Trump’s VP Pick

[BDKJMU]

Wow all the Dem Operatives had the Vance attacks qued up and ready to go

Yep. Any conk who isn’t savaged by the left isn’t worth a damn. The more the left attacks him, the more I like him.

[Pwns]

Huh? Isn't this the guy backed by Peter Thiel?

[SDHornet]

My thoughts on the Vance pick is that he is the best (i.e. least tied to the establishment) than the other names that made the final cut. He does have an interesting background (grew up in poverty, Marine vet, Ivy Law school, venture capitalist, married a Brown person) and going with someone from the Rust Belt should help given the swing states in that region.

[UNI88]

That leftist coont is remembering something that didn’t happen.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 ... rtion-and/

Whenever a MAQA yahoo is criticized you try and focus on a potentially inaccurate detail to take attention away from all the truths. It’s your M.O.

You’re right forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape to term is more than inconvenient. It’s sadistic.

Maybe they could transfer these fetuses to his wife (and when medicine advances enough, him) to carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caribbean Hen]

That leftist coont is remembering something that didn’t happen.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 ... rtion-and/

Whenever a MAQA yahoo is criticized you try and focus on a potentially inaccurate detail to take attention away from all the truths. It’s your M.O.

You’re right forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape to term is more than inconvenient. It’s sadistic.

Maybe they could transfer these fetuses to his wife (and when medicine advances enough, him) to carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s not a medical advancement

[kalm]

Great read.

Where a god complex meets Von Mises meets Giovanni Gentile meets nerdcore.

The Peter Thiel pick.

Where to begin? First of all, yes, Thiel’s libertarianism is about freedom—freedom for him and people like him, the entrepreneurial elite of the capitalist class. He’s openly antidemocratic. In an essay for the Cato Institute, Thiel once wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible…” Why? Because if you empower the demos, they will eventually vote for restrictions on the power of capitalists. and therefore, restrictions on their “freedom.” He continues, “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy‘ into an oxymoron.” In that 2009 essay, Thiel imagines a kind of futurist program of utopian projects “beyond politics” in cyberspace or “seasteading,” but it’s clear now he’s returned to believing in politics, or at least an anti-political form of politics.

The brand of radical libertarianism favored by Thiel and his crony Curtis Yarvin has long preferred crackpot authoritarian solutions that would enhance capitalist domination. In the ’90s, Rothbard, who took his primary political inspiration from the America First movement, conceived of a “Right-Wing Populist” strategy that envisioned a Trump-like figure who could “short-circuit” the political establishment and smash the remnants of the New Deal order. Then the inspiration was Hoppe has advocated monarchism and “covenant communities” organized on essentially totalitarian basis. His book Democracy: The God That Failed divides humanity into producers and subhuman, parasitic “pests.”

But being anti-democratic is one thing, but how could the libertarian, the defender of individual freedom, the believer in the market ever really be a fascist, an ideology of the collective mass and the state? I think part of the problem is that there is still a very cartoonish notion of what actually-existing fascism looked like.

It’s important to remember that fascism, especially in its original incarnation in Italy, was never a fully coherent ideology. Like the symbol of the fasces itself, it’s a bundle of things bound together, a syncretic and cobbled-together system of politics that encompassed several ideological tendencies. As the Madonna song goes, it brought together the bourgeoisie and the rebel. Mussolini’s party began with avant-garde futurists and radical syndicalists in the cities, but within a couple years attracted the most conservative sections of the bourgeoisie in the countryside. The historian Alexander de Grand calls this intrinsic fragmentation hiding behind consensus “hyphenated fascism”: so, you had conservative-fascism, nationalist-fascism, technocratic-fascism, syndicalist-fascism, Catholic-fascism etc. Each saw in the fascist movement and state the possibility of realizing their own program. This was made possible because of the excessively abstract terms of fascist pronouncements and the political skill and mercurial nature of fascist leaders: it was about being opposed to common enemies like liberalism and Marxism while at the same time “restoring national greatness.” Everybody had their own idea about what that looked like. But all would replace tiresome and frustrating regime of democratic political contestation with the rule of competenze, or, what the sociologist of fascism Dylan Riley calls the “a technocratic rejection of politics as such.”

Much of the industrialist class might have preferred to stick with the laissez-faire liberalism of the 19th century and their own industrial associations, but they acknowledged times had changed, that they needed fascist techniques of mass control, and so “reluctantly” made their accommodation with the fascist regime, looking forward to the promise of labor peace and the business possibilities created by the military-industrial complex. It was the most pragmatic option and they found fascism’s elitism, the promotion of the idea that were special groups born to rule, to contain some flattering notions that jibed with their own self-conception. While some capitalists embraced fascism instrumentally, as preventing the worse fate of socialist revolution and dealing with pesky strikes, many began to identify with them more closely, albeit often with a low public profile, and helped to fund fascist parties. In France, one, the champagne magnate Pierre Taittinger, even attempted to start his own.

Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist and godfather of the type of radical libertarianism professed by Thiel, wrote in 1927, “It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.” It would be easy to beat up on von Mises, but he’s just performing his ideological role as spokesman of the capitalist class: this rationalization of fascism as a sort of “custodial dictatorship” that would fix things up for capitalism and “civilization’s” sake was virtually a commonplace among interwar bourgeoisie. And while Mussolini’s regime still retained some constitutional trappings and moved toward conservative normalization that still seemed like a plausible-enough outcome. (It’s worth noting that it’s this sort of “emergency-fascism” that predominates in the thinking of Michael Anton and Curtis Yarvin, both Thiel cronies. Thiel helped Anton, the author of the “Flight 93 Election” essay, get a job on the National Security Council.)

Borrowing his own terminology of going “back to the future” or doing “retro-futurism,” Thiel is a throwback to the era of the fascist industrialist. Some, like Fritz Thyssen, came to regret their association with the regimes they helped bring to power and had to flee, but others stuck around and took advantage of lucrative government contracts and slave labor.

https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-e ... irect=true

[UNI88]

Whenever a MAQA yahoo is criticized you try and focus on a potentially inaccurate detail to take attention away from all the truths. It’s your M.O.

You’re right forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape to term is more than inconvenient. It’s sadistic.

Maybe they could transfer these fetuses to his wife (and when medicine advances enough, him) to carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Cleets used to say, if men could get pregnant there’d be an abortion clinic on every street corner in the USA.

[Caribbean Hen]

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not any of that picture you love to paint with a broad brush but no thanks

[UNI88]

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.

I’m not any of that picture you love to paint with a broad brush but no thanks

kalm and Houndy, you can use this whenever a MAQA yahoo calls you a shitlib or similar.

[Bobcat]

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Cleets used to say, if men could get pregnant there’d be an abortion clinic on every street corner in the USA.

Or we wouldn't run away from accountability and use judgement by not letting every gal on the block use us.

[Bobcat]

I’m not any of that picture you love to paint with a broad brush but no thanks

kalm and Houndy, you can use this whenever a MAQA yahoo calls you a shitlib or similar.

Why do shitlibs always want to control speech? Hitler did that

[UNI88]

Any man that votes for a woman should cut his own junk off because hes not being represented anymore. A waste of a vote

Like Cleets used to say, if men could get pregnant there’d be an abortion clinic on every street corner in the USA.

Or we wouldn't run away from accountability and use judgement by not letting every gal on the block use us.

You are one angry dude. I don't know if you're divorced or it's because you lost your job but you're projecting a metric sh!t ton of "Divorced Dude Energy"

"There is a particular type of mental break," which he calls "Divorced Dude Energy," which he feels explains "the way some middle-aged men went cuckoo for Trump." Many, even most divorced men are not like this, he hastens to add. Still, we've all seen these cases where "a seemingly normal guy’s marriage breaks up and suddenly he’s a different person. Angry. Resentful. Superior. Kind of agro."
...
The appeal of Trumpism to men with Divorced Dude Energy isn't that mysterious: They like the Christian right worldview that Vance is peddling, where a woman is expected to hold a marriage together, no matter how great the cost to her. The phenomenon Last describes makes sense if one assumes, correctly, that sexist societies like ours produce men who have an easily bruised sense of entitlement. For a man who is bitter over a divorce, there's a sense of validation in joining forces with other men who are also angry at women.

Divorced Dudes of the sort Last describes will not hear Vance's lament about divorce and feel insulted. They will take it in the spirit intended: As an attack on their ex-wives for leaving them. That's also why Trump likely doesn't care. He knows that when Vance criticizes divorced people, he means divorced women.

No medical records needed to make this diagnosis.

FTR - I'm divorced and was laid off 3 times in 5 years. Sh!t happens. Let the anger go, life is better.

kalm, Cleets was right about that one.

[Bobcat]

Any man that votes for a woman should cut his own junk off because hes not being represented anymore. A waste of a vote

Or we wouldn't run away from accountability and use judgement by not letting every gal on the block use us.

You are one angry dude. I don't know if you're divorced or it's because you lost your job but you're projecting a metric sh!t ton of "Divorced Dude Energy"

"There is a particular type of mental break," which he calls "Divorced Dude Energy," which he feels explains "the way some middle-aged men went cuckoo for Trump." Many, even most divorced men are not like this, he hastens to add. Still, we've all seen these cases where "a seemingly normal guy’s marriage breaks up and suddenly he’s a different person. Angry. Resentful. Superior. Kind of agro."
...
The appeal of Trumpism to men with Divorced Dude Energy isn't that mysterious: They like the Christian right worldview that Vance is peddling, where a woman is expected to hold a marriage together, no matter how great the cost to her. The phenomenon Last describes makes sense if one assumes, correctly, that sexist societies like ours produce men who have an easily bruised sense of entitlement. For a man who is bitter over a divorce, there's a sense of validation in joining forces with other men who are also angry at women.

Divorced Dudes of the sort Last describes will not hear Vance's lament about divorce and feel insulted. They will take it in the spirit intended: As an attack on their ex-wives for leaving them. That's also why Trump likely doesn't care. He knows that when Vance criticizes divorced people, he means divorced women.

No medical records needed to make this diagnosis.

FTR - I'm divorced and was laid off 3 times in 5 years. Sh!t happens. Let the anger go, life is better.

kalm, Cleets was right about that one.

Ok

[Caribbean Hen]

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My body my choice

[SeattleGriz]

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What an absolutely stupid hypothetical. UNI Jr. Give your dad his phone back right now!!

[Bobcat]

Or don't

[Caribbean Hen]

“Vance regularly relies on personal experience”

A man of the streets!

Liking this guy

[UNI88]

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.

What an absolutely stupid hypothetical. UNI Jr. Give your dad his phone back right now!!

So you're a gerbil that has no problem forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term? Good to know you think so little of women and their mental health and well being.

[Caribbean Hen]

“watched welfare recipients talk on cell phones, although the working Vance could not afford one. His resentment of those who seemed to profit from poor behavior while he struggled, especially combined with his values of personal responsibility”

Vance gets it

[SeattleGriz]

What an absolutely stupid hypothetical. UNI Jr. Give your dad his phone back right now!!

So you're a gerbil that has no problem forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term? Good to know you think so little of women and their mental health and well being.

I never said anything about rape. I pointed out your absolutely stupid hypothetical.

And no, I do not think a woman should be required to carry a rapists child to term.

It's crap like you just pulled that brought about the assassination attempt. Never answering what was said, just making up extreme bullshit and pushing a narrative.

[UNI88]

So you're a gerbil that has no problem forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term? Good to know you think so little of women and their mental health and well being.

I never said anything about rape. I pointed out your absolutely stupid hypothetical.

And no, I do not think a woman should be required to carry a rapists child to term.

It's crap like you just pulled that brought about the assassination attempt. Never answering what was said, just making up extreme bullshit and pushing a narrative.

I know it goes back several posts but you probably shouldn't resort to name calling if if you don't understand the context. The hypothetical had everything to do with children conceived by rape. Would it have helped if I'd used crayons so you could follow the line of discussion/debate?

Whenever a MAQA yahoo is criticized you try and focus on a potentially inaccurate detail to take attention away from all the truths. It’s your M.O.

You’re right forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape to term is more than inconvenient. It’s sadistic.

Maybe they could transfer these fetuses to his wife (and when medicine advances enough, him) to carry.

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.

What an absolutely stupid hypothetical. UNI Jr. Give your dad his phone back right now!!

So you're a gerbil that has no problem forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term? Good to know you think so little of women and their mental health and well being.

Who needs to give their phone back to their dad (or wife)?

[Caribbean Hen]

I never said anything about rape. I pointed out your absolutely stupid hypothetical.

And no, I do not think a woman should be required to carry a rapists child to term.

It's crap like you just pulled that brought about the assassination attempt. Never answering what was said, just making up extreme bullshit and pushing a narrative.

I know it goes back several posts but you probably shouldn't resort to name calling if if you don't understand the context. The hypothetical had everything to do with children conceived by rape. Would it have helped if I'd used crayons so you could follow the line of discussion/debate?

Whenever a MAQA yahoo is criticized you try and focus on a potentially inaccurate detail to take attention away from all the truths. It’s your M.O.

You’re right forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape to term is more than inconvenient. It’s sadistic.

Maybe they could transfer these fetuses to his wife (and when medicine advances enough, him) to carry.

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.

What an absolutely stupid hypothetical. UNI Jr. Give your dad his phone back right now!!

So you're a gerbil that has no problem forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term? Good to know you think so little of women and their mental health and well being.

Who needs to give their phone back to their dad (or wife)?

You don’t know what we think about abortion do you

[SeattleGriz]

I never said anything about rape. I pointed out your absolutely stupid hypothetical.

And no, I do not think a woman should be required to carry a rapists child to term.

It's crap like you just pulled that brought about the assassination attempt. Never answering what was said, just making up extreme bullshit and pushing a narrative.

I know it goes back several posts but you probably shouldn't resort to name calling if if you don't understand the context. The hypothetical had everything to do with children conceived by rape. Would it have helped if I'd used crayons so you could follow the line of discussion/debate?

Whenever a MAQA yahoo is criticized you try and focus on a potentially inaccurate detail to take attention away from all the truths. It’s your M.O.

You’re right forcing a woman to carry a child conceived by rape to term is more than inconvenient. It’s sadistic.

Maybe they could transfer these fetuses to his wife (and when medicine advances enough, him) to carry.

That’s not a medical advancement

Not to bigots or incels or to rapists who could be forced to carry their child it isn’t.

What better way to give pro-lifers the opportunity to show their commitment then to let them carry an unwanted/unhealthy/dangerous fetus to term? They can put their body where their mouth is.

What an absolutely stupid hypothetical. UNI Jr. Give your dad his phone back right now!!

So you're a gerbil that has no problem forcing a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term? Good to know you think so little of women and their mental health and well being.

Who needs to give their phone back to their dad (or wife)?

How do you take my statement that your hypothetical is stupid and turn it into an assault on rape victims?

[UNI88]

I know it goes back several posts but you probably shouldn't resort to name calling if if you don't understand the context. The hypothetical had everything to do with children conceived by rape. Would it have helped if I'd used crayons so you could follow the line of discussion/debate?

Who needs to give their phone back to their dad (or wife)?

How do you take my statement that your hypothetical is stupid and turn it into an assault on rape victims?

Where exactly did I assault rape victims?

I'm sorry you think that my criticism of forcing victims impregnated by rape to carry the baby to term is stupid.