Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SameSame

SameSame 1752

Posted
Posted

They will scramble and set the crowd exactly the way they want it for the optics.  It by no means will reflect the feelings of the people of El Paso, but they'll do it and then go back to West Virginia or wherever to their base and spew the same bullshit while saying 'Hey I went there and tried to talk to those Mexicans'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

Js1

Js1 87189

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

George can fuck all the way off with his pretend-opposition. So long as he remains quite literally married to this administration, none of his tweets mean anything.

This man ain't shit.

If he was actually serious, there would be a very public divorce because his wife is a she-beast who apologizes for this administration's heinous actions and spends more time being "hopping mad" over media coverage of the shootings than the fact that 31 people died from 2 mass shootings over the weekend.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ruitxn

ruitxn 299

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Question about Il Douche's El Paso visit.  Will he be giving a speech?  If so, who would be allowed at it?  Is this going to be a rally?  

So many questions, just b/c you never know what kind of fucked up shit the Cunt in Chief will pull. 

Just wondering if he is also planning to visit Toledo.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Russia is in even more trouble than the United States is. 

They don't really give a shit though.  They'll happily take us all down together.  That's why its damn near impossible to beat them.  27 million of them died beating the Germans in WW2.  You can't beat someone who can take losses like that and still keep fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18144

Posted
Posted

This:

Quote

The Nihilist in Chief

Quote

But the dilemma that conservatives have to confront is that you can chase this cultural problem all the way down to its source in lonely egomania and alienated narcissism, and you’ll still find Donald Trump’s face staring back to you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/opinion/trump-el-paso-dayton-shootings.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR255aWjtNDucox5_hW66Nv7_MSVpSYe5sOHVpvnjXnzusN1ivk0UC45Oj8

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted (edited)

^ Yep.

Quote

What links Donald Trump to the men who massacred innocents in El Paso and Dayton this past weekend? Note that I said both men: the one with the white-nationalist manifesto and the one with some kind of atheist-socialist politics; the one whose ranting about a “Hispanic invasion” echoed Trump’s own rhetoric and the one who was anti-Trump and also apparently the lead singer in a “pornogrind” band.

Bringing up their differing worldviews can be a way for Trump-supporting or anti-anti-Trump conservatives to diminish or dismiss the president’s connection to these shootings. That’s not what I’m doing. I think Trump is deeply connected to what happened last weekend, deeply connected to both massacres. Not because his immigration rhetoric drove the El Paso shooter to mass murder in some direct and simple way; life and radicalism and violence are all more complicated than that. But because Trump participates in the general cultural miasma that generates mass shooters, and having a participant as president makes the problem worse.

The president’s bigoted rhetoric is obviously part of this. Marianne Williamson put it best, in the last Democratic debate: There really is a dark psychic force generated by Trump’s political approach, which from its birther beginnings has consistently encouraged and fed on a fevered and paranoid form of right-wing politics, and dissolved quarantines around toxic and dehumanizing ideas. And the possibility that Trump’s zest for demonization can feed a demonic element in the wider culture is something the many religious people who voted for the president should be especially willing to consider.

But the connection between the president and the young men with guns extends beyond Trump’s race-baiting to encompass a more essential feature of his public self — which is not the rhetoric or ideology that he deploys, but the obvious moral vacuum, the profound spiritual black hole, that lies beneath his persona and career.

Here I would dissent, mildly, from the desire to tell a mostly ideological story in the aftermath of El Paso, and declare war on “white nationalism” — a war the left wants because it has decided that all conservatism can be reduced to white supremacy, and the right wants as a way of rebutting and rejecting that reductionism.

By all means disable 8Chan and give the F.B.I. new marching orders; by all means condemn racism more vigorously than this compromised president can do. But recognize we’re dealing with a pattern of mass shootings, encompassing both the weekend’s horrors, where the personal commonalities between the shooters are clearly more important than the political ones. Which suggests that the white nationalism of internet failsons is like the allegiance to an imaginary caliphate that motivated the terrorists whose depredations helped get Trump elected in the first place. It’s often just a carapace, a flag of convenience, a performance for the vast TV-and-online audience that now attends these grisly spectacles, with a malignant narcissism and nihilism underneath.

And this is what really links Trump to all these empty male killers, white nationalists and pornogrind singers alike. Like them he is a creature of our late-modern anti-culture, our internet-accelerated dissolution of normal human bonds. Like them he plainly believes in nothing but his ego, his vanity, his sense of spite and grievance, and the self he sees reflected in the mirror of television, mass media, online.

Because he is rich and famous and powerful, he can get that attention with a tweet about his enemies, and then experience the rush of a cable-news segment about him. He doesn’t need to plot some great crime to lead the news; he just has to run for president. But having him as president — having him as a political exemplar for his party, and a cultural exemplar of manhood for his supporters and opponents both — is a constant ratification of the idea that we exist as celebrities or influencers or we don’t exist at all, and that our common life is essentially a form of reality television where it doesn’t matter if you’re the heel or hero so long as you’re the star.

One recurring question taken up in this column is whether something good might come out of the Trump era. I keep returning to this issue because unlike many conservatives who opposed him in 2016, I actually agree with, or am sympathetic toward, versions of ideas that Trump has championed — the idea of a more populist and worker-friendly conservative economics, the idea of a foreign policy with a more realpolitik and anti-interventionist spirit, the idea that decelerating low-skilled immigration would benefit the common good, the idea that our meritocratic, faux-cosmopolitan elite has badly misgoverned the republic.

But to take this view, and to reject the liberal claim that any adaptation to populism only does the devil’s work, imposes a special obligation to recognize the profound emptiness at the heart of Trump himself. It’s not as if you could carve away his race-baiting and discover a healthier populism instead, or analyze him the way you might analyze his more complex antecedents, a Richard Nixon or a Ross Perot. To analyze Trump is to discover only bottomless appetite and need, and to carve at him is like carving at an online troll: The only thing to discover is the void.

So in trying to construct a new conservatism on the ideological outline of Trumpism, you have to be aware that you’re building around a sinkhole and that your building might fall in.

The same goes for any conservative response to the specific riddle of mass shootings. Cultural conservatives get a lot of grief when they respond to these massacres by citing moral and spiritual issues, rather than leaping straight to gun policy (or in this case, racist ideology). But to look at the trend in these massacres, the spikes of narcissistic acting-out in a time of generally-declining violence, the shared bravado and nihilism driving shooters of many different ideological persuasions, is to necessarily encounter a moral and spiritual problem, not just a technocratic one.

But the dilemma that conservatives have to confront is that you can chase this cultural problem all the way down to its source in lonely egomania and alienated narcissism, and you’ll still find Donald Trump’s face staring back to you.

 

Edited by retread
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21345

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lobo said:

That's pretty crazy, a President is going to visit a site of a mass murder/war-torn area/natural disaster affected area and there won't be any body there willing to meet with him.  

Mark this down kids, that's the first time it's ever happened in the history of the United States, or at least in my lifetime.  I bet they can find someone who was in the store who voted for him, it's a Wal-Mart in Texas.  But nobody that got shot will agree to meet with him, unless they can find somebody that has no idea why this kid did this to them.  Somebody who they can see from hospital records hasn't had any visitors yet, hasn't spoken with the media yet, and has only had contact with a couple of nurses who've kept their mouth shut about politics.  That's the Trump's team's only hope.  Even people that didn't like Obama or Bush or going back 100 years, they still posed for photos and smiled and listened intently.    But Trump won't even get that, nor does he deserve to.  Obviously they're looking into people's backgrounds right now and finding somebody who was injured and they can offer them something ahead of time so they'll agree to pose with Trump.  

Sadly, we all know what the announcement will be when the Press (HOPEFULLY) asks him about his trip and what the injured victims or families of the dead may have said to him during his meetings with them.  And he'll either explain that the Press wasn't invited to see the President meet with the injured and the families of the dead because he wanted to protect their privacy during this difficult time.  Or because he's such a big man, he didn't want to impose on the folks in the hospital so he chose to leave them alone to rest and recover even though many reached out to him to thank him for his leadership during this difficult time.  One of these two scenarios is what's actually going to happen, sadly.  

Then again, maybe we're all wrong.  Maybe somebody still in critical condition with the bullet still lodged in them may opt to meet with the President because many therapists and crisis counselors agree, they can be cathartic healing in confronting your assailant.  

Be Best.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30339

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, retread said:

^ Yep.

Quote

One recurring question taken up in this column is whether something good might come out of the Trump era. I keep returning to this issue because unlike many conservatives who opposed him in 2016, I actually agree with, or am sympathetic toward, versions of ideas that Trump has championed — the idea of a more populist and worker-friendly conservative economics, the idea of a foreign policy with a more realpolitik and anti-interventionist spirit, the idea that decelerating low-skilled immigration would benefit the common good, the idea that our meritocratic, faux-cosmopolitan elite has badly misgoverned the republic.

But to take this view, and to reject the liberal claim that any adaptation to populism only does the devil’s work, imposes a special obligation to recognize the profound emptiness at the heart of Trump himself. It’s not as if you could carve away his race-baiting and discover a healthier populism instead, or analyze him the way you might analyze his more complex antecedents, a Richard Nixon or a Ross Perot. To analyze Trump is to discover only bottomless appetite and need, and to carve at him is like carving at an online troll: The only thing to discover is the void.

 

I think these two paragraphs boil it down pretty well.

I'm can see real value about having these policy debates; we could actually have a very healthy and helpful discussion around them. That's how past politics in this country used to function: identify a problem, debate the topic based on various ideological perspectives, and then come to a compromised agreement on for specific solutions.

But after 30 years of rabid right-wing radio and Fox News -- both preaching vitriol focusing on demonizing the Other (Democrats, progressives/liberals, millennials, immigrants, minorities, etc.) -- the Republican Party specifically chose to support this spectacularly offensive, malevolent, and soulless charlatan as their standard bearer. In doing so, they deliberately rejected pragmatic solutions to society's ills and instead decided to only promote dogmatic hate.

They had 16 other choices for their leader and they chose Trump.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46169

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I think these two paragraphs boil it down pretty well.

I'm can see real value about having these policy debates; we could actually have a very healthy and helpful discussion around them. That's how past politics in this country used to function: identify a problem, debate the topic based on various ideological perspectives, and then come to a compromised agreement on for specific solutions.

But after 30 years of rabid right-wing radio and Fox News -- both preaching vitriol focusing on demonizing the Other (Democrats, progressives/liberals, millennials, immigrants, minorities, etc.) -- the Republican Party specifically chose to support this spectacularly offensive, malevolent, and soulless charlatan as their standard bearer. In doing so, they deliberately rejected pragmatic solutions to society's ills and instead decided to only promote dogmatic hate.

They had 16 other choices for their leader and they chose Trump.

The Republican Party does not debate, or even discuss, in good faith.  One cannot have a functioning government made up of two parties when one party doesn't believe in the system or any of the established rules. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

We don't even seem to have debate in DC anymore. There are no hearings where there's a back and forth discussion. I'm talking about debate on weighty topics such as health care, immigration, gun regulations, etc.

The Senate has basically put up a Gone Fishing sign and refused to consider much of any House legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The Republican Party does not debate, or even discuss, in good faith.  One cannot have a functioning government made up of two parties when one party doesn't believe in the system or any of the established rules. 

Yep.  Lindsay Graham openly flouted Senate rules the other day and nobody did anything about it.   The Republican party is lawless.  Nothing can improve unless enough of them are voted out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10158

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, retread said:

We don't even seem to have debate in DC anymore. There are no hearings where there's a back and forth discussion. I'm talking about debate on weighty topics such as health care, immigration, gun regulations, etc.

The Senate has basically put up a Gone Fishing sign and refused to consider much of any House legislation.

And exactly how is it that one senator can hold up everything and gets to decide what is and isn't voted on?   ONE senator, elected by 1% of the US population ,gets to decide what this legislation this entire country considers or votes on.  That is insane. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

And exactly how is it that one senator can hold up everything and gets to decide what is and isn't voted on?   ONE senator, elected by 1% of the US population ,gets to decide what this legislation this entire country considers or votes on.  That is insane. 

He can only do it with the support of the other Republican Senators, so it's more than one guy.  It's 53.   Two of whom are from Texas, one of whom can be voted out in 2020.   That's how to stop it. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

Setting up the narrative for staying in office after losing I see.

Quote

....are NOT planning to illegally subvert the 2020 Election despite all that has been said to the contrary. It all sounded good until I watched Kevin Cernekee, a Google engineer, say terrible things about what they did in 2016 and that they want to “Make sure that Trump losses...

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

....in 2020.” Lou Dobbs stated that this is a fraud on the American public. @peterschweizer stated with certainty that they suppressed negative stories on Hillary Clinton, and boosted negative stories on Donald Ttump. All very illegal. We are watching Google very closely!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30602

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Imagine being such a insecure pussy that you came out of a private meeting and publicly declared the person you were meeting with tried very hard to explain how much they liked you.

what a little bitch.

Pathetic and revolting.

Working very hard to explain how much they like me and what a great job the administration is doing.

I guess he didn't have room to "quote" his visitor who definitely said, "Mr. President, sir, I wish people could see the great job you're doing. The Fake News is doing a terrible thing. A terrible thing they're doing." Then he breaks into tears despite being a strong, big, tough guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

You can't make this shit up

Quote

Uruguay and Venezuela have discouraged their citizens from traveling to the United States, citing this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio as indicators of danger and a rise in hate crimes.

In recent years, Germany, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand have issued similar warnings about travel to America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/06/gun-violence-america-prompts-growing-list-countries-issue-travel-warnings/?noredirect=on

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28931

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Humor me for a minute.  Even if this preposterous story is true, Google is a private company. Can't they censor anybody they want to for any reason they want to?     

Sounds like a problem we should let the free market decide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26635

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Humor me for a minute.  Even if this preposterous story is true, Google is a private company. Can't they censor anybody they want to for any reason they want to?     

Presidential. Harassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 39074

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Js1 said:

This man ain't shit.

If he was actually serious, there would be a very public divorce because his wife is a she-beast who apologizes for this administration's heinous actions and spends more time being "hopping mad" over media coverage of the shootings than the fact that 31 people died from 2 mass shootings over the weekend.

Agreed.  I'm halfway convinced that his act is a troll designed to get attention for both of them.

Or, at best, he's sincere about his convictions but lacks the courage to leave a grotesquely evil woman who looks like a scarecrow on meth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21477

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Agreed.  I'm halfway convinced that his act is a troll designed to get attention for both of them.

Or, at best, he's sincere about his convictions but lacks the courage to leave a grotesquely evil woman who looks like a scarecrow on meth.

I’m stealing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18144

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Agreed.  I'm halfway convinced that his act is a troll designed to get attention for both of them.

Or, at best, he's sincere about his convictions but lacks the courage to leave a grotesquely evil woman who looks like a scarecrow on meth.

They're both beltway players, playing the game.  Her job is to spin shit, even if it is for an authoritarian douchebag.  He likely truly hates the douchebag, but knows his wife will need another job once this passes.  Of course, she'll say, "I didn't believe any of that drivel.  I was trying to squeeze lemonade from lemon shit."  He still wants to be able to go to the DC parties and not be shunned.  This is how he hedges against that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18447

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Agreed.  I'm halfway convinced that his act is a troll designed to get attention for both of them.

Or, at best, he's sincere about his convictions but lacks the courage to leave a grotesquely evil woman who looks like a scarecrow on meth.

Look at us!  We’re the new James Carville / Mary Matalin!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...