Can you imagine? A fascist state that doesn't actually create its own propaganda. It just gets it from the "news" they watch and spread it to the mainstream.
Everyone with "power" in the government all believe in Q, demons exist and are all Democrats, MS13 chopped off the heads of everyone in Commiefornia etc.
I think we're genuinely seeing a shift from people who know how to use certain rhetoric to get what they want to people who actually believe the rhetoric. Trump was a huge milestone in this, he genuinely watched more Fox News for information than he ever did talking with White House staff and intelligence agencies.
If the libs are right about one thing, it is that Trump is fucking stupid.
The best response the idea of Trump having any sort of rational thought was done by Michael Shannon.
The reporter pressed the question again, asking what Shannon thinks might go through Trump’s head at night.
“He’s probably thinking ‘I want some fucking pussy,” Shannon responded. “I don’t know. I’m not going to remotely contemplate the notion that Trump is capable of deep reflection.”
“In any form?” the reporter asked.
“In any form!” Shannon replied. “It doesn’t happen. Fuck that guy. When he’s alone with his thoughts, he’s not capable of anything more complex than ‘I want some pussy and a cheeseburger. Maybe my wife will blow me if I tell her she’s pretty.’”
:trump-kaneki: Can you believe it folks, they invented a new way to brief presidents just for me! It's excellent, they come in with the flashcards, big flashcards, the best flashcards, and they got little quips on 'em and pictures! So I see a picture of VUVUZELA and it says BAD, bing bang boom, I know Venice Beach is bad. So easy folks!
Everyone with “power” in the government all believe in Q, demons exist and are all Democrats, MS13 chopped off the heads of everyone in Commiefornia etc.
The "mask off" bit has been done to death at this point, but compare this guy's political credentials to a guy like Ted Cruz. If you believe that we live in a meritocracy, or if you want to have some veneer of legitimacy to support your reactionary politics, Cruz at least checks some boxes you might find important. An Ivy League education, a prestigious legal career, high-ranking government work before moving onto electoral politics, wasn't particularly old at the time of his first election (42), and he's not just some WASP-y white guy, either. He was elected on the (astroturfed and quickly co-opted) Tea Party wave, but all of the above gives away how artificial the Tea Party "movement" really was -- he's right out of the neocon mold, he just knows how to pander to people who actually believe the rhetoric, like you said.
McCloskey does not have an elite education (Southern Methodist University is expensive and nice, but it's not Harvard or Princeton), does small-firm personal injury work (lucrative, but far from prestigious), has no experience I can find working with the government, and is the definition of an old (64) white male. The only reason anyone knows him is because he got on the news for pulling a gun on BLM protesters. There's no way you can half-passively argue that he's a good candidate on his own merits. Hell, even with Trump you could say "he's a billionaire and he says it like it is and he mopped the floor with all those GOP lizards." Can you say anything like that about this guy?
This might eventually be a meaningful change, because a lot of politically active people vote for one party or the other essentially for cultural reasons -- their parents did, and voting that way was acceptable where they grew up. But maybe, at least for some, that type of cultural support is contingent on having a candidate who at least gives them one or two "positives" to hang their hat on. Cruz at least had some sort of conventional political background, and Trump at least had some level of financial success and was entertaining. But what happens when your candidate is just some random millionaire with all the charisma of your typical 60ish reactionary boomer?
But that's a "mask off" positive. You can only admit you want to do that if you're an open reactionary. My thinking is that there might be some non-trivial amount of "cultural" Republicans who are fine with all the horrible shit Republicans do so long as it isn't too blatantly about white supremacy. With Cruz (and to a lesser extent, Trump) you can find some positives that keep the façade in place. But with this type of guy?
His ass will squeeze through the Overton window just fine. The Republican machine runs so smoothly. They will tease each other in the primary, but will lockstop THE MOMENT it’s decided.
Yeah, I'm not optimistic that this will be a bump in the road, but I think there's at least a chance. More of a chance than more presentable reactionaries, at least.
Can you imagine? A fascist state that doesn't actually create its own propaganda. It just gets it from the "news" they watch and spread it to the mainstream.
Everyone with "power" in the government all believe in Q, demons exist and are all Democrats, MS13 chopped off the heads of everyone in Commiefornia etc.
I think we're genuinely seeing a shift from people who know how to use certain rhetoric to get what they want to people who actually believe the rhetoric. Trump was a huge milestone in this, he genuinely watched more Fox News for information than he ever did talking with White House staff and intelligence agencies.
deleted by creator
If the libs are right about one thing, it is that Trump is fucking stupid.
The best response the idea of Trump having any sort of rational thought was done by Michael Shannon.
deleted by creator
Diet Coke. Regular soda is for cucks.
:trump-kaneki: Can you believe it folks, they invented a new way to brief presidents just for me! It's excellent, they come in with the flashcards, big flashcards, the best flashcards, and they got little quips on 'em and pictures! So I see a picture of VUVUZELA and it says BAD, bing bang boom, I know Venice Beach is bad. So easy folks!
:vuvuzela:
What living under capitalism does to a mf
The "mask off" bit has been done to death at this point, but compare this guy's political credentials to a guy like Ted Cruz. If you believe that we live in a meritocracy, or if you want to have some veneer of legitimacy to support your reactionary politics, Cruz at least checks some boxes you might find important. An Ivy League education, a prestigious legal career, high-ranking government work before moving onto electoral politics, wasn't particularly old at the time of his first election (42), and he's not just some WASP-y white guy, either. He was elected on the (astroturfed and quickly co-opted) Tea Party wave, but all of the above gives away how artificial the Tea Party "movement" really was -- he's right out of the neocon mold, he just knows how to pander to people who actually believe the rhetoric, like you said.
McCloskey does not have an elite education (Southern Methodist University is expensive and nice, but it's not Harvard or Princeton), does small-firm personal injury work (lucrative, but far from prestigious), has no experience I can find working with the government, and is the definition of an old (64) white male. The only reason anyone knows him is because he got on the news for pulling a gun on BLM protesters. There's no way you can half-passively argue that he's a good candidate on his own merits. Hell, even with Trump you could say "he's a billionaire and he says it like it is and he mopped the floor with all those GOP lizards." Can you say anything like that about this guy?
This might eventually be a meaningful change, because a lot of politically active people vote for one party or the other essentially for cultural reasons -- their parents did, and voting that way was acceptable where they grew up. But maybe, at least for some, that type of cultural support is contingent on having a candidate who at least gives them one or two "positives" to hang their hat on. Cruz at least had some sort of conventional political background, and Trump at least had some level of financial success and was entertaining. But what happens when your candidate is just some random millionaire with all the charisma of your typical 60ish reactionary boomer?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
But that's a "mask off" positive. You can only admit you want to do that if you're an open reactionary. My thinking is that there might be some non-trivial amount of "cultural" Republicans who are fine with all the horrible shit Republicans do so long as it isn't too blatantly about white supremacy. With Cruz (and to a lesser extent, Trump) you can find some positives that keep the façade in place. But with this type of guy?
His ass will squeeze through the Overton window just fine. The Republican machine runs so smoothly. They will tease each other in the primary, but will lockstop THE MOMENT it’s decided.
Yeah, I'm not optimistic that this will be a bump in the road, but I think there's at least a chance. More of a chance than more presentable reactionaries, at least.
It's fascinatingly stupid. I would be far more entertained by it were it not becoming the current reality