Tuesday, November 07, 2017

The Dangerous Cult of Donald Trump

Reza Aslan: I am not the first person to point this out: There's been a cultish quality to President Trump's most ardent supporters. He seemed to acknowledge the phenomenon when he boasted that he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not lose voters. Throughout the campaign, and in personal appearances since then, Trump has harnessed the kind of emotional intensity from his base that is more typical of a religious revival meeting than a political rally, complete with ritualized communal chants ("Lock her up!") As we approach the one-year anniversary of Trump's election victory, the zeal of some of his followers seems increasingly akin to a full-fledged cult. I use the word "cult" in its pejorative sense, meaning a deeply insular social group bound together by extreme devotion to a charismatic leader. Such groups tend to exhibit a few common characteristics.

More

The authority that a cult leader exercises comes from his self-ascribed role as the one true information source for his followers. Competing ideas and facts are not just wrong; they are demonic.

Trump, of course, characterizes most media outlets as "fake news." He calls journalists "liars" and "sick people" who are "trying to take away our history and our heritage." In a May HuffPo/YouGov poll, a whopping 60% of Trump supporters agreed with him that the media are "the enemy" of people like them.

The cult leader is generally believed to possess special knowledge. No matter how demonstrably false his pronouncements, they become, by definition, truth for his followers. Trump has been spectacularly successful at getting his supporters to believe his blandishments rather than their own eyes.

Comments

"One of the ways a cult leader maintains his unquestioned authority is by creating a siege mentality among his followers and presenting himself as the antidote. In Trump's view, the country is a wasteland of empty factories "scattered like tombstones" and crime-ridden cities that are more dangerous than war zones.

"Our military is a disaster. Our healthcare is a horror show," he declared during the campaign. And as Trump has often said, "I alone can fix it."

This dark view of the U.S., in which honest, hardworking white Christians are under attack by hostile forces, has convinced Trump's followers that they are among the most oppressed people in the country.

In a survey after the protests in Charlottesville, Va., 45% of Trump supporters said white people were the most discriminated against racial group in the U.S., and 51% said Christians were the most discriminated against religious group.

And then there is this warning from Trump confidant Roger Stone: Any attempt to remove the president from office, he said in August, would result in "a spasm of violence in this country, an insurrection like you've never seen."

If Trump's presidency deteriorates further, expect the religious fervor of many of his followers to reach a fever pitch. That poses a risk for the country. Because the only thing more dangerous than a cult leader is a cult leader facing martyrdom."

excerpts, much more at the link

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 12:55 AM

"The cult leader is generally believed to possess special knowledge"

Um, we are talking about Trump here, right?

"In a survey after the protests in Charlottesville, Va., 45% of Trump supporters said white people were the most discriminated against racial group in the U.S., and 51% said Christians were the most discriminated against religious group."

Um, all other racial and religious groups say about the same thing. It's called Identity Politics, and it feeds on people that have a victim mentality. It's more accurate to say that about half of people think they are victims.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-07 01:30 AM

And as Trump has often said, "I alone can fix it."

Often? I only recall him saying it once, at his nomination speech at the convention. Apparently the writer has to invent "facts".

Hyperbole, of course, but no more than Obama's acceptance speech in which he claimed the oceans would stop rising.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-07 12:53 PM

The only people left who support trump are evil rich people whose only concern is getting more money for themselves, so they're willing to let a dangerous mental patient control our nuclear weapons, and people so stupid they can't see that trump IS a dangerous mental patient.

The stupid group are the ones who would happily become the brownshirt enforcers for trump. They're the ones trump needs to keep happy, and he does that by constantly feeding them racism, ignorance, and impossible promises.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 01:39 PM

Um, all other racial and religious groups say about the same thing. It's called Identity Politics, and it feeds on people that have a victim mentality. It's more accurate to say that about half of people think they are victims.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat

Yeah those groups that run everything and own everything have it just as hard as the groups that are systematically oppressed. If you're dumb enough to watch fox news at least...

#5 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 01:40 PM

2 & 3

Dangerously ignorant cultists.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 01:40 PM

Obama had a bigger group of cultists (many in the MSM) and they were more slavish than what Trump has and yet the country managed to survive. I'd be willing to bet that the author of the piece that Corky linked was an Obama cultist.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 01:42 PM

Obama didn't let every other word out of his mouth be a lie, Jeffrey.

And the article author is quite well educated, so yeah, he might have been an Obama supporter, not that one would know it from his very interesting wiki.

en.wikipedia.org

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 01:50 PM


@#7 Obama had a bigger group of cultists ...

Whether or not that is true will be left for another day.

I will note, however, that fmr Pres Obama did attain a majority of the votes for two Presidential elections, something that is not often accomplished.

Pres Trump was not even able to attain a plurality in his first election.

That indicates, from the start, that fmr Pres Obama had a far wider base of support than Pres Trump has, and the wider base of support tends towards less of a need for cult-ish support.

Pres Trump's inability even to win a plurality of the popular vote would only add to the siege mentality of those who did vote for him.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-07 01:52 PM

"In a survey after the protests in Charlottesville, Va., 45% of Trump supporters said white people were the most discriminated against racial group in the U.S., and 51% said Christians were the most discriminated against religious group."
Um, all other racial and religious groups say about the same thing. It's called Identity Politics, and it feeds on people that have a victim mentality. It's more accurate to say that about half of people think they are victims.

#2 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

This right here sums up Trump voters. They will literally do mental gymnastics to dismiss facts that contradict their absolutely ridiculous beliefs.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 01:52 PM

Obama had a bigger group of cultists (many in the MSM) and they were more slavish than what Trump has and yet the country managed to survive. I'd be willing to bet that the author of the piece that Corky linked was an Obama cultist.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ

That's your most pathetic false equivalency yet, out of MANY pathetic false equivalencies.

Compare obama to clinton or dubya, but to compare him in any way to the trump movement, which is entirely built on ignorance hatred and lies, just shows how deluded you are.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 01:56 PM

Lol. Cultists don't like being called out while attacking other cults.

#12 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 02:01 PM

"Obama had a bigger group of cultists (many in the MSM)"

No JeffJ.
Obama's strongest cult following was the Birther movement.
It's a cult where Obama is kind of like the Antichrist. Except he's Muslim.
You should know, you are a member. And now your cult leader is President.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 02:04 PM

Lol. Cultists don't like being called out while attacking other cults.

#12 | Posted by Sully

Cult members can't deny that they're in a cult, so their defense is "Well EVERYBODY'S in a cult really."

When in fact, cults are based on lies and misinformation, AND TELLING YOUR FOLLOWERS THAT EVERYONE IS LYING TO THEM EXCEPT YOU. Sound familiar? I can't recall obama telling his supporters not to listen to what they hear about him, that everyone is lying to them in a grand conspiracy. That's a trump cult specialty.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 02:13 PM

#14 NW

Apparently the definition of "cultist" is highly flexible in myopic SullyLand.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 02:15 PM

Sully was right. Snoofy is the most fundamentally dishonest person on this site.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:19 PM

That's your most pathetic false equivalency yet, out of MANY pathetic false equivalencies.
Compare obama to clinton or dubya, but to compare him in any way to the trump movement, which is entirely built on ignorance hatred and lies, just shows how deluded you are.

#11 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I wasn't comparing Trump to Obama. I was comparing Trump's sycophantic supporters to Obama's sycophantic supporters (they were numerous).

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:21 PM

#16

Does he really kick your butt that much?

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 02:22 PM

#16
Does he really kick your butt that much?

#18 | POSTED BY CORKY

Only in his own mind.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:27 PM

#19

Ah, well. At least Trump appreciated your false equivalency comparing his cult leadership to Obama's.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 02:31 PM

The GOP was already a cult; ever since the teajadists hijacked it. Trump is just their most overtly dotarded leader.

#21 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 02:31 PM

I wasn't comparing Trump's cult leadership to Obama's.

For the second time, I was comparing Obama cultists to Trump cultists.

That's it. It's pathetic that I've had to say it 3 times.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:33 PM

That's your most pathetic false equivalency yet, out of MANY pathetic false equivalencies.
Compare obama to clinton or dubya, but to compare him in any way to the trump movement, which is entirely built on ignorance hatred and lies, just shows how deluded you are.

#11 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
I wasn't comparing Trump to Obama. I was comparing Trump's sycophantic supporters to Obama's sycophantic supporters (they were numerous).

#17 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No. You got called out for making a ridiculous comparison. NOW you are trying to change the comparison. And even that falls flat. You simply don't find the numbers or devotion from Obama supporters as you do in Trump fanatics.

Trump really could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not lose voters. Obama not so much. And no one ever claimed he could.

#23 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 02:34 PM

I wasn't comparing Trump to Obama. I was comparing Trump's sycophantic supporters to Obama's sycophantic supporters (they were numerous).

#17 | Posted by JeffJ

I know what you were doing. Its still your stupidest false equivalency yet.

Obama supporters were inspired hope towards a more inclusive future.
Trump supporters are inspired by hatred, cruelty, and stupidity.

These things are not similar. They are opposites. Stop PRETENDING to be so stupid you can't tell them apart.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 02:35 PM

Obama supporters were inspired hope towards a more inclusive future.
Trump supporters are inspired by hatred, cruelty, and stupidity.
These things are not similar.
#24 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

What's similar is that the cult followers of both have been duped.

Your statement proves conclusively that you're continuing to be duped.

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-07 02:38 PM

Speaks and Sycophant (apt name over the past 8 years) obviously don't remember the deification of Obama that went on in '08. It was ridiculous.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:40 PM

Give it a rest, Speaks. All you hacks refuse to find fault with the politicians and/or party you've pledged to obey. Part of the sickness is the ability to recognize in the other side that which you refuse to see in your own. You're all the same. And you're killing the rest of us.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 02:41 PM

"Your statement proves conclusively that you're continuing to be duped."

Actually, I'd say that your comment actually says that about you. You can pretend that Obama supporters were "cult" followers but that's all you can do is pretend. The fans of Obama were nothing like the sychophantic Trump cult members. He bragged about assaulting women in public without their consent, he purposely walked into dressing rooms full of young girls, some naked, at the Miss Universe contest yet his fans don't care. They are cultists.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 02:43 PM

Obama had a bigger group of cultists (many in the MSM) and they were more slavish than what Trump has

Your flaccid support is support nonetheless.

It's also a pretty old shtick.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-07 02:44 PM

"Give it a rest, Speaks. All you hacks refuse to find fault with the politicians and/or party you've pledged to obey."

We should just all ask Sully how to think in the future, he knows everything. The rest of us are incapable of thinking for ourselves. It must be a burden to be so brilliant.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 02:45 PM

29
Not true. It was determined on the Rand Paul thread that supporting, or even flaccid support isn't support.

#31 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-07 02:49 PM

- All you hacks

Yeah, see when one party's policies and candidates have been better for America than the only other contending party for half a century, at least, supporting that party is just as "hacky" as supporting the other.

That must make sense in SullyLand.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 02:53 PM

Your flaccid support is support nonetheless.
It's also a pretty old shtick.

#29 | POSTED BY JPW

When Trump does things I approve of, which isn't often, I say so.

When he does things I disapprove of, I say so.

If he does something you approve of, you should say so, otherwise you'd prove yourself to be a hack.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:53 PM

Doesn't take smarts to think for yourself. I don't know what it is that makes you numbskulls pretend to just naturally agree with everything and everyone promoted by a specific political party. Laziness? Insecurity? Natural need to belong? Polarizing media? I guess stupidity is as good an explanation as any...

But yes the rest of us are burdened by the harm you drones bring on this country.

#34 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 02:54 PM

Your statement proves conclusively that you're continuing to be duped.

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Your statement proves you're a moron.

There is no comparison between trump supporters who are inspired by racism hatred and cruelty and obama supporters who were inspired by a member of an oppressed minority group finally reaching the highest office in the country.

If you think I hold obama in some high esteem you've got me confused with someone else.
I've been calling him out as a big bank puppet since he was elected, and I was right.

That doesn't change the fact that his supporters are the polar opposite of trump supporters, for whom the word DEPLORABLES is a really apt description.

You just hate hillary so much that you're now linking arms with nazis, klansmen, and the dumbest chumps america has to offer. All of this only serves to show you don't care about a progressive agenda, you care about throwing tantrums and whining.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 02:56 PM

#35

Bravo! flag

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 02:58 PM

Give it a rest, Speaks. All you hacks refuse to find fault with the politicians and/or party you've pledged to obey. Part of the sickness is the ability to recognize in the other side that which you refuse to see in your own. You're all the same. And you're killing the rest of us.

#27 | Posted by Sully

You just made yourself look like an idiot. I STRONGLY criticize dems, obama, and hillary ALL THE TIME. My consistent point is that as bad as they are, they are still miles better than any modern republican.

Either you have confused me with someone else, or you don't know how to read.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 02:58 PM

There is no comparison between trump supporters who are inspired by racism hatred and cruelty and obama supporters who were inspired by a member of an oppressed minority group finally reaching the highest office in the country....

#35 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Where they drew their inspiration from doesn't change the fact that plenty of Obama supporters were cultists.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 03:07 PM

Where they drew their inspiration from doesn't change the fact that plenty of Obama supporters were cultists.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ

Really? Was obama telling them to ignore news reports about his administration and only listen to him?

That's the first step in any cult or tyrannical government. EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP DID. And obama didn't need to do anything of the sort because his presidency wasn't built on lies.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 03:11 PM

#37 - putting it in caps here doesn't make your criticism as frequent or strong as you are portraying

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 03:16 PM

Where they drew their inspiration from doesn't change the fact that plenty of Obama supporters were cultists.

Okay. Let's take this statement at face value. Supporters for anything can be cultish.

What other similarities are you drawing between Obama supporters and Trump supporters?

There must be something there for you, and others, to have so swiftly deflected to Obama supporters.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-07 03:16 PM

#37 - putting it in caps here doesn't make your criticism as frequent or strong as you are portraying

#40 | Posted by Sully

That's because on the internet I can't write it in crayon for you, or anyone else dumb enough to compare obama supporters to trump supporters.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 03:17 PM

I STRONGLY criticize dems, obama, and hillary ALL THE TIME.

LMAO, the only person you criticize is Hillary since you are a Bernie Bro, otherwise you are without a doubt the most partisan hack on the DR.

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 03:20 PM

#43 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You think that because anyone left of Ted Cruz is a partisan because you've been told to think that.

#44 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 03:22 PM

#43 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER
You think that because anyone left of Ted Cruz is a partisan because you've been told to think that.

#44 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

I've never seen him accuse Leftcoastlawyer, Gal Tuesday, Moder8, Lfthhndthrds or countless other liberals on the DR as being partisan.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 03:24 PM

LMAO, the only person you criticize is Hillary since you are a Bernie Bro, otherwise you are without a doubt the most partisan hack on the DR.

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter

Then you dont read well. I criticized obama as soon as he won for re appointing geithner and being another big bank puppet. I criticized him for continuing the drug war, and selling out to insurance companies instead of pursuing single payer. I criticize the DNC and dems in general for selling out ALL THE TIME.

None of that changes the fact that the dems are FAR better for america than republicans on nearly every issue. I'm not partisan in favor of dems. I'm partisan in opposition to stupidity. If republicans want to stop being the party of morons, they could win my vote someday.

Meanwhile, they win your consistent votes because you don't MIND voting for the stupid party. Doesn't say much for your own intellect.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 03:39 PM

I've never seen him accuse Leftcoastlawyer, Gal Tuesday, Moder8, Lfthhndthrds or countless other liberals on the DR as being partisan.
#45 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It is well established that you are incapable of reading between the lines. If he didn't say it verbatim, you probably missed it Jeff.

#47 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 03:42 PM

"Doesn't take smarts to think for yourself. I don't know what it is that makes you numbskulls pretend to just naturally agree with everything and everyone promoted by a specific political party. Laziness? Insecurity? Natural need to belong? Polarizing media? I guess stupidity is as good an explanation as any..."

A political party that actually has a chance to win elections. Without winning elections you can change absolutely nothing. When you can tell me differently let me know, til then, I'll keep voting for the better of the two major candidates. If for no other reason to try and prevent someone like Trump from being elected.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 03:47 PM

Blah blah blah chance to win.....

You're basically telling me that hacks vote like hacks because hacks vote like hacks.

Well no crap Copernicus.

Voters decide who wins. This particular bad habit could change en mass very quickly. Problem is that you hacks like being hacks and will never run out of excuses.

#49 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 04:48 PM

#47

Everyone I mentioned in that post, including myself, have been posting on this site for at least 8 years.

There is no reading between the lines.

You mischaracterized the guy. Period.

No big deal unless you double down. Then you start to look foolish.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 05:25 PM

You think that because anyone left of Ted Cruz is a partisan because you've been told to think that.

#44 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES AT 2017-11-07 03:22 PM

Unlike you and Shreek, I tend to think for myself.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 05:40 PM

I'll keep voting for the better of the two major candidates.

If they are both horrible for their own reasons you may want to vote third party, if enough people do that then real change can happen.

Unfortunately, too many people like you will think "you are just wasting your vote and allowing ______ to win", so we are stuck in the definition of insanity.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 05:42 PM

Meanwhile, they win your consistent votes because you don't MIND voting for the stupid party. Doesn't say much for your own intellect.

#46 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-11-07 03:39 PM

Let's see what my 2016 vote card looked like:

Pres: Gary Johnson (I)

Senate: Kamala Harris (D)

Congressman: Ted Lieu (D)

Mayor: Eric Garcetti (D)

You are right, I don't MIND voting for the stupid party when they are the best choice. You on the other hand vote for the stupid party purely on a partisan basis.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 05:47 PM

If they are both horrible for their own reasons you may want to vote third party, if enough people do that then real change can happen.

Unfortunately, too many people like you will think "you are just wasting your vote and allowing ______ to win", so we are stuck in the definition of insanity.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter

Right. Split the liberal vote in half. I'm sure you'd love that.

Because if trump didn't split the republican vote, nothing will. Those family values christians voted for a sexual predator on his third trophy wife. Those military worshipping patriots voted for a draft dodger who insults POWs. Those anti elitist conspiracy theorists voted for a billionaire who has never lived among the commoners.

Republicans will vote for the republican candidate no matter what. So telling people to vote third party is telling them to waste their vote so republicans can keep winning.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 05:48 PM

You are right, I don't MIND voting for the stupid party when they are the best choice. You on the other hand vote for the stupid party purely on a partisan basis.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter

If you EVER vote republican, you are voting for climate destruction, tax cuts for the rich, endless military spending, the drug war, private prisons, blocking voting rights, sick people losing health care....
Please tell us what GOOD policy they have that makes you willing to accept all these other bad ones. NAME ONE.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 05:51 PM

Republicans will vote for the republican candidate no matter what. So telling people to vote third party is telling them to waste their vote so republicans can keep winning.

#54 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Given the vote disparity on the left: Clinton v Stein or Trump v Johnson, it appears as if the left is more tribal than the right. Add to that the rift between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party (no comparable rift exists on the left) and I would say your premise is seriously flawed.

The broader point was until people stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils, many of the things you deride will continue in perpetuity.

(no comparable rift exists on the left)

Before you point at "Bernie Bros." I will point out that this is a new movement. While it's real, it is nowhere near as powerful as the Tea Party faction of the GOP has become, at least not yet.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 05:54 PM

Please tell us what GOOD policy they have that makes you willing to accept all these other bad ones. NAME ONE.
#55 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That it anguishes liberals and progressives such as yourself! :-)

*Kidding*

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 05:56 PM

Given the vote disparity on the left: Clinton v Stein or Trump v Johnson, it appears as if the left is more tribal than the right. Add to that the rift between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party (no comparable rift exists on the left) and I would say your premise is seriously flawed.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

Nonsense. Repub voters don't sit on their hands and refuse to play if their candidate doesn't get nominated. They vote for them no matter what. That's far more tribal. SUPPORT YOUR PARTY NO MATTER WHAT.

Liberals are far more independent and free thinking. Unfortunately some of them are strategically retarded, and don't see that not voting because the candidate isnt perfect is the same thing as voting for the worst option.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 06:18 PM

onsense. Repub voters don't sit on their hands and refuse to play if their candidate doesn't get nominated. They vote for them no matter what. That's far more tribal. SUPPORT YOUR PARTY NO MATTER WHAT.

Well, the number of votes for Gary Johnson vs. Jill Stein would seem to refute that assertion.

I'm a registered Republican.

At the presidential-level I've voted for: Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney, Johnson.

Other than Carl Levin (the ONLY Democrat who understood the auto industry and an honorable guy) I voted GOP on all of the down-ticket options.

In an actual election (not a primary) have you ever voted 3rd Party or GOP? Ever?

I put the first sentence in bold for a reason. It's far more important than any kind of ideological and anecdotal squabble we could get into.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 06:27 PM

Speaks,

Check the voting history of Chicago and Detroit. It is LOCKSTEP. No matter what.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 06:29 PM

In an actual election (not a primary) have you ever voted 3rd Party or GOP? Ever?

#59 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes I voted for HW Bush and Dole. I started out extremely conservative. I lived with the son of an oil millionaire who listend to rush limbaugh every day. I bought into all that crap. I thought taxes were theft. If you were poor, you were lazy and trying to mooch off of the good successful people.

It wasn't til I got an education and realized conservatism is entirely based on ignorance and fear that I completely switched sides.

This is why conservatives hate education. The more you learn, the more you realize republicanism is for greedy ------ and broke fools.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 06:31 PM

Republicans will vote for the republican candidate no matter what. So telling people to vote third party is telling them to waste their vote so republicans can keep winning.

Funny, I just proved you wrong even before you posted that drivel.

I lived with the son of an oil millionaire who listend to rush limbaugh every day.

And I was born a poor black child until I decided to become white.

This is why conservatives hate education. The more you learn, the more you realize republicanism is for greedy ------ and broke fools.

No, not blindly partisan at all.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 06:49 PM

#51 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I'm certain voting for Gary Johnson means you weren't thinking at all.

"...conservatives hate education. The more you learn, the more you realize republicanism is for greedy ------ and broke fools."
#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
| FLAG: NW

#63 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 06:49 PM

Those family values christians voted for a sexual predator on his third trophy wife.

Except for the trophy wife, you just described Bill Clinton.

Those military worshipping patriots voted for a draft dodger who insults POWs.

Except for insulting POWs, you just decribed Bill Clinton.

Those anti elitist conspiracy theorists voted for a billionaire who has never lived among the commoners.

They're only a multimillionaires, but you just described Bill and Hillary Clinton (except for the "never" perhaps).

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 06:54 PM

#63

But you certainly approve of the rest of my ballot, correct? So maybe I was thinking, far better than you and the rest of the Dem partisan hacks who voted for Hillary, because she had a D.

#65 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 06:55 PM

#63

And thanks for showing your blind partisanship as well.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 06:56 PM

I'm certain voting for Gary Johnson means you weren't thinking at all.....

#63 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

He was a marginal candidate. Yet he was far preferable to the 2 major-party choices I was given. So...

You're a Bernie Bro. You likely voted Clinton out of the lesser-of-2-evils notion. I don't begrudge that. I just find it curious that, as a Bernie Bro, you are castigating a principled vote.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:01 PM

This is why conservatives hate education. The more you learn, the more you realize republicanism is for greedy ------ and broke fools.

#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY'

This is pure bigotry and nothing more than an intellectually-lazy straw man.

I am HEAVILY-invested in the education of my children to a point where student-loans and scholarships are necessary.

I get the sense you live a cloistered life given the incredibly insipid and demeaning caricatures you ascribe to those with whom you disagree.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:05 PM

And thanks for showing your blind partisanship as well.
#66 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Why do you hacks always project your traits onto others?

Those family values christians voted for a sexual predator on his third trophy wife.
--Except for the trophy wife, you just described Bill Clinton.
Those military worshipping patriots voted for a draft dodger who insults POWs.
--Except for insulting POWs, you just decribed Bill Clinton.
Those anti elitist conspiracy theorists voted for a billionaire who has never lived among the commoners.
--They're only a multimillionaires, but you just described Bill and Hillary Clinton (except for the "never" perhaps).

#64 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Typical GOP sheep. Obsessed with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Scared even.

#69 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:09 PM

This is why conservatives hate education. The more you learn, the more you realize republicanism is for greedy ------ and broke fools.
No, not blindly partisan at all.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter

I know republicans consider FACTS to be partisan. That's why yall prefer fox news so you can avoid them.

www.people-press.org

"Highly educated adults – particularly those who have attended graduate school – are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values. And these differences have increased over the past two decades."

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 07:10 PM

I get the sense you live a cloistered life given the incredibly insipid and demeaning caricatures you ascribe to those with whom you disagree.

Maybe, like Shreek, Indy lived with "the son of an oil millionaire who listened to Rush Limbaugh every day."

SMFH

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:11 PM

Those family values christians voted for a sexual predator on his third trophy wife.

Except for the trophy wife, you just described Bill Clinton.

Those military worshipping patriots voted for a draft dodger who insults POWs.

Except for insulting POWs, you just decribed Bill Clinton.

Those anti elitist conspiracy theorists voted for a billionaire who has never lived among the commoners.

They're only a multimillionaires, but you just described Bill and Hillary Clinton (except for the "never" perhaps).

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter

You just proved my point.

Repubs are willing to vote for someone with MORE OF the traits they claimed to hate in bill clinton, if he has an R by his name.

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 07:12 PM

You're a Bernie Bro. You likely voted Clinton out of the lesser-of-2-evils notion. I don't begrudge that. I just find it curious that, as a Bernie Bro, you are castigating a principled vote.

#67 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It is called mitigating the circumstances Jeff. When your car needs an oil change do you buy a new car? Bernie had real policy proposals and numbers to back them up. Johnson thought global warming was useless thing to fight because the Sun will go supernova eventually. Nice false equivalence on your part though; calling a libertarian vote "principled" deserves a FF.

#73 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:12 PM

#69

Why am I not surprised that you completely missed the point.

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:13 PM

I get the sense you live a cloistered life given the incredibly insipid and demeaning caricatures you ascribe to those with whom you disagree.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm waiting to be disproven. I've yet to meet a well informed, ethical trump supporter.

So far every single one is either a greedy ----- willing to let a maniac control our nuclear weapons if it will lead to tax cuts, brainwashed suckers who think the media is lying about trump and he really is a good guy, or complete bigots who will never stop supporting trump as long as he keeps spreading proud ignorance and bigotry.

I would really love to be proven wrong someday.

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 07:15 PM

You just proved my point.

Actually, just the opposite: You decried people voting for a candidate with those traits when you voted for the exact candidate because he had a (D) after his name years earlier.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...

#76 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:15 PM

"the son of an oil millionaire who listened to Rush Limbaugh every day."
SMFH
#71 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

If I was a trust-fund oil baby stupid enough to listen to Limbaugh, statistically I'd be politically Right of Center.

#77 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:16 PM

So far every single one is either a greedy ----- willing to let a maniac control our nuclear weapons if it will lead to tax cuts, brainwashed suckers who think the media is lying about trump and he really is a good guy, or complete bigots who will never stop supporting trump as long as he keeps spreading proud ignorance and bigotry.

Naw, not partisan at all...

#78 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:16 PM

Why am I not surprised that you completely missed the point.
#74 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I didn't miss the point. It's the same point sheep like you make constantly. Clinton = Bad ∴ GOP = Good. It isn't a very good point you've made, is it?

#79 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:17 PM

#75 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

-Well Informed
-Ethical
-Trump Supporter

You can only be two of those at a time.

#80 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:19 PM

#80

You do realize that you just said that there can be well informed or ethical Trump supporters, correct?

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:23 PM

#77

So if you were a trust-fund oil baby stupid enough to listen to Madcow, statistically you would be a limo liberal?

#82 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:25 PM

Actually, just the opposite: You decried people voting for a candidate with those traits when you voted for the exact candidate because he had a (D) after his name years earlier.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...

#76 | Posted by Rightocenter

I decried people who claim to care about those issues supporting someone who ran entirely opposite of their values.

Liberals aren't hypocritical in voting for a womanizer because we don't claim any moral authority over anyone's love or sex lives.

Repubs are. They claim to want to protect their poor daughters from evil trans people in their bathrooms, then they go and vote for the guy who brags about bursting into beauty pageant dressing rooms.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 07:27 PM

I decried people who claim to care about those issues supporting someone who ran entirely opposite of their values.

Liberals aren't hypocritical in voting for a womanizer because we don't claim any moral authority over anyone's love or sex lives.

So when Hillary Clinton claimed she was a champion for abused women yet attacked her husband's accusers that wasn't at all hypocritical viewed through your partisan goggles.

Got it.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:29 PM

#81 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yes. Good people can be stupid enough to support trump.

The well informed + ethical group is the majority of the world. (sees trump as immoral and incompetent)

The ethical + trump supporter is the majority of DR conservatives. (dumb enough to fall for his cons)

The well-informed + trump supporter are neonazis, neoconfederates, oil profiteers, Putin, people like Boaz, etc. (personally gain by his destructive agenda)

#85 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:29 PM

So far every single one is either a greedy ----- willing to let a maniac control our nuclear weapons if it will lead to tax cuts, brainwashed suckers who think the media is lying about trump and he really is a good guy, or complete bigots who will never stop supporting trump as long as he keeps spreading proud ignorance and bigotry.

Naw, not partisan at all...

#78 | Posted by Rightocenter

My personal experience is not partisan. As I've said, I'm still hoping to meet a trump supporter who doesn't fit into one of those categories, but I'm beginning to think they don't exist.

This site has plenty of semi intelligent trump DEFLECTORS who don't defend trump but love to say "BUT HILLARY!" but all the trump SUPPORTERS are quickly recognized as the people who can barely type a coherent sentence. That's no coincidence.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 07:30 PM

So when Hillary Clinton claimed she was a champion for abused women yet attacked her husband's accusers that wasn't at all hypocritical viewed through your partisan goggles.

Got it.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter

And you're going to hold hillary to a standard you don't hold melania to, because she's a D not an R.

At least hillary didn't make her pet first lady project ANTI SEX ASSAULT. Then she'd look as stupid as melania making her pet project ANTI INTERNET BULLYING.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 07:32 PM

"hypocritical"

Who gives a ---- if it's viewed as a logical fallacy?
Why are you so in love with this particular logical fallacy anyway?
Can't find real, meaningful issues to care about?

Go write a NDA as part of a settlement for a Hollywood rapist, it's what you're best at.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 07:34 PM

So when Hillary Clinton claimed she was a champion for abused women yet attacked her husband's accusers that wasn't at all hypocritical viewed through your partisan goggles.
Got it.

#84 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

So when trump claimed he was a champion for the LGBTQ community yet decided to ban transgenders from the military and make a yuuuuge deal about where people piss that wasn't at all hypocritical in your mind?

Got it.

And defending your husband against accusations is as morally depraved as serially molesting women and acting on pedophile urges?

Got it.

This is the kind of stuff that makes the rational world view republicans as morally bankrupt and/or stupid.

#89 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:36 PM

Last time I checked, Melania wasn't running for President of the United States, so no, I don't hold her to that standard. For both Hillary and Melania, being married to those predators is punishment enough.

#90 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:39 PM

#88

And Snoofy dive bombs the thread without getting any context, as usual.

#91 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:42 PM

89 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

How about quoting someone in lieu of making up false positions?

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:43 PM

There's no context in which hypocrisy stops being a logical fallacy.

Now, about those NDAs. Whose did you work on?

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 07:43 PM

#89

It's all accusations buttercup, that is the problem for both sides.

#94 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:44 PM

#93

None.

#95 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:45 PM

#95 (that you can disclose)

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 07:45 PM

And Snoofy just learned a new term..."logical fallacy".

Did they teach that in Physics for Defense Contractors class at the JC today?

#97 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:46 PM

It is called mitigating the circumstances Jeff. When your car needs an oil change do you buy a new car? Bernie had real policy proposals and numbers to back them up. Johnson thought global warming was useless thing to fight because the Sun will go supernova eventually. Nice false equivalence on your part though; calling a libertarian vote "principled" deserves a FF.

#73 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

So, you are the self-proclaimed arbiter of what does and doesn't constitute a "principled vote"?

Hilarious!

Google the definition of: Humility

Please.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:47 PM

#96

Nope, just none, as I have told you I don't do that type of work.

I can refer you to a sexual harassment defense lawyer if that is what you are hinting at.

#99 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:47 PM

"Nope, just none, as I have told you I don't do that type of work."

Exactly what a defender of rapists would say!

But as a lawyer, your job is to defend your client. That's their right. It's not like you personally approve of their crimes or anything! You merely dedicate your life to defending their crimes. Nothing personal about it. Carry on.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 07:49 PM

But as a lawyer, your job is to defend your client. That's their right. It's not like you personally approve of their crimes or anything! You merely dedicate your life to defending their crimes. Nothing personal about it. Carry on.

#100 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I Triple-dog dare-you to levy that same accusation at Moder8. Please, do it.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:51 PM

#92; Ask and you shall receive:

"Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
9:31 AM - Jun 14, 2016" @realdonaldtrump

#102 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:52 PM

I triple dog dare you to discuss the Lee Atwater quote. Go make a thread, right now, coward.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 07:52 PM

#103

Says the guy who ran away when I posted all the racist quotes from Wallace, Byrd, Kennedy, LBJ, Peppers etc. the last time he brought up Lee Atwater.

Start the thread, internet tough guy, I got you covered.

#104 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:55 PM

And defending your husband against accusations is as morally depraved as serially molesting women and acting on pedophile urges?

#89 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Hillary went beyond defense, she sought to destroy her husband's accusers.

Both are bad. I seriously hope we can agree on that. Which is worse? Heck, are these even comparable given the letter (D) or (R) after the name?

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:56 PM

#98 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I'd rather ostracize your ignorance than be seen as humble by strangers on the internet.

#106 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 07:56 PM

But as a lawyer, your job is to defend your client. That's their right. It's not like you personally approve of their crimes or anything! You merely dedicate your life to defending their crimes. Nothing personal about it. Carry on.

#100 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

And if they didn't they should be sued for malpractice. An attorney should only concern himself or herself with the very best outcome for their clients. NOTHING more.

#107 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-07 07:57 PM

I triple dog dare you to discuss the Lee Atwater quote. Go make a thread, right now, coward.

#103 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Quit being the most "fundamentally dishonest person on this site", as Sully properly alleged, and I'll engage. Be honest and I'll respond to your posts.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 07:59 PM

"ostracize" your ignorance

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

-Inigo Montoya

#109 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 07:59 PM

Be honest and I'll respond to your posts.

Otherwise Indy stands ready to "ostracize" your dishonesty.

#110 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 08:03 PM

"Says the guy who ran away when I posted all the racist quotes from Wallace, Byrd, Kennedy, LBJ, Peppers etc. the last time he brought up Lee Atwater.
Start the thread, internet tough guy, I got you covered."

That thread ended with me saying Democrats get more and more racist as you go back in time.
You never quite picked up to tell us what happens to Republicans as you go forward in time.
Also noteworthy was that you said my 1982 Atwater quote was outdated, then trotted out a bunch of stuff from Democrats in the 1950s.
www.drudge.com

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 08:07 PM

I'd rather ostracize your ignorance than be seen as humble by strangers on the internet.

#106 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

The only thing you ostracize is your lack of manhood. Fact is, you rarely engage in civil discourse. It's a product of self-admitted bigotry on your part and I make that statement based upon probing your POV extensively as to how you view those with whom you disagree. Your view is incredibly bigoted and I can cite people on this site who are at least as Left as you if not further left who don't stereotype those with whom they disagree anywhere remotely to the extent that you do.

I treat you with far more respect than you've ever treated me. I am done with this.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 08:08 PM

- she sought to destroy her husband's accusers.

Still perpetuating the rwing myths....

Reality Check: Did Hillary Clinton attack her husband's accusers?

www.cnn.com

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 08:10 PM

"Quit being the most "fundamentally dishonest person on this site", as Sully properly alleged, and I'll engage"

It's not dishonest to ask people questions they know the answers to, but don't want to say.
It's merely unpleasant, for them, and also a revelation of their character.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 08:17 PM

Reality Check: Did Hillary Clinton attack her husband's accusers?

Uhhh, yes, according to a link in that very CNN article:

Hillary Clinton was campaigning for her husband in January 1992 when she learned of the race's newest flare-up: Gennifer Flowers had just released tapes of phone calls with Bill Clinton to back up her claim they had had an affair.

Other candidates had been driven out of races by accusations of infidelity. But now, at a cold, dark airfield in South Dakota, Mrs. Clinton was questioning campaign aides by phone and vowing to fight back on behalf of her husband.

"Who's tracking down all the research on Gennifer?" she asked, according to a journalist traveling with her at the time.

Confronting a spouse's unfaithfulness is painful under any circumstance. For Mrs. Clinton, it happened repeatedly and in the most public of ways, unfolding at the dawn of the 24/7 news cycle, and later in impeachment proceedings that convulsed the nation.

Outwardly, she remained stoic and defiant, defending her husband while a progression of women and well-funded conservative operatives accused Mr. Clinton of behavior unbecoming the leader of the free world.

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign's aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting -- tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce.

The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers's "character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition."

In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the investigator's staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then disseminated to the news media.

Mrs. Clinton's level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force.

Nice try, but the NYT proves you wrong, yet again.

NYT:How Hillary Clinton Grappled With Bill Clinton's Infidelity, and His Accusers

"no one cares about Hillary anymore"

-Alexandrite

#115 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 08:32 PM

It's merely unpleasant, for them
#114 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The very game you run from is your fav to deploy.

#116 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-07 08:33 PM

"hundred dollar bill" - James Carville

#117 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-07 08:34 PM

- Uhhh, yes, according to a link in that very CNN article:

I see that your reading comprehension still sucks, Trump Pet.

from the article:

"Conclusion

All, in all, we think Trump's blanket charge that Clinton "viciously" attacked these women to be an exaggeration too far."

#118 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-07 08:38 PM

I never said "viciously" (Trump did), Tinkerbell, I just said attacked, which was not an exaggeration at all according to the NYT article:

"she embraced the Clinton campaign's aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting -- tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce."

#119 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 08:42 PM

Let's repeat this...

"tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce."

#120 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 08:43 PM

Now go have a good cry in your Pantsuit Closet.

#121 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 08:44 PM

I wonder if David Boies was advising the Clinton campaign at that time, he could have hired Black Cube to go after Bubba's accusers.

#122 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 08:45 PM

- he could have hired Black Cube

You know Slick Willy's got some Pinkerton's working for him.

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-07 09:01 PM

"she embraced the Clinton campaign's aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting -- tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce."

Women who come forward should have their stories investigated. I know that is probably not a popular thing to say right now, but I have two words for anyone who thinks this shouldn't be the case: Tawana Brawley. Stories that don't withstand scrutiny should be discredited and denounced.

#124 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-07 09:09 PM

#124

I totally agree, but considering that Bubba ultimately admitted to having an affair with Jennifer Flowers, attacking and discrediting her was merely an attempt to get her to back down, nothing more.

#125 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 09:21 PM

You know Slick Willy's got some Pinkerton's working for him.

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism

And con man trump has a bunch of "progressives" working hard for him too.

#126 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 09:24 PM

#126

What does that post even mean?

Usually your bitter partisan snark is much clearer than that.

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-07 09:29 PM

Usually your bitter partisan snark is much clearer than that.

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter

It was clear to the person it was directed at.

#128 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 09:40 PM

"admitted to having an affair"

Yeah, and Clinton himself was aggressively attacked by many politicians and, it turns out journalists, who were guilty of doing the same or much worse. I think that's why Clinton was still pretty popular after the impeachment proceedings. Most people saw the hypocrisy behind those attacks.

#129 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-07 09:42 PM

#128 It was clear to me ask well.

#130 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-07 09:43 PM

Speaks: How dare you call me a hack!

Proceeds to post a staggering array of party approved talking points and stereotypes in order to justify his knee jerk party line voting.

Oh yeah I really missed my mark on that one..

#131 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 09:16 AM

HARDYHAR!
Just checked Facebook and the 4-remaining racist/angry perpetual victims I know in the Trump Cult are going totally -------
They are speed posting every rationalization you can imagine, except the ones where they are responsible for anything, of course

#132 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-08 03:23 PM

It was clear to the person it was directed at.

#128 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

It was crystal clear to me what he meant.

#133 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 06:45 PM

what "you" meant

#134 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-08 06:46 PM

Sheep can recognize Baaaa-rack Obama's face, new study shows

abcnews.go.com

#135 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-08 06:55 PM

#124 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I don't know what the stats are for sexual assault, but to your point rape allegations are false at 4x the rate of normal false crime allegations according to the FBI.

#136 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-08 07:06 PM

Cult 45.

#137 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-08 07:10 PM

Sheep can recognize Baaaa-rack Obama's face, new study shows.

Sheep, already smarter than racists.

#138 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-08 07:10 PM

Speaks: How dare you call me a hack!
Proceeds to post a staggering array of party approved talking points and stereotypes in order to justify his knee jerk party line voting.
#131 | POSTED BY SULLY

I think you meant to direct that at Sheepleschism.

#139 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-08 07:42 PM

The only cult I've seen is the people who can't stop talking about him.

I bet liberals can't hold a conversation 5 minutes without saying his name.

#140 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-09 10:26 AM

I bet liberals can't hold a conversation 5 minutes without saying his name.

#140 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-09 10:

We don't say his name in my household, to avoid summoning him. Neither do we display the color orange.

#141 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-09 10:43 AM

#141

You have to say it three times, fast...

#142 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-09 11:21 AM

Great article that applies to every single President and their followers. Anyone who thinks this is unique to Trump is not just part of the problem, but is the reason the problem will never go away.

#143 | Posted by humtake at 2017-11-09 11:42 AM

The only cult I've seen is the people who can't stop talking about him.
I bet liberals can't hold a conversation 5 minutes without saying his name.

#140 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

I haven't spoken or typed his name in over a year. I refuse to promote his brand.

#144 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-09 11:43 AM

I haven't spoken or typed his name in over a year. I refuse to promote his brand.
#144

It makes for some awkward moments in our Euchre games.

#145 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2017-11-09 11:55 AM

The only cult I've seen is the people who can't stop talking about him.
I bet liberals can't hold a conversation 5 minutes without saying his name.
#140 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

He's relevant. The real cultists are the DR cons that can't shut up about HRC.

#146 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-09 11:59 AM

Syc,

"You know, stuff normal people are concerned with especially on a politics website..."

It is?

So that explains why this site isn't as interesting as it has been in the past.


#147 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-09 12:12 PM

Obama supporters were inspired hope towards a more inclusive future.

Yes, him telling Republicans to get to the back of the bus. All that inclusion really worked on ObamaCare, with no Republican support.

A lot of inclusion there..

#148 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-09 12:30 PM

Syc,

Oops wrong thread

#149 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-09 01:58 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

'I Have a Dream' (200 comments)

Trump Golfed While Hawaii Panicked (85 comments)

Trump Calls DACA 'Probably Dead,' Dodges Blame (25 comments)

Laid-Off Carrier Workers Feel Betrayed by Trump (24 comments)

Wal-Mart Cutting 12,000 Jobs (23 comments)

All Immigration Was Legal Before 1882 (22 comments)

How 'Bout Them Jaguars? (19 comments)

China Demolishes Christian Megachurch (18 comments)