Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
It's one thing to rant anonymously, quite another to do it one the street to an actual live human, knowing full well you could get hurt or at a minimum video taped on the internet forever. Most blowhards are weanies. -
Us Democrats/Liberals do it everyday. I myself have called a Trumpster wearing a MAGA hat in Yankee stadium a FukTART racist, and hoped he died that day from the sausage dog he was eating.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
that FukTART didn’t do shyte, put his middle finger up and moved to another area.
Most like me are the ones you see on TV ... we are not afraid and very proud in singling out fellow FukTARTs like the one on TS.
The Trumpsters are the ones who are afraid to identify themselves and won’t untill they know others are.Comment
-
Or, as is more likely, most are just going to get into a fistfight over politics in the middle of a baseball game. I have a career, and a family, so not out to set the expectation if you disagree with someone you square up with them.
Some people have evolved, some have not....Comment
-
Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
The point is that somewhere between 2006 and 2009, Bill Clinton’s formerly competitive Democratic party aged and then evaporated. It was replaced by a hard-left coastal coalition, a pyramidal party — ethnic-identity groups at the base and wealthy elites on top, all united by a mutual disdain for the half of the population that covers 85 percent of the geography.
What followed were universities, Hollywood, the media, and the wealthy damning supposed “white privilege” (a phrase rarely spoken outside of university ethnic-studies departments prior to 2009), as those who did not have privilege were damned by those who most certainly did.
So the Democrats logically grew hysterical over Trump because they had few choices other than a rescue through a Watergate-like crisis.
Democrats forgot the unprecedented conditions that brought a hard-left icon such as Barack Obama into power in 2009: an orphaned election without a run by an incumbent president or vice president, the largest fundraising in presidential history, unprecedented media bias, the anger over the Iraq War, the panic over the September 2008 Wall Street meltdown, the novelty of the first African-American president, the weakness of the McCain candidacy, and the media demonization of incumbent George Bush.
They also ignored that the Obama agenda after 2010 was relegated to executive orders and treaties abroad that bypassed the Senate, because it had lost public and legislative support. Today progressives revere the rarity of the left-wing presidency of Barack Obama despite its failures and what it did to the Democratic party — and with the full realization that Obama’s electoral formula and his agenda are not inheritable.
Given those realities, Trump Derangement is not a misappropriation of progressive resources. Instead it is logically the chief and only viable message that the current Democratic party has left.
What If Donald Trump Doesn’t Sink the Republican Party?Comment
-
Sounds like you got triggered.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Did you lobby for a safe space?
LOLComment
-
I believe the Internet Tough Guy will go punching the lights out of 40+ million people until he finally wins.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Of the Democratic policies once envisioned under Bill Clinton (opposing illegal immigration, dreams of abortions as rare, balanced budgets, workfare, being tough on crime), few are left. In other words, progressives logically obsess about Trump, because otherwise they would have to defend agendas that most Americans simply do not support.
Do voters really wish to hear that illegal immigration is healthy and that the greater problem lies with us (the paranoid host) rather than the millions who knowingly cross the border illegally?
Would Americans wish to be lectured about transgendered restrooms by those who as late as 2011 opposed gay marriage?
Do voters think that progressive administrators, whiny indebted students, and the end of campus free speech and free assembly are models for higher education and arguments for federal bailouts?
Do voters really wish to hear that illegal immigration is healthy and that the greater problem lies with us (the paranoid host) rather than the millions who knowingly cross the border illegally? (Most Americans believe that there is no such thing as an “undocumented immigrant,” given that most illegal aliens in fact possess ample documentation — albeit false social-security numbers, false IDs, and occasionally false names. “Falsely documented immigrants” is the more intellectually honest rubric.)
Do voters wish to hear from those who doubled the debt in eight years that Trump, after six months, is fiscally reckless? Are they tired of “make America great again” and “our farmers,” “our veterans,” and “our miners,” and prefer instead another “you didn’t build that” sermon or a finger-pointing “now is not the time to profit” scold? Is snarky anti-American sloganeering preferable to honest pro-American mantras?
Perhaps Trumpian triumphalism has embarrassed voters and they yearn for a return to progressive apologetics — they’re nostalgic for another Cairo speech from Obama, or more ceremonial bows to foreign leaders, or more outreach to the Cubans and Iranians?
Do they want to be told that Trump’s efforts on deregulation, jobs, and energy won’t work by those who could not achieve a single year of 3 percent annual GDP growth over eight years?
What otherwise would fill the progressive void, if Democrats were not currently obsessed with Donald Trump?
Advocating more illegal immigration, more entitlements, and fewer voter-identification requirements to continue to alter the demographics of voting? Expanding food-stamp and disability rolls? Higher health-care premiums and deductibles?
Would Democrats run on their opposition to the sudden Trumpian use of words such as “radical Islam,” “jihadism,” and “terrorism”?
Are there too few abortions in America?
Would they trash Trump for suggesting that “all lives matter” or that newcomers to the U.S. should avoid the welfare rolls for five years? Would those be more winning issues than the current obscenity, conspiracy theories, and assassination chic?
Would Democrats instead run on a more resonant foreign policy?Comment
-
Perhaps advocacy of a 2.0 reset with Putin to recalibrate the appeasement of Russia? Or a doubling down on the Iran Deal to allow more “latitude” to the Khomeinist autocracy? Should the downward defense budget descend to 2 percent of GDP? More stringent rules of engagement for our troops on the ground?
Should more identity-politics activists on cable TV wish more often for the death of Representative Scalise, or urge people of color to let such conservative whites bleed in extremis, or certainly not lament the targeted, given that they supposedly got what they deserved?
In general, are we in need of more ethnic, religious, and racial separatism, a greater investment in the progressive salad bowls than the ossified traditional melting pot? Do we need more trilling of our names, more accent marks sprinkled over our nomenclature?
Should Democrats, the party of youth, vigor, hip, cool, hope, and change, simply forget Trump and instead showcase their dynamic leadership and forward-looking activists: a 69-year-old Hillary Clinton, an 84-year-old Dianne Feinstein, a 79-year-old Jerry Brown, a 77-year-old Nancy Pelosi, a 75-year-old Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old Joe Biden, a 68-year-old Elizabeth Warren, or a young 66-year-old Chuck Schumer?
Or should a next generation of minorities and women now take over the reins from ossified progressives — such as an obscenity-shouting Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, or Tom Perez? Does Keith Ellison offer the proper agenda and background profile for national progressive exposure? Should more Pajama Boy candidates such as Jon Ossoff be recruited to highlight the big-city, hip, metrosexual core of the Democratic party?
If freed from the Trump obsessions, would progressives make great inroads by renouncing increased oil and gas production through fracking and horizontal drilling, all while they re-up Solyndra-like projects, shut down the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines, and hope, as did former secretary of energy Steven Chu, that energy prices rise so that subsidized wind and solar will be more viable? Would they run on discouraging thousands of new jobs in the petrochemical, aluminum, and fertilizer industries, given that such companies are relocating to the U.S. to capitalize on its cheap energy?Comment
-
-
-
Well, since I was responding to the post that said it's all about the here and now. No, I meant what I said.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
You folks can't keep switching the goalposts.Comment
-
-
Like Trump would have run into Parkland had he been there with a gun....lmao....Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
He would have. Really. But his bone spurs hurt and he was at McDonalds eating dinner anyway.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Can you imagine him in an actual fist fight? I'd pay good money to see that.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment