I think we have to stop calling zealots anything but zealots. I was shocked by AOC’s list idea, though as a social worker I have sympathy for some of her views (primarily, working people should be able to live with dignity). However, she is increasingly a take-no-prisoners, only-our-side political animal, which for me makes her views less important than her behavior.
My father, a Rush Limbaugh Republican, subscribed my eldest child to National Review upon his birth. He was a bright kid, but not up to reading the magazine at the time, so I did. I respected that the articles were thoughtful and well written. Sometimes I agreed, sometimes not. During the Trump presidency, I’ve occasionally checked in to see what they thought. They’re republicans and conservatives, not zealots. My husband and his family are Republicans and conservatives (my husband really should be an independent, his views are pretty closely aligned with mine, except that he hates all Dems as being, essentially, Hillary Clinton…except our friends, who like me get a pass). They’re not zealots. My friends are not liberal zealots, but I do see former coworkers on my FB page who strike me that way (I unfollow during political times, as they stress me with their stridency).
Left-leaning and right-leaning, or purely left or right, do not = crazy ass lunatic. Crazy ass lunatic = crazy ass lunatic. Trump strikes me as having met that standard, and AOC is now on my watch list (as some of you are on HERS, lol). I am wary of my friend Tom now, as he expressed some crazy ass “buying a gun” “if it’s a war you want, Mr. Trump, I shall heed the call” shit around the time the administration gassed the protesters for the bible shot. I’d introduced him to my husband at the grocery store a couple of days prior to the post, and was left wondering “who is Tom going to shoot?” My husband? We live in a pretty mellow place. Is Tom traveling out to a city to use his new gun against the Republicans?
Words matter. Labels matter. On both sides. Every group has its zealots and random crazy people. I would imagine that if you gathered a sizable enough group of ping-pong players, you’d find some of each. Does that make “ping-pong players” dangerous? No. Not unless they unite as a block to follow and support their zealot in fulfilling its mission.
At best, these moves are petty, and revenge oriented. At worst, he’s setting the stage to have the Pentagon behind him when he tries to hold on to power.
There’s NO DOUBT that what he’s doing is endangering the security of the country right now. At a time when we need stability in the Pentagon, Trump is upending things. Even if these people weren’t questionable for the job, it’d still be a bad move right now and really pointless so close to a transition. So who are two of Trump’s new appointees:
Anthony Tata: Has called President Obama a terrorist leader in now deleted tweets: Controversial Trump Ally Takes Over Top Pentagon Policy Job: Report
Trump tried to install Tata in the Pentagon in August but the current Senate rejected him. He has also pushed conspiracy theories that former CIA director Brennan tried to overthrow Trump:
I agree. The problem is that Trump’s most ardent supporters are eating this up. Look at @pat, who said that the Secretary of State trolling the media about preparing for Trump’s second term:
We are dealing with people, even at the highest level, that are simply motivated by making rational people angry at the expense of national security (no briefings for Biden yet), the democratic process (claiming fraud without evidence), and our country’s unity. Trump has even stopped pretending to work, just clearing his schedule to tweet, golf, and scheme for his personal gain (the election defense fund is funneling donations to his debt, not baseless lawsuits).
It seems the difference in claims between the whistleblower and project veritas is how much input the whistleblower had in crafting the affidavit. They have looked like a slimy operation for some time, and this doesn’t help their cause. Even if they only were helping with the affidavit, why would a news organization be doing so?
That’s just Donald being Donald. Don’t take his word seriously, but also I voted for him because he is a straight shooter. Can you prove that is a lie? Obama did the same things.
I love how you did that. Ascribe a general meaning to a whole bunch of people who are not at all like me and pretending we are all the same. Not only that, that we are motivated to make weak people cry.
My life isn’t wrapped up in any politician so much that it would force me to extreme behavior. I cannot say that about the left. But, I won’t bother to clarify because it won’t do any good. You’ve decided what I mean, despite what I actually mean.
He’s not legally won yet. And you can bet if the tables were turned Biden’s team would be fighting their little hearts out in the court too. Their is a legal process for this and it’s being followed and as long as the law is being followed I don’t have beef. The media doesn’t run things.
So he’s claiming they gave him a script and he followed it? That sounds more like a desperate attempt not to be investigated after being busted with your hand in the cookie jar.
If this guy is filling out lawfully affidavits that are false that may be worse for him than the fraud.
I have a simple solution for it, though. If it’s credible enough, launch an investigation and find out what really happened.
Politics drag, on and on and on. I may need to take a break from it. It’s 2020, the most fucked up year on record. So I do kinda expect fucked up shit and nothing be clean.
I believe @pat ‘s just venting. He’s stated legitimate reasons describing why he supports Trump’s policies more than the dems’ before. The trolling and “leftist tears” are probably just the icing on the cake for him. Not agreeing with it, just saying he’s not some mindless zealot even though he does write some stuff here purposefully just to piss the Left off and he’s pretty wrong on a lot of matters but he’s not stupid.
Right, but this degrades the tone of public discourse. The libtards are not just faceless masses, they’re actual people, just like the wingnuts. I think a little courtesy goes a long way, because otherwise you have this, which I agree with:
Every single person in America feels it’s fucked up and dirty, from what I can tell. Why don’t we band together and demand better? As they say, every nation gets the government they deserve. I would like us to work together to earn something better, on both sides of the aisle.
I think when many of us(including me) us the word “the Left” or “libtards” and not “liberals” or “dems”, we’re referring to the more extremist ones. I would be considered a liberal if I were living in the US and @pat is too libertarian and non-racist to be considered someone from the “far right”. He’s closer to a classical liberal from what I can tell when he’s really discussing his beliefs.
Interesting. I’m curious what does force you into your extreme behavior? I had assumed it was politics, but perhaps it’s something else. Miley Ray Cyrus? McPlant burgers? Subaru Outbacks? I’m genuinely curious.
Because we’re coached on several levels that our enemy is the other wing, rather than actual enemies to freedom and liberty.
Edit: I hope that once all this stuff is settled we can start actually being Americans. I didn’t vote for Biden, but for fuck’s (and America’s) sake, I hope his administration is successful. His acceptance speech started off on a good note - working for all Americans, not just the ones that voted for him, etc. - I just hope he follows through on it.
I’m fairly familiar with the terminology, and used the words “libtard” and “wingnut” deliberately, as the insults they are.
Racism has only become an earmark of the far right recently, though it’s always been a by-product. Libertarians are absolutely a part of this group, unless we’re using the modifier “classical” to indicate “in bygone times.”
Regardless, you support my point when you say that “actually, @pat is pretty liberal!” My point being that being AGAINST is not working for us as a nation. We need instead to be FOR the things we believe in. So I am not AGAINST Trump, I am FOR integrity in our highest office, whatever the party. Being against Trump is a by-product of my guiding principles.
Agreed, I’ve been mostly civil with him and explained a lot of stuff I think he is mistaken about in-depth to the best of my abilities. I wouldn’t bother to do that to a zealot. If I write a long post in reply to one, it’s to prevent OTHERS who may be influenced by such zealots from taking their words seriously.
His “watching libtards cry” thing is probably just to get a rise out of some guys exchanging insults. He knows I lean slightly to the left and I self-professed to be more of a progressive but he doesn’t give me that shit lol.
Neither had Trump at this time. But I bet if we went back you weren’t saying the media messed up in calling it for him. You weren’t saying Clinton shouldn’t have conceded. And you probably weren’t saying Obama should be working against him for transitions just in case Clinton came back weeks after the election.
Lawsuits haven’t gone anywhere and if some giant evidence was out there I would think we would have heard about it. Let’s just call it what it is…Trump being unable to handle the results. And the GOP largely just making him happy by faking the whole “we don’t know who won yet” deal.