Comments 1 - 20 of 20 Search these comments
a LOT of voters just vote for Trump as a humongous FUCK YOU retaliation against that.
, I switch off TV when he talks, but because of the illogical TDS and media stupidity/bias I will vote for him in next elections, only becuase FUCK YOU and because I am fucking sick and tired of being told how I oppress the whole Universe with my existence. In 2015 I did not think anyone could get me to this state of mind.
Because of exactly the same reasons as you, I'm renting a sublet in the midwest and casting my vote there, instead of Massachusetts, my home state because my vote doesn't count in the Boston area towards the national election as it's an automatic blue state.
They don’t love him because they think he’s perfect. They love him despite his flaws because they believe he has their back.
+1000
What do y’all recommend? MOAR??
Seems you keep missing the point just made in this thread.
We recommend Trump, because he's much better than the alternatives.
You can try to point out minor flaw after flaw in a fit of orange man bad, but the point still stands.
You can try to point out minor flaw after flaw in a fit of orange man bad, but the point still stands.
You exist in a special world all your own and even have your own language, customs, and facts
The Orwell Foundation has let George Orwell down
Surely if the foundation has a purpose, it is to keep the flame of intellectual freedom alive?
August 22, 2021
So far, so predictable. As Orwell wrote in the unpublished preface to Animal Farm: ‘The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.’ At any given moment, he said, a body of ideas holds sway in the literary world and it is just assumed that all right-thinking people will accept them without question. The state plays no part in enforcing this orthodoxy; rather, it is entirely policed by the literary intelligentsia. If asked whether they believe in free speech, these intellectuals will profess that of course they do — what a ridiculous question. But if pressed on whether they’d defend the right of someone to publish a book that runs afoul of contemporary dogma — describing a child of color as having ‘almond-shaped eyes’, for instance — the answer will be ‘No’. When the orthodoxy is challenged, their commitment to free speech evaporates.
Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
Jan 24
America isn’t losing its standing in the world by accident.
Cities aren’t releasing murderers to kill again by accident.
We didn’t take in 2 million illegals this year by accident.
The destruction is intentional. Wake up and grow up. This is all planned.
You have to understand the true evil of communism and how the communist looks at the world if you’re going to have any chance at stopping them.
These people believe everything you love is terrible and needs to be destroyed so they can rebuild the world into their utopia.
When a felon gets out with no bail and murders someone in New York City, the communist who let him out doesn’t have regrets. He doesn’t see any problem at all. He knew that guy would kill again. That’s what he wanted. So you would feel afraid.
When America does foreign policy “blunder” that helps our enemies, it’s not a mistake. It’s not some “miscalculation”. The American communist looks at America the same way our enemies do: An evil place that needs to be knocked down a peg or two.
When America is flooded with tens of millions of illegal immigrants, the communist knows it will eventually break the system. He also knows these people have no mooring to our founding and what we are.
That’s why he wants them here. It’s less work for him.
On and on and on. Every issue. The destruction is intentional. They’re not trying to fix the house like you are. This isn’t an argument over paint color. You’re worried about the paint. He’s in the living room with a bottle of lighter fluid and a box of matches.
Orwell’s observation remains in play. In the mid-1960s, Stokely Carmichael and other young black militants pushed the American civil-rights movement leftward, and away from its goal of integration. Liberals, unable to face down this left-wing pull toward Black Power, knuckled under. A gloriously successful campaign for equal rights based on conscience and dignity devolved into an angry, incoherent movement based on guilt and victimhood. The last thing allowed was the concession of progress of any sort in racial matters. Impressive civil-rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins, and A. Philip Randolph were replaced by such dubious figures as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The movement never recovered.
The same phenomenon appeared in American universities. In faculty meetings everywhere, small groups of the most radical professors were able to get their way through political pressure.
Liberals, generally in the majority, were worried (if not terrified) of seeming to be on the wrong side. When they didn’t give in completely, they sought compromises that invariably favored the radicals. Standards and intellectual authority in universities have given way to political correctness and identity politics.
The same scenario is playing out in the Democratic Party. Since nominating George McGovern in 1972, the party has moved progressively leftward. If the Democrats may by now be said to have a center, it cannot hold, as William Butler Yeats has it in his poem “The Second Coming.” Among today’s Democrats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”
By ceding moral authority to the far left, the Democrats have lost the power to counter bizarre proposals with simple common sense. When a freshman congresswoman proposes a wildly improbable Green New Deal, instead of responding as Democrats of an earlier day would have—“Whaddya, kiddin’ me?”— they now take it seriously and several adopt it. When two other freshman Democrats make anti-Semitic pronouncements, no one in a party overwhelmingly the choice of Jewish voters has the authority to tell them to knock it off. When Democratic presidential candidates propose to provide free health care for all, or eliminate college tuition and college debt, or enlarge and pack the Supreme Court, or eliminate the Electoral College, all this is taken in earnest. And the Democratic Party is being held hostage to identity politics, so that no national ticket can ever again be without a black or female candidate.
Donald Trump’s aggressive personality has hastened the Democrats’ radicalization. Party members measure the intensity of their idealism by their hatred of Mr. Trump. The tone and temper of the contemporary Democratic Party encourages— indeed fully supports—this sad condition.
Consider Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A serious and skillful politician, she was finally pushed by her party’s left wing into permitting a hopeless impeachment proceeding that violated her own sensible criteria: that the reasons for impeachment be compelling, the evidence for it overwhelming, and the support for it bipartisan. When the impeachment failed in the Senate, as she had predicted it would, it drove her to the distinctly un-Pelosian act of tearing up her copy of the State of the Union address on national television.
What is to be done? No one has a good answer. Perhaps the only hope is that the Democrats put together a nightmare ticket—Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, say, or Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris—and the party is so crushingly defeated in November that it returns to its long-lost political seriousness.