Political memes ONLY.. To prove your political points.
- Thread starter AlphaPhase
- Start date
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
trust us: we are.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Nah, you can call a turd a rose, but it’s still turd ……… just sayin
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It was a fair trial, the evidence and case were well laid out, the defense had no facts to counter the evidence and so they tried to discredit witnesses rather than provide arguments with merit. As a result, the jury's decision was unanimous on all 34 counts.
What can else can Trump's followers, who were fed bullshit by FOX about the facts of this trial, going to do other than initiate the first stages of grief -- anger and denial? Talk of revenge, or as you call it, "justice" for some imagined grievance. This is a classic narcissistic response on Trump's part. And his followers are just dancing to his tune.
What's going on with Trump's crowd has a name. It's called doubling-down. The con is obvious but getting people who were conned to admit it is sometimes difficult. Witness the response by Trump's loyalists. I don't know it you are one of them but Trump's crowd is being played.
Oh, and Trump hasn't been locked up yet. He's free while the appeal process works its way through the system. So tell me, what injustice are you talking about?
So, yes, Trump's support was hardened by the conviction but it didn't grow. The con has run its course. The number who have been conned might be enough to win the election for Trump but that is politics and not a matter of justice. We saw justice in New York last week.
MickFoster
Well-Known Member
MickFoster
Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
(I know, it's not a meme - but made me smile nonetheless)
compassionateExotic
Well-Known Member
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Funny and true, and I like Kumail. BUT, it's also kinda stupid to think that is still relevant. It's what really wrong with the world, anti-intellectualism being appreciated. Trump being stupid works in his advantage and makes him the ideal leader for the party of stupid. Calling people stupid doesn't help anything ime, but at least it's true. Both from 2016:
Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Went from the Party of Reagan to the Party of Trump.
Opinion | How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump (Published 2016)
Anti-intellectualism started as a Republican posture. It has ended with a dangerous ignoramus leading the party.
It’s hard to know exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle of the “stupid party.”
Stupidity is not an accusation that could be hurled against such prominent early Republicans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root and Charles Evans Hughes. But by the 1950s, it had become an established shibboleth that the “eggheads” were for Adlai Stevenson and the “boobs” for Dwight D. Eisenhower — a view endorsed by Richard Hofstadter’s 1963 book “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” which contrasted Stevenson, “a politician of uncommon mind and style, whose appeal to intellectuals overshadowed anything in recent history,” with Eisenhower — “conventional in mind, relatively inarticulate.” The John F. Kennedy presidency, with its glittering court of Camelot, cemented the impression that it was the Democrats who represented the thinking men and women of America.
Rather than run away from the anti-intellectual label, Republicans embraced it for their own political purposes. In his “time for choosing” speech, Ronald Reagan said that the issue in the 1964 election was “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant Capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” Richard M. Nixon appealed to the “silent majority” and the “hard hats,” while his vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, issued slashing attacks on an “effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”
If they weren't stupid, they'd had to play by the rules of logic and reason, which dictate they are wrong, wrong about pretty much everything. And stupid. They, and their supporters, ARE stupid. At some point the world will stop accepting or even legitimizing the opinions of the stupid, or so I hope to live to see. As I said for year, Trump's a stupid idiot, nuff said, don't waste anymore words than those.
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
Allow me stereotypical license as I'm having a thought. What I have to go on here is my own personal experiences living among the highly conservative for most of my life.Funny and true, and I like Kumail. BUT, it's also kinda stupid to think that is still relevant. It's what really wrong with the world, anti-intellectualism being appreciated. Trump being stupid works in his advantage and makes him the ideal leader for the party of stupid. Calling people stupid doesn't help anything ime, but at least it's true. Both from 2016:
Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Went from the Party of Reagan to the Party of Trump.
Opinion | How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump (Published 2016)
Anti-intellectualism started as a Republican posture. It has ended with a dangerous ignoramus leading the party.www.nytimes.com
It’s hard to know exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle of the “stupid party.”
Stupidity is not an accusation that could be hurled against such prominent early Republicans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root and Charles Evans Hughes. But by the 1950s, it had become an established shibboleth that the “eggheads” were for Adlai Stevenson and the “boobs” for Dwight D. Eisenhower — a view endorsed by Richard Hofstadter’s 1963 book “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” which contrasted Stevenson, “a politician of uncommon mind and style, whose appeal to intellectuals overshadowed anything in recent history,” with Eisenhower — “conventional in mind, relatively inarticulate.” The John F. Kennedy presidency, with its glittering court of Camelot, cemented the impression that it was the Democrats who represented the thinking men and women of America.
Rather than run away from the anti-intellectual label, Republicans embraced it for their own political purposes. In his “time for choosing” speech, Ronald Reagan said that the issue in the 1964 election was “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant Capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” Richard M. Nixon appealed to the “silent majority” and the “hard hats,” while his vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, issued slashing attacks on an “effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”
If they weren't stupid, they'd had to play by the rules of logic and reason, which dictate they are wrong, wrong about pretty much everything. And stupid. They, and their supporters, ARE stupid. At some point the world will stop accepting or even legitimizing the opinions of the stupid, or so I hope to live to see. As I said for year, Trump's a stupid idiot, nuff said, don't waste anymore words than those.
Current Republicanism (the American party) relies heavily on accusing others of what they themselves are guilty (e.g., cancel culture with books and non-cis, fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts for the rich, cries of "socialist" while cozying up to Russian interests). I think this accusatory behavior is rooted in jealousy, as in the Crab Pot phenomenon. I'm reminded of the genius take in Gilliam's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" where the cop speaker is melting down over drugs while shakily smoking a cigarette down to the filter.
I truly think, deep down, folks want to be "cool" and "with it." And when they miss the cue or don't understand, negative emotions emerge. Then walls go up and trenches are dug.
Americans want to be champions of their own destiny. It is baked into our culture (Manifest Destiny and all that impudent self-importance). Those intelligent enough to see the writing on the wall (overpopulation necessitates socialism) are derided by those who are not, who cannot understand complexity beyond one or two shades of grey. And they are derided jealously.
Throw in a little primitive fear of the unknown, then some proclivity toward tradition and habit (squelching curiosity). Lastly, include a readily tangible reason to be angry and resentful. Now that fear can be commanded.
I don't like this train of thought because it contains hubris, and no one I know wants to hear it from me (wow, right?). But, goddamn, I have had my head beat by, and beat my head against, these dynamics for so long. Sometimes I wonder if I am just as incorrigible as the intransigence I resist. But I keep going because of the Intolerance Paradox.
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
