Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

Bozo the kKklown

By Bozo the kKklown
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

China

China

Posted
Posted

The right is getting weirder about sex

 

Close watchers of the MAGA movement have been chronicling the alarming escalation of both violent intimidation and overt white supremacy in recent weeks. Donald Trump, of course, now begs his followers on a nearly daily basis to murder his perceived enemies. But the rhetoric is spiraling, with people like Fox News host Greg Gutfeld openly calling for civil war. Meanwhile, Christopher Rufo — a right hand man for Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla. — recently hosted a forum that pushed establishment Republicans to build a “bridge” to the so-called "dissident right," including some open white nationalists. He may get his wish, as one of the top contenders for Speaker of the House, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., described himself as "David Duke without the baggage." 

 

The radicalism of the right is growing as the GOP careens swiftly towards nominating Trump as their presidential candidate, despite his 91 felony indictments in four jurisdictions. But, as anyone who has studied cults can tell you, they never limit their escalations to violence or hateful ideologies. There's almost always a weird sexual component, as cult leaders come up with ever stranger rules and regulations to control the sexual expression of their followers.

 

The MAGA movement is no different. The cult-like following of Trump always had an unsettling mix of incel-inflected misogyny, coupled with a homophobia that is somehow also homoerotic. But it's been rapidly getting worse in recent months. Even more frightening is how determined they are to inflict their sexual hang-ups on the rest of the country. 

 

Gutfeld, who claims to be a "comedian," has long positioned himself on Fox News as an everyman character. He's meant to make audiences feel that normal people can be Republicans, and not just Bible-hugging weirdoes or camo-clad militia nuts. But, as his civil war rant makes clear, lately he's been channeling a more David Koresh-esque vibe, and invariably that comes with some sexual weirdness. 

 

Last week, Gutfeld hosted a far-right figure named Hotep Jesus, who is known primarily for being an apologist for white supremacists and anti-semites. Hotep Jesus, whose real name is Bryan Sharpe, was on the show to promote a "dating" blog that is, in actuality, propaganda for domestic abuse. As Media Matters chronicled, Sharpe regards it as a form of adultery if women are "allowed" to work or vote. "Imagine guts, sweat, and tears shed only to watch your woman get dolled up only to prance around another man’s office while he gives her marching orders," Sharpe writes, claiming, "Women WANT to give up control of their life," and that they only vote, work, or otherwise make decisions because of "the pressure of modern society."

 

This wasn't a one-off, either. Gutfeld recently joined the chorus of right wing voices defending Russell Brand, after the British "comedian" was accused by multiple women of sexual violence and rape. Gutfeld applauded a teacher who got arrested for having sex with a 16-year-old student. And he claimed men only cry because of "substances in the water that reduce testosterone."

 

Click on the link for more

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmsy

Simmsy

Posted
Posted

I highly recommend this read:

 

What Is Broken in American Politics Is the Republican Party

 

Quote

It’s not easy to shock official Washington, but the sudden defenestration of Kevin McCarthy managed to surprise and unsettle even those who had predicted it since he was elected speaker earlier this year.

 

While McCarthy became the first speaker ever ousted by a motion to vacate, he’s the latest in a long line of GOP leaders to do battle with conservative rebels and be felled in one way or another. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and now McCarthy — those are the recent ones, but the pattern goes back to Newt Gingrich. Why does this keep happening?

 

We asked some of the smartest thinkers and observers of politics and Capitol Hill to weigh in. Something seems broken in American politics — but what is it? Does the dysfunction stem from a sickness in the Republican Party, or is it decay in the institution of Congress? Or is it something else entirely — and is there a way to fix things, so we can return to some semblance of a healthy democracy?

 

Their responses leaned heavily toward blaming a populist, Trumpian, or even nihilistic turn in the GOP, although others took issue with the premise of the question, arguing that stability in politics isn’t always a sign of health or that American politics may not be as fractured as it seems. Few, though, were optimistic about improvement any time soon.

 

Here’s what they had to say:

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Trump Lashes Out At Forbes After Being Dropped From List Of 400 Wealthiest Americans

 

On Monday, former President Donald Trump lambasted Forbes for ousting him from its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, a lineup that boasts names like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett. Trump dismissed the financial publication as having lost relevance long ago, claiming it knew less about him than individuals like Stormy Daniels and Rosie O’Donnell, both of whom have been entangled in past controversies with the ex-president.

 

Venting his frustration on his Truth social media platform, Trump alleged Forbes’ partiality and declared the publication as “China-owned,” tying it to China’s sovereign wealth fund. He even referred to a failed deal involving the fund’s investment in Forbes, attempting to take the magazine public.

 

“China owned (China Investment Corp, the Country’s Sovereign wealth Fund!), and very badly failing, Forbes ‘Magazine,’ which lost most of its relevance long ago, and which knows less about me than Stormy Daniels (who doesn’t know me at all!) or Rosie O’Donnell, took me off their Fake Forbes 400 list, just by a “whisker,” even though they know that I should be high up on that now very dated and discredited ‘antique.’,” Trump ranted.

 

“They are working with the Racist and highly incompetent, job killing Attorney General of New York, Letitia ‘Peekaboo’ James, who has allowed Murder and Violent Crime in the State to hit epidemic levels,” he continued. “China owned Forbes is a participant in the Election Interference Scam, and after what I have done to China, with hundreds of billions of dollars being paid to the USA, who can blame them? For years Forbes has attacked me with really dumb writers assigned to hit me hard, and I am now up 60 Points on the Republicans, and beating Crooked Joe by a lot. So much for Forbes!

 

In a subsequent post he wrote, “This is why Forbes is always after TRUMP – CHINA OWNS THE ‘RAG.’ They should be forced to sell – ALL PROPAGANDA. Now working with crooked New York A.G., Peekaboo James. Did they tell the judge that Mar-a-Lago is only worth 18,000,000? RIGGED TRIAL! ”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

It'll be even a more epic rant when he loses his NY case and is forced to sell some of his properties and then is no longer even a billionaire.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

@Simmsy

Good article, but I think that the nation hasn't exactly identified "What the GOP alliance looks like..." and "What the Democratic alliance looks like.."  I believe it is too simplistic to blame Trump, the hard-right and gerrymandering.  I mention in another thread, I've been doing some deep research -- fortunately in the past 10 years, there has been an explosion in old political hearings available online, old Congressional records online, and just a lot of wealth regarding Congress - I've just been scratching the surface.  

 

What I read about from the 1960s and 1970s is that the parties were identified by regions and somewhat organized and fractured that way.  What I have observed, and it is odd since none of the previous legislators seemed to anticipate it... is that they always assumed that the parties would coalesce around some type of regional faction.  I am not sure if it was Reagan, but certainly is was there in the Clinton years... our parties alliances have hardened around policies.  


The GOP is made up of: the religious right (coalesced around abortion); the gun lobby/pro-second amendment (NRA); the capital class (I would argue this class didn't exist in the 1960s/1970s to the extent they do now); and the burn-it-all-down/anti-government libertarians (I would also argue, they didn't exist).  To be fair, the burn-it-down libertarians can also be confused with the budget/deficit-hawks (again, didn't exist pre 1980).  Looking at how I define them, I'm not even sure any of these factions really existed in the 1960s/1970s.  But, it seems like, for the past 20 years, all these groups are "ride or die with the GOP".   There's also a faction of the GOP that I'll call -- secure the border, enforce immigration laws -- and I'll leave it at that in the most polite, non-controversial way.  

 

Democrats are somewhat made up of a looser, less defined, more progressive coalition.  The Democrats have seemingly won huge victories for their coalitions in terms of minority acceptance into America which was a huge battle in the 1960s/1970s.  Is it completely over?  Of course, there's always more progress to be made.  I would argue, at least since 2016 they still have the traditional minorities/immigrants, combined with the "new minorities" (gender-based / LGBTQ+), the anti-gun folks or at least more gun-control focused (more energetic due to school shootings), the climate change folks, and also the "universal rights" people (ie. the government should improve the basic needs of its citizens).  

 

What I find compelling, is that 50 years ago -- these definitions would be more regional based rather than policy based.  Roe v. Wade was just decided.  I'm not sure the 2A was quite as problematic (and I don't think we had the proliferation of guns); the rise of capitalism and it's extreme practiced form in America is relatively new (and also the political influence -- which I think 50 years ago both parties would be shocked by the money spilled in politics); the GOP is able to point to passionate single voters across a spectrum -- but the conservative, hardline, "stop spending money" guy isn't necessarily fiercly anti-abortion.  

 

While I notionally may agree with 50% of the GOP party platform -- the fact that there are large parts that I passionately disagree with and even the parts I agree with are practiced to such an extreme, it's not a viable option for me to vote for at the moment.  At the same time -- I'm not at all passionately any of the Democratic main constituency, but their respect-for-all way of doing business really is attractive to me and the fact that they aren't so hard over ride-or-die.  They generally seem to be the "let's keep the country afloat" constituency as well. 

 

Also - that Trump was elected with a minority of the popular vote (and Bush was a little bit closer) is also a huge problem that no one is discussing.  Combined with the fact that executive power has been expanded over the past 20 years (thanks Bush!) means that we had a completely "minority administration".  It's ridiculous that the Democrat's did not launch a new attempt for electoral vote reform in the face of Trump.  Embarrassing even.  

 



 

  • Like 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmsy

Simmsy

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@Simmsy

Good article, but I think that the nation hasn't exactly identified "What the GOP alliance looks like..." and "What the Democratic alliance looks like.."  I believe it is too simplistic to blame Trump, the hard-right and gerrymandering.  I mention in another thread, I've been doing some deep research -- fortunately in the past 10 years, there has been an explosion in old political hearings available online, old Congressional records online, and just a lot of wealth regarding Congress - I've just been scratching the surface.  

 

What I read about from the 1960s and 1970s is that the parties were identified by regions and somewhat organized and fractured that way.  What I have observed, and it is odd since none of the previous legislators seemed to anticipate it... is that they always assumed that the parties would coalesce around some type of regional faction.  I am not sure if it was Reagan, but certainly is was there in the Clinton years... our parties alliances have hardened around policies.  


The GOP is made up of: the religious right (coalesced around abortion); the gun lobby/pro-second amendment (NRA); the capital class (I would argue this class didn't exist in the 1960s/1970s to the extent they do now); and the burn-it-all-down/anti-government libertarians (I would also argue, they didn't exist).  To be fair, the burn-it-down libertarians can also be confused with the budget/deficit-hawks (again, didn't exist pre 1980).  Looking at how I define them, I'm not even sure any of these factions really existed in the 1960s/1970s.  But, it seems like, for the past 20 years, all these groups are "ride or die with the GOP".   There's also a faction of the GOP that I'll call -- secure the border, enforce immigration laws -- and I'll leave it at that in the most polite, non-controversial way.  

 

Democrats are somewhat made up of a looser, less defined, more progressive coalition.  The Democrats have seemingly won huge victories for their coalitions in terms of minority acceptance into America which was a huge battle in the 1960s/1970s.  Is it completely over?  Of course, there's always more progress to be made.  I would argue, at least since 2016 they still have the traditional minorities/immigrants, combined with the "new minorities" (gender-based / LGBTQ+), the anti-gun folks or at least more gun-control focused (more energetic due to school shootings), the climate change folks, and also the "universal rights" people (ie. the government should improve the basic needs of its citizens).  

 

What I find compelling, is that 50 years ago -- these definitions would be more regional based rather than policy based.  Roe v. Wade was just decided.  I'm not sure the 2A was quite as problematic (and I don't think we had the proliferation of guns); the rise of capitalism and it's extreme practiced form in America is relatively new (and also the political influence -- which I think 50 years ago both parties would be shocked by the money spilled in politics); the GOP is able to point to passionate single voters across a spectrum -- but the conservative, hardline, "stop spending money" guy isn't necessarily fiercly anti-abortion.  

 

While I notionally may agree with 50% of the GOP party platform -- the fact that there are large parts that I passionately disagree with and even the parts I agree with are practiced to such an extreme, it's not a viable option for me to vote for at the moment.  At the same time -- I'm not at all passionately any of the Democratic main constituency, but their respect-for-all way of doing business really is attractive to me and the fact that they aren't so hard over ride-or-die.  They generally seem to be the "let's keep the country afloat" constituency as well. 

 

Also - that Trump was elected with a minority of the popular vote (and Bush was a little bit closer) is also a huge problem that no one is discussing.  Combined with the fact that executive power has been expanded over the past 20 years (thanks Bush!) means that we had a completely "minority administration".  It's ridiculous that the Democrat's did not launch a new attempt for electoral vote reform in the face of Trump.  Embarrassing even.  

 



 

 

Honestly, I have no idea what and why is going on with the GOP. Everytime I think I have it figured out, they seem to take a 180, good to see that even the professionals in politics/DC also haven't pinpointed the reason for all the insanity either. 

 

P.S. I had an entire page I was going to write, but I had to go mid typing and I've lost my train of thought now that I'm back hours later. Trust me, it would've been worth it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...