|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. When have I demanded people criticise people in the exact way I want?
Vance called Trump that in what, 2016? What year are we in now?
Conservatives did criticise Trump then, before he actually came to fully dominate proceedings. Now it’s like ‘hello Mr Trump my wife is quite attractive could you rail her while I watch?’
I actually used to consume a lot of conservative media to better inform meself, hear what conservatives themselves argued and thought, rather than creating strawmen, as well as get alternative views to mine. For quite some period.
Initially I found this quite a worthwhile and interesting endeavour, over time the gradual dropping of criticism and indulging in mental gymnastics to protect the Dear Leader became more and more prominent to the degree I found it a waste of time.
It should be easy, people can’t, or won’t do it.
As I’ve said innumerable times, even ‘I agree with most of his platform and support his agenda but OK I don’t like this’ is still criticism. As I’ve said innumerable times, I don’t expect someone to stop supporting him, or ceasing being a conservative.
If one can’t do that, on basically any topic, without going ‘oh but the left did…’ you’re in a cult.
|
On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary.
On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is. The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team. Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment?
|
On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary.
Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news.
Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat.
|
LibHorizons: 14 Democrats is wayyyy too few to sign on to a letter calling for Mahmoud Khalil to be released. Pretty disappointing that AOC wasn't one of them.
Fourteen House Democrats dispatched an emphatic letter Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, demanding the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who has been arrested and detained based on accusations stemming from his campus advocacy for Palestinian rights. A legal resident of the United States who holds a green card and is married to a US citizen, Khalil was arrested Saturday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and detained in Louisiana, as a part of a crackdown on dissent being cheered on by President Trump. That represents a grave threat to the right of anyone to dissent in the United States, say the House members. “We are horrified by the recent illegal abduction and now indefinite detention of Mahmoud Khalil —a U.S. legal permanent resident—by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, and we unequivocally demand his immediate release from DHS custody,” explained their letter, which recounted details of Khalil’s arrest and declared, “Based on these facts, Khalil’s constitutional rights have been violated.” www.thenation.com
|
Oblade those are arguably the most bad faith arguments i can remember you making. You are implying that Republican past criticisms of Trump make them less of bootlickers now. Its actually the opposite. It shows how much of a bootlicker they are now that they would work with someone they called Hitler.
Wtf
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
No flavour of Fascism is identical, hyper-nationalism will always be coloured by the particulars of the nation that spawned it. Just look at the ‘big 3’ in World War Two and how much they diverged, although around a similar skeleton.
The US is an ethnic melting pot, has been forever. Imperfect perhaps, but it’s a big component of the national myth.
Whatever the US flavour of Fascism looks like, it’s not going to resemble Nazi Germany’s in all that many ways.
If I were to hazard a guess, it will be ‘doesn’t matter what colour you are, so long as you hate left wing politics. Along with hyper-nationalism’. It’ll look something like that, broad brushing.
Jews and black folks being A-OK isn’t really counter to that prospect, an American Fascism couldn’t really get off the ground if it weren’t rooted in its own ostensible values, and just numerically based on demographics.
For the record I don’t think the US is a Fascist nation quite yet, just to make that clear. But, it’s moved in my personal scale as ‘possible, but improbable’ to a hell of a lot more likely.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On March 13 2025 00:47 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: 14 Democrats is wayyyy too few to sign on to a letter calling for Mahmoud Khalil to be released. Pretty disappointing that AOC wasn't one of them. Show nested quote +Fourteen House Democrats dispatched an emphatic letter Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, demanding the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who has been arrested and detained based on accusations stemming from his campus advocacy for Palestinian rights. A legal resident of the United States who holds a green card and is married to a US citizen, Khalil was arrested Saturday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and detained in Louisiana, as a part of a crackdown on dissent being cheered on by President Trump. That represents a grave threat to the right of anyone to dissent in the United States, say the House members. “We are horrified by the recent illegal abduction and now indefinite detention of Mahmoud Khalil —a U.S. legal permanent resident—by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, and we unequivocally demand his immediate release from DHS custody,” explained their letter, which recounted details of Khalil’s arrest and declared, “Based on these facts, Khalil’s constitutional rights have been violated.” www.thenation.com AOC did speak about it at least.
I agree that the low number of signatories is disappointing for sure.
On the flip side, I mean does it matter how many sign on to a letter to a Trump appointee? Are they going to listen or do anything? Perhaps going to the court of public opinion is the better option, although IMO doing both is preferable.
|
On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary. Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news. Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat. What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews?
On March 13 2025 00:57 Sadist wrote: Oblade those are arguably the most bad faith arguments i can remember you making. You are implying that Republican past criticisms of Trump make them less of bootlickers now. Its actually the opposite. It shows how much of a bootlicker they are now that they would work with someone they called Hitler.
Wtf
Anyone want to flip a coin? Heads I win, tails you lose.
|
United States42490 Posts
On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is. The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team. Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment? Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa.
If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition.
|
On March 13 2025 01:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary. Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news. Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat. What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews?
The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic:
"Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world. The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation." https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity
"The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4] The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11] The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews" You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance.
|
United States42490 Posts
Your argument is that it is so extremely obvious and self evident that nobody would ever support someone they identify as being like Hitler that we need not consider any further evidence. Vance called Trump Hitler, ergo Vance opposes Trump.
This requires us to ignore the observable reality that Vance campaigned for Trump, supported Trump, ran as Trump's running mate, and is now working closely with Trump to fulfil Trump's agenda.
|
On March 13 2025 01:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is. The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team. Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment? Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa. If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition. Nope, I am saying that he criticized him in the past. You need to just look up the videos of him criticizing Trump as apparently you haven't seen them. It was not a simple appellation, and it was not laudatory.
The rest of that is you going your own way. It was quite a simple counterexample to the postulation that Republicans never criticize Blumpf! The criticism doesn't then undo or reverse itself just because someone criticizes Trump and then continues their existence, instead of instantly resigning and donating their net worth to the DNC and endorsing Democrats for everything. This is also true of Rubio's criticisms, of Graham's, of Kennedy's (figure out which), and so on. This is how time works and is obvious in any other field. For example, if you get a papercut, and your finger heals, it doesn't mean you never got a papercut, and it doesn't mean the papercut was actually a special healing spell the whole time.
On March 13 2025 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 13 2025 01:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary. Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news. Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat. What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews? The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic: "Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world. The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation." https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity "The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4] The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11] The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews" You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance. You failed to answer a basic question again, appear to think being blonde is more Nazi than genociding millions of people, and haven't kept up with the last few months of news to realize Vance already thought Vance was wrong.
|
On March 13 2025 01:05 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:47 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: 14 Democrats is wayyyy too few to sign on to a letter calling for Mahmoud Khalil to be released. Pretty disappointing that AOC wasn't one of them. Fourteen House Democrats dispatched an emphatic letter Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, demanding the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who has been arrested and detained based on accusations stemming from his campus advocacy for Palestinian rights. A legal resident of the United States who holds a green card and is married to a US citizen, Khalil was arrested Saturday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and detained in Louisiana, as a part of a crackdown on dissent being cheered on by President Trump. That represents a grave threat to the right of anyone to dissent in the United States, say the House members. “We are horrified by the recent illegal abduction and now indefinite detention of Mahmoud Khalil —a U.S. legal permanent resident—by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, and we unequivocally demand his immediate release from DHS custody,” explained their letter, which recounted details of Khalil’s arrest and declared, “Based on these facts, Khalil’s constitutional rights have been violated.” www.thenation.com AOC did speak about it at least. I agree that the low number of signatories is disappointing for sure. On the flip side, I mean does it matter how many sign on to a letter to a Trump appointee? Are they going to listen or do anything? Perhaps going to the court of public opinion is the better option, although IMO doing both is preferable. LibHorizons: Pretty much the last thing Democrats will have to slow/stop Trump/Musk is not voting for the Republican CR Friday.
Senate Democrats are considering their next move after the House narrowly passed a stopgap measure to keep the government funded through September, with a fast-approaching Friday deadline to avert a possible government shutdown.
House Republicans approved the six-month funding measure with the support of just one Democrat on Tuesday. The bill, known as a continuing resolution, increases defense spending and funding for veterans' health care, while decreasing non-defense spending below 2024 levels. It also includes more funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
With the House passage, the measure now heads to the Senate, where Republicans, with a 53-seat majority, need support from Democrats to reach a 60-vote threshold to propel the measure to passage. ...
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has also pledged to oppose the measure, making support from at least eight Democrats necessary to pass the measure and send it to the president's desk. www.cbsnews.com
|
On March 13 2025 01:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:15 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is. The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team. Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment? Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa. If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition. Nope, I am saying that he criticize d him in the past. You need to just look up the videos of him criticizing Trump as apparently you haven't seen them. It was not a simple appellation, and it was not laudatory. The rest of that is you going your own way. It was quite a simple counterexample to the postulation that Republicans never criticize Blumpf! The criticism doesn't then undo or reverse itself just because someone criticizes Trump and then continues their existence, instead of instantly resigning and donating their net worth to the DNC and endorsing Democrats for everything. This is also true of Rubio's criticisms, of Graham's, of Kennedy's (figure out which), and so on. This is how time works and is obvious in any other field. For example, if you get a papercut, and your finger heals, it doesn't mean you never got a papercut, and it doesn't mean the papercut was actually a special healing spell the whole time. Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 13 2025 01:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary. Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news. Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat. What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews? The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic: "Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world. The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation." https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity "The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4] The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11] The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews" You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance. You failed to answer a basic question again, appear to think being blonde is more Nazi than genociding millions of people, and haven't kept up with the last few months of news to realize Vance already thought Vance was wrong.
Oh no. No, no, no. lmao.
Vance called Trump "America's Hitler" back in 2016. You assert that Vance no longer believes that, but has Vance ever explained why he used to believe that? Why did Vance think Trump was analogous to Hitler, back in 2016?
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On March 13 2025 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:05 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 00:47 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: 14 Democrats is wayyyy too few to sign on to a letter calling for Mahmoud Khalil to be released. Pretty disappointing that AOC wasn't one of them. Fourteen House Democrats dispatched an emphatic letter Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, demanding the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who has been arrested and detained based on accusations stemming from his campus advocacy for Palestinian rights. A legal resident of the United States who holds a green card and is married to a US citizen, Khalil was arrested Saturday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and detained in Louisiana, as a part of a crackdown on dissent being cheered on by President Trump. That represents a grave threat to the right of anyone to dissent in the United States, say the House members. “We are horrified by the recent illegal abduction and now indefinite detention of Mahmoud Khalil —a U.S. legal permanent resident—by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, and we unequivocally demand his immediate release from DHS custody,” explained their letter, which recounted details of Khalil’s arrest and declared, “Based on these facts, Khalil’s constitutional rights have been violated.” www.thenation.com AOC did speak about it at least. I agree that the low number of signatories is disappointing for sure. On the flip side, I mean does it matter how many sign on to a letter to a Trump appointee? Are they going to listen or do anything? Perhaps going to the court of public opinion is the better option, although IMO doing both is preferable. LibHorizons: Pretty much the last thing Democrats will have to slow/stop Trump/Musk is not voting for the Republican CR Friday. Show nested quote + Senate Democrats are considering their next move after the House narrowly passed a stopgap measure to keep the government funded through September, with a fast-approaching Friday deadline to avert a possible government shutdown.
House Republicans approved the six-month funding measure with the support of just one Democrat on Tuesday. The bill, known as a continuing resolution, increases defense spending and funding for veterans' health care, while decreasing non-defense spending below 2024 levels. It also includes more funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
With the House passage, the measure now heads to the Senate, where Republicans, with a 53-seat majority, need support from Democrats to reach a 60-vote threshold to propel the measure to passage. ...
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has also pledged to oppose the measure, making support from at least eight Democrats necessary to pass the measure and send it to the president's desk. www.cbsnews.com I’m intrigued as to why Rand Paul is the outlying GOP dissenter on this. May have to have a wee search. Ok. Did said search he seems to want to cut from x to pay for y, far as I can tell.
https://truthout.org/articles/as-dems-mull-continuing-resolution-sources-say-elon-musk-wants-a-shutdown/
Could be bullshit, it’s a source I’m not super au fait with, and a bunch of anonymous sources. On the other hand, it does feel plausible.
So perhaps pushing in this direction is more tricky than it first appears. I’m only really getting up to speed on the specifics and mechanics right now, so I’ve a fair few gaps I’m seeking to fill.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On March 13 2025 01:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:27 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 01:15 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is. The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team. Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment? Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa. If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition. Nope, I am saying that he criticize d him in the past. You need to just look up the videos of him criticizing Trump as apparently you haven't seen them. It was not a simple appellation, and it was not laudatory. The rest of that is you going your own way. It was quite a simple counterexample to the postulation that Republicans never criticize Blumpf! The criticism doesn't then undo or reverse itself just because someone criticizes Trump and then continues their existence, instead of instantly resigning and donating their net worth to the DNC and endorsing Democrats for everything. This is also true of Rubio's criticisms, of Graham's, of Kennedy's (figure out which), and so on. This is how time works and is obvious in any other field. For example, if you get a papercut, and your finger heals, it doesn't mean you never got a papercut, and it doesn't mean the papercut was actually a special healing spell the whole time. On March 13 2025 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 13 2025 01:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary. Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news. Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat. What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews? The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic: "Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world. The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation." https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity "The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4] The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11] The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews" You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance. You failed to answer a basic question again, appear to think being blonde is more Nazi than genociding millions of people, and haven't kept up with the last few months of news to realize Vance already thought Vance was wrong. Oh no. No, no, no. lmao. Vance called Trump "America's Hitler" back in 2016. You assert that Vance no longer believes that, but has Vance ever explained why he used to believe that? Why did Vance think Trump was analogous to Hitler, back in 2016? A sentiment colostomy bag would be less full of shit, why bother?
|
On March 13 2025 01:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:15 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not. I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is. The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team. Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment? Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa. If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition. Nope, I am saying that he criticize d him in the past. You need to just look up the videos of him criticizing Trump as apparently you haven't seen them. It was not a simple appellation, and it was not laudatory. The rest of that is you going your own way. It was quite a simple counterexample to the postulation that Republicans never criticize Blumpf! The criticism doesn't then undo or reverse itself just because someone criticizes Trump and then continues their existence, instead of instantly resigning and donating their net worth to the DNC and endorsing Democrats for everything. This is also true of Rubio's criticisms, of Graham's, of Kennedy's (figure out which), and so on. This is how time works and is obvious in any other field. For example, if you get a papercut, and your finger heals, it doesn't mean you never got a papercut, and it doesn't mean the papercut was actually a special healing spell the whole time. Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 13 2025 01:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data. Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism. People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary. Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news. Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat. What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews? The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic: "Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world. The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation." https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity "The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4] The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11] The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews" You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance. You failed to answer a basic question again, appear to think being blonde is more Nazi than genociding millions of people, and haven't kept up with the last few months of news to realize Vance already thought Vance was wrong.
I am having trouble following the logical argument that you're trying to make here. Are you saying that past criticism of Trump implies present criticism of Trump? Are you saying that the Republican party in general is (or is not?) critical of Trump?
I am just confused about what the point of all of this back and forth is.
|
I think his point is that Republican can criticize Trump, because they did so in 2016 before he became supreme ruler of the known universe. The fact that no one has criticized him since and lived to tell about it is somehow not relevant...
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
I’m sure a young Stalin had people tease him in the schoolyard, so clearly he was a man it was fine and common to criticise.
Perhaps sympathy isn’t the word, maybe there’s an element there. I have some understanding that prominent Republicans can’t really do it or they’ll be shredded.
If anonymous posters on whatever internet forum are basically pathologically incapable of criticising the Dear Leader, it’s a cult.
Fair fucks to those who do, it’s not a non-zero number of people.
|
On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote: The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data.
Vance also had T-Shirts with communist insignia, and sexual realtions with a couch.
So you could say the whole republican party is also now communist and inclusive to open sexualty!
Trump also said that he will never run again, should he lose the 2020 election, so this isn't DJT you are seing but his long lost TWIN BROTHER.
*Ay Caramba, dios mio!* Does Melaminia know?
|
|
|
|