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.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
As I’ve reiterated many times, I don’t expect various flavours of conservatives to criticise Trump according to my sensibilities, merely to theirs.
I give more rope than many on my side of the aisle, but I think that’s a reasonable expectation. For example, I think if one has a genuine religious belief on life beginning at conception, being opposed to abortion is a reasonable position to take assuming the former and not one that’s necessarily motivated by misogyny.
I’m not willing to placate conservative sensibilities on certain positions I hold that they’ll disagree with, nor would it be reasonable for me to demand the inverse.
Conservatives spent years complaining about freedom of speech on college campuses. One would I think reasonably expect a bit more pushback to the attempted erosion of those rights being pushed by this executive.
To take one example. But quite an illustrative one.
I think the DOJ saying there is no client list after teasing about its release is going to do a surprising amount of damage to the MAGA movement. A lot of the people had big expectations for Trump showing this list and exposing all these big powerful people. And the people like Musk keeping it going saying Trump is on the list is going to stick. These people have believed for a long time that if you can't prove something is wrong it is true.
I don't think Musk's party is going to be a real thing, but I could see some of the MAGA network breaking off to form their own one where Trump is also now part of the swamp or whatever.
On July 07 2025 23:46 Magic Powers wrote: I could get addicted to seeing Trump supporters receive karmic justice. This guy ran a whole business with Mexicans and other minorities, then decided to help get Trump elected because his cult demanded it. Got his comeuppance real quick.
Strikes me as the kind of guy who'd own slaves if it were still legal.
That probably describes a lot more of the business owning/upper management communities under capitalism than anyone realizes.
On July 07 2025 15:57 Jankisa wrote: The cognitive dissonance of continuous grievance Introvert seems to be basing his whole political identity seems so exhausting to me, how much energy does it take to be this dishonest and internally inconsistent?
I mean here he goes listing imaginary Romney slights and how that radicalized him enough to support someone who basically spits in the face of his "conservative principles" every day.
The guy, after his first term where he blew a huge hole in the budget just blew another, even bigger one, to the tune of 3,5 Trillion and all this sad soul has to say is how mean everyone was to him, to Romney and to Trump.
0 principles, 0 consistency, just grievance and outrage, he came here to pretend to be outraged about a college form check box but had absolutely nothing to say about a bill that created incredible amounts of spending with absolutely no way for paying for it, so much for his care about spending, he cut off weapons deliveries to Ukraine, another thing that Introvert finds problematic, no word from him, but a brown guy putting the wrong thing in a form, oh boy, here he comes, captain consistency and conservative values.
I vigorously opposed Trump in 2016 and didn't vote for him. I was pleasantly surprised by his first tenure and apalled at what he did when he lost in 2020. *Because* I view Trump as vain and mercurial I view everything good thing he does as a bonus. You are just wrong in your assessment. I have consistently, but because everyone one else here is on the left, there's very little room for common ground in criticism because people are already criticizing him him from the left! I already think he's a bad person and I don't need to begin evey post with a proviso.
Not to pick on Billyboy but the fact that he asked me a question like "in what ways has Trump been a conservative" shows that I haven't been more forward about the stuff he's done that I like! Anyone who claims to be an informed citizen ought to be able to answer that question with at least a few items.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
Are you talking about Danglars here when you say all conservatives were banned? Because he wasn't really interested in having a conversation. If you're talking about the randos that occasionally show up, drop a couple "truth bombs" and leave, I'm going to go ahead and say that I won't miss their interactions.
Regarding the Biden thing, it was less defending that he was fully in charge of his wits and more that we'd vote a corpse over having Trump as president again based on what he was saying on the campaign trail. Which, considering how it's currently panning out, wasn't the wrong approach.
I will admit to being surprised about the support Luigi got in this thread, I was not expecting that.
If Danglars and xDaunt had different politics they'd still be here imo.
People were defending Biden even after his last state of the union, saying the critics were wrong. It was the same thing Democrats commentators were saying. It might have actually doomed him. But they were in a hard spot regardless because Biden was not a selfless leader, he had been chasing this his whole life and resented anyone trying to tell him no once he got there. Just my opinion.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
As I’ve reiterated many times, I don’t expect various flavours of conservatives to criticise Trump according to my sensibilities, merely to theirs.
I give more rope than many on my side of the aisle, but I think that’s a reasonable expectation. For example, I think if one has a genuine religious belief on life beginning at conception, being opposed to abortion is a reasonable position to take assuming the former and not one that’s necessarily motivated by misogyny.
I’m not willing to placate conservative sensibilities on certain positions I hold that they’ll disagree with, nor would it be reasonable for me to demand the inverse.
Conservatives spent years complaining about freedom of speech on college campuses. One would I think reasonably expect a bit more pushback to the attempted erosion of those rights being pushed by this executive.
To take one example. But quite an illustrative one.
Criticizing Trump "according to my sensibilities" here is shouting into the void. I will do so when asked about something in particular, as I did with EnDeR a few months ago re Ukraine, although I also understood the administration's reasoning and tried to present it. But abortion would be a great example. In a thread that is, to a person, pro-choice, in what situation would it ever come up for me to criticize him for maybe being insufficiently pro-life (he's actually been much better than expected over his time in the white house, but it's a good example)?
The view on the right is that free speech already doesn't really exist on campuses. They are monocultures. For conservative students there are advantages but as I've said before, the universities are hypocrites and have lost the benefit of the doubt. If I were the Trump admin I'd focus more on what federal law says and how it can be used to give these places the proper...incentives to restore their role in America. But all the problems identified so far are actually real.
So yes, it's a good example. The left doesn't view their federally funded enclaves as having any problems, while the right sees them as failing. So the charge "where are your supposed principles??!" goes both ways, except on campus it's the left with all the power making all the rules.
And we could do this back and forth on everything. When the left assumes that their control of an institution is the normal state and how things should be it blinds them to the obvious criticism they should see coming and be eager to address.
On July 07 2025 15:57 Jankisa wrote: The cognitive dissonance of continuous grievance Introvert seems to be basing his whole political identity seems so exhausting to me, how much energy does it take to be this dishonest and internally inconsistent?
I mean here he goes listing imaginary Romney slights and how that radicalized him enough to support someone who basically spits in the face of his "conservative principles" every day.
The guy, after his first term where he blew a huge hole in the budget just blew another, even bigger one, to the tune of 3,5 Trillion and all this sad soul has to say is how mean everyone was to him, to Romney and to Trump.
0 principles, 0 consistency, just grievance and outrage, he came here to pretend to be outraged about a college form check box but had absolutely nothing to say about a bill that created incredible amounts of spending with absolutely no way for paying for it, so much for his care about spending, he cut off weapons deliveries to Ukraine, another thing that Introvert finds problematic, no word from him, but a brown guy putting the wrong thing in a form, oh boy, here he comes, captain consistency and conservative values.
I vigorously opposed Trump in 2016 and didn't vote for him. I was pleasantly surprised by his first tenure and apalled at what he did when he lost in 2020. *Because* I view Trump as vain and mercurial I view everything good thing he does as a bonus. You are just wrong in your assessment. I have consistently, but because everyone one else here is on the left, there's very little room for common ground in criticism because people are already criticizing him him from the left! I already think he's a bad person and I don't need to begin evey post with a proviso.
Not to pick on Billyboy but the fact that he asked me a question like "in what ways has Trump been a conservative" shows that I haven't been more forward about the stuff he's done that I like! Anyone who claims to be an informed citizen ought to be able to answer that question with at least a few items.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
Are you talking about Danglars here when you say all conservatives were banned? Because he wasn't really interested in having a conversation. If you're talking about the randos that occasionally show up, drop a couple "truth bombs" and leave, I'm going to go ahead and say that I won't miss their interactions.
Regarding the Biden thing, it was less defending that he was fully in charge of his wits and more that we'd vote a corpse over having Trump as president again based on what he was saying on the campaign trail. Which, considering how it's currently panning out, wasn't the wrong approach.
I will admit to being surprised about the support Luigi got in this thread, I was not expecting that.
If Danglars and xDaunt had different politics they'd still be here imo.
People were defending Biden even after his last state of the union, saying the critics were wrong. It was the same thing Democrats commentators were saying. It might have actually doomed him. But they were in a hard spot regardless because Biden was not a selfless leader, he had been chasing this his whole life and resented anyone trying to tell him no once he got there. Just my opinion.
xDaunt would be, but I mean it was not because of being a conservative. Danglars did not really have politics, just just stirred the pot while acting like a Republican. I think he was just cos playing the "danglars" character.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
As I’ve reiterated many times, I don’t expect various flavours of conservatives to criticise Trump according to my sensibilities, merely to theirs.
I give more rope than many on my side of the aisle, but I think that’s a reasonable expectation. For example, I think if one has a genuine religious belief on life beginning at conception, being opposed to abortion is a reasonable position to take assuming the former and not one that’s necessarily motivated by misogyny.
I’m not willing to placate conservative sensibilities on certain positions I hold that they’ll disagree with, nor would it be reasonable for me to demand the inverse.
Conservatives spent years complaining about freedom of speech on college campuses. One would I think reasonably expect a bit more pushback to the attempted erosion of those rights being pushed by this executive.
To take one example. But quite an illustrative one.
Criticizing Trump "according to my sensibilities" here is shouting into the void. I will do so when asked about something in particular, as I did with EnDeR a few months ago re Ukraine, although I also understood the administration's reasoning and tried to present it. But abortion would be a great example. In a thread that is, to a person, pro-choice, in what situation would it ever come up for me to criticize him for maybe being insufficiently pro-life (he's actually been much better than expected over his time in the white house, but it's a good example)?
The view on the right is that free speech already doesn't really exist on campuses. They are monocultures. For conservative students there are advantages but as I've said before, the universities are hypocrites and have lost the benefit of the doubt. If I were the Trump admin I'd focus more on what federal law says and how it can be used to give these places the proper...incentives to restore their role in America. But all the problems identified so far are actually real.
So yes, it's a good example. The left doesn't view their federally funded enclaves as having any problems, while the right sees them as failing. So the charge "where are your supposed principles??!" goes both ways, except on campus it's the left with all the power making all the rules.
And we could do this back and forth on everything. When the left assumes that their control of an institution is the normal state and how things should be it blinds them to the obvious criticism they should see coming and be eager to address.
Fair point on aspects of screaming into the void.
There’s nothing stopping people continuing to rail against their perceived flaws of universities in various domains, while simultaneously also saying that curtailing peaceful protest etc isn’t a desirous road to go down.
On July 08 2025 02:10 Introvert wrote: People were defending Biden even after his last state of the union, saying the critics were wrong. It was the same thing Democrats commentators were saying. It might have actually doomed him. But they were in a hard spot regardless because Biden was not a selfless leader, he had been chasing this his whole life and resented anyone trying to tell him no once he got there. Just my opinion.
Now that is one of the things we're in agreement on. Biden was even too selfish to consider dropping out when his mental state was in complete decline and he was incapable of leading, and he damn well knew it.
So was he was senile but he was also smart enough to analyze his mental state and properly evaluate his capabilities then knowingly chose wrongly to run again out of some selfish desire to chase glory?
Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him.
On July 08 2025 02:10 Introvert wrote: If Danglars and xDaunt had different politics they'd still be here imo.
One of them (can't remember which) openly talked about how different ethnicities could not live together and that the US should reform into separate ethno-states. Sure if they had different politics they could still be here but that is like saying a nazi would be a great friend if only he wasn't a nazi.
On July 08 2025 06:06 KwarK wrote: Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him.
I don't think anyone is disputing that Biden's own senile thoughts made sense to him.
The blame rests squarely on the party for not having the balls to force him out sooner so they could have a primary to get someone actually likeable. Of course I have some benefit of hindsight there because we didn't know for sure if they could force him out and it would have been a gamble to make that move until his debate performance forced their hand.
On July 08 2025 06:06 KwarK wrote: Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him.
I don't think anyone is disputing that Biden's own senile thoughts made sense to him.
The blame rests squarely on the party for not having the balls to force him out sooner so they could have a primary to get someone actually likeable. Of course I have some benefit of hindsight there because we didn't know for sure if they could force him out and it would have been a gamble to make that move until his debate performance forced their hand.
Okay but assuming he thought the party might do something dumb like nominate a black woman who would lose to Trump, was he wrong?
On July 08 2025 06:06 KwarK wrote: Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him.
I don't think anyone is disputing that Biden's own senile thoughts made sense to him.
The blame rests squarely on the party for not having the balls to force him out sooner so they could have a primary to get someone actually likeable. Of course I have some benefit of hindsight there because we didn't know for sure if they could force him out and it would have been a gamble to make that move until his debate performance forced their hand.
Okay but assuming he thought the party might do something dumb like nominate a black woman who would lose to Trump, was he wrong?
You mean assuming they would do something dumb like take his advice?
Another one. After everything that Trump has done, the lies and broken promises, his betrayal of his voters, she still wouldn't bring herself to vote for Harris in retrospect. After all the hardship she and her family have gone through. I guess at least she recognizes that Trump is a monster.
On July 08 2025 07:46 Magic Powers wrote: Another one. After everything that Trump has done, the lies and broken promises, his betrayal of his voters, she still wouldn't bring herself to vote for Harris in retrospect. After all the hardship she and her family have gone through. I guess at least she recognizes that Trump is a monster.
On July 08 2025 06:06 KwarK wrote: Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him.
I don't think anyone is disputing that Biden's own senile thoughts made sense to him.
The blame rests squarely on the party for not having the balls to force him out sooner so they could have a primary to get someone actually likeable. Of course I have some benefit of hindsight there because we didn't know for sure if they could force him out and it would have been a gamble to make that move until his debate performance forced their hand.
Okay but assuming he thought the party might do something dumb like nominate a black woman who would lose to Trump, was he wrong?
I don't even know how to answer this. Are you speaking specifically of Kamala Harris? Given her 2020 campaign results I don't think there is any risk of her being nominated by popular vote. In fact there was a term floated at the time called the "Kamala problem" because Biden stepping down that late in the game meant "oh shit we're going to have to run Kamala, fuck!"
Or are you talking about some other unnamed black woman that would win the primary and then lose to Trump that Biden would somehow be able to foresee as if he can predict deep into the future by using the mental energy he saves from not remembering what he ate for breakfast.
You don't actually have to respond to this. I know you're really just trying to make the point that the reason Kamala lost, while being deeply unpopular, having zero charisma, being unable to answer questions, and cackling for no reason is "cause racism."
What if the Dems ran a hot young woman like AOC and made her slogan "Try to grab this pussy, bitch", you think that would have won them the race? You could even add "and reap what you sow" to capture the evangelical base.
On July 08 2025 08:29 Uldridge wrote: What if the Dems ran a hot young woman like AOC and made her slogan "Try to grab this pussy, bitch", you think that would have won them the race? You could even add "and reap what you sow" to capture the evangelical base.
I think a Dommy Mommy would perform much better than any other female politician archetype. Whatever they do, it needs to be something a woman can lean into and build an identity around. Clinton was more of a politics nerd than an aggressive/dominating presence. A polite and kind woman will just be framed as weak. Something in the middle will be framed as both weak and annoying. AOC or Jasmine Crocket could have an effective campaign if they were completely unhinged and commanding.
Voters want someone who comes across as honest, personable, and most importantly, ANGRY. Our entire country has been conditioned into a persistent state of anxiety, anger, and sadness. An angry and aggressive candidate is what people want. Dommy Mommy is only archetype that allows a woman to have those qualities.
And for the record, I'd support Jasmine Crocket over AOC any day of the week.
EPT
