which is lost when slavery is not a part of the dialogue.

Peace.

Let’s raise a glass to the folks in the Yucatán. We owe them the gratitude.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
Cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wow, forced unionization and the wage thing are like a complete 180 from the truth.

Not trying to threadjack, but when you join a union shop in a non-right to work state, you are forced to join the union, hence, its kind of "forced unionization", or at least being forced to join the union and pay union dues.

While most prevailing wages mirror the union wage, a company certainly could hire more workers if it doesn't have to pay the prevailing wage, or violated prevailing wage laws - hence the wages do curtail at least some employment.

So "complete 180 from the truth" is not only overstating it, it's just economically wrong.

Edited by tantric superman
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd 5810

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Not trying to threadjack, but when you join a union shop in a non-right to work state, you are forced to join the union, hence, its kind of "forced unionization", or at least being forced to join the union and pay union dues.

While most prevailing wages mirror the union wage, a company certainly could hire more workers if it doesn't have to pay the prevailing wage, or violated prevailing wage laws - hence the wages do curtail at least some employment.

So "complete 180 from the truth" is not only overstating it, it's just economically wrong.

So get hired at the wage and benies that the union negotiated but not join?

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

Bateshorn 9922

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't understand the scope of what you're saying when you say "the Texians."  Are you talking about the body that declared independence?  Or are you talking about individual people?

As a body politic, Texas did not declare independence because of slavery.  The Convention of 1836 set forth the reasons for declaring independence in the descriptively named Declaration of Independence.  There were a lot of reasons.  Slavery was not one of them.  And don't tell me they were shy about it, because just 25 years later the Texas Legislature was not shy about identifying slavery as the predominant issue for its secession from the United States when it passed its Declaration of the Causes of Secession.

That's not to say that there weren't freebooters who were happy to promote the Revolution so as to establish the legalization of slavery.  There clearly were.  And those voices were certainly successful in getting slavery formalized in the Texas Constitution.

I mean, Travis clearly was a slaveholder who wanted to entrench slavery in the legal structure of Texas.  But Travis didn't declare independence.  

But when you say "the Texians," I think that is misleading.  It's like saying tariffs were the cause of Southern secession in 1861.  Like, I'm sure there were a few merchants in Savannah and Charleston and elsewhere that really cared about tariffs above all other considerations.  But that's not what caused the Civil War.  Not even close.  The representatives of the seceding states told you the causes in the Declarations that they passed.

Without reading back, I’ve always understood Texians to mean the Anglo settlers as opposed to the Tejano (Spanish) settlers.  As I understand the VERY early days of the revolution, both were United in seeking a larger voice for Texas/Tejas in Mexican state politics, not Independence.  Texas had a brief but real period of being a truly multi-racial society in a time when such a thing was exceedingly rare. Both sides came to view Independence as the only option, but the massive influx of Anglo slaveholding freebooters quickly separated the sides for many reason, not least of which was a desire to expand/reintroduce Slavery into Texas following its abolition in 1829. 
 

Juan Seguin’s eventual flight from Texas is too complex to boil down to simple explanations, but the rapid Anglicizing of the Texas Government and subsequent adoption of southern racial politics was a major component.

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7985

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

So get hired at the wage and benies that the union negotiated but not join?

I hope to see the day when improving unions becomes the goal, not defending their value to society.
 

And, to be clear, the attack on unions is unrelated to any improvements I might mention. Asserting a right to avoid union dues is akin to the right to drive without insurance and absent the ability to produce a Ferrari, when so ordered and in a reasonable time amount of time. Who wouldn’t support that? 

All other arguments smack of SovereignCitizen bs or sour grapes.

Don’t get mad, Vote!

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...