Couch fuckin', boot lickin', normal human man.
Ha ha, good. So how long have you been reading this thread?
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
245 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2596 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Half tempted to call him as a constituent to tell him to go back to england
Redcoats
Nah, it's there hats that are red this time
Hey - guess who else he thinks has some good ideas.
Yeah, no kidding. That is the entire thing for the conservative movement.
It's because they assume some absolute power holder already exists and it's not their one, but black, jewish, deep state etc, so they want their own. The actual weakness of Democrats not holding 100% of all offices is probably the go-to talking point when trying to deprogram vulnerable believers of said conspiracies.
I keep saying I think no cons should be allowed to hold any office, and this is pretty much why. Despite all their rhetoric about "patriotism", and "freedom" and "but mah Constitution", they don't really care about any of that. They don't want freedom and they don't respect rule of law - except to have freedom only for themselves and those they deem worthy.
They are elitist to the core, but then declare ideas related to doing anything about climate change (and thus disrupt assumptions about fossil fuel usage and the Standard American Diet) as "elitist". They twist meanings of words to mean entirely different things from what normal Americans understand those terms to mean.
weird that the article doesn’t clearly link monarchism in general and RAGE specifically to Project 2025.
calls for a “benevolent dictator” to run the US
These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long. We've got something like 60 centuries of history to back that up. Eventually they demand unwavering fealty to their, and only theirs alone, lineage.
I feel like sometimes dressing up as Gandalf and smacking these idiots over their head and reminding them "only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!"
Like for fucks sake this is such an ingrained human trait we're making fucking fictional stories based off it and needing zero additional information on why anyone would desire such a monopoly on power.
I swear the lot of these people have their heads firmly planted deep into their lower digestive tract.
Yep … a severe case of Cranial Rectal Inversion.
They all imagine themselves Caesar imagining himself Cincinnatus.
Eventually they demand unwavering fealty to their, and only theirs alone, lineage.
We don't even have to wait for this eventuality. Trump is the embodiment of this process pressed into an ultrapure essence already. He demands fealty to one person, himself.
These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long.
Not just that, the implication here is that “benevolence” is objective, which is a fundamentally religious point of view. But in the real world, one man’s benevolent dictator would be another man’s tyrant.
But even in the liturgical sense of benevolence, schism is a thing, and often enough that we literally made the word schism for that and everyone else just adopted it to means a break of different ideas that used to be one.
So even those of the same religion have over time turned on each other. There's just been no successful consolidation of organized power under a single person or dictum that stayed free of eventually violence to it's own members. Power always thirsts more power. That's been all of history.
These degenerates are also completely incapable of choosing someone who would be benevolent even for a moment. They just want someone who hates the same people they hate to be able to bypass checks and balances to hurt the people they want to hurt. There's no deeper political philosophy here.
Of course he does. He used to work for known neo feudalist Peter theil
Still does
The Verge basically just copied the notes from the Behind the Bastards episodes about Curtis Yarvin. A frustrating experience to listen to, and read about as well considering how Yarvin is so very full of bad ideas
Link to part 1 for those interested , and yeah, frustrating as fuck to listen to, considering what we're watching go on in the American political dumpster fire.
I really liked that Ed Helms asked a lot of very straightforward questions about Yarvin's ideology, which just went to show that it completely falls apart if you think about it critically for even a moment. It's not something you come to believe after listening to the best arguments from a bunch of different positions. It's something you come to believe because it justifies your own elitism.
Pretty sure monarchism consists of one idea
Yup. Absolute power.
I mean, you'd be surprised.
For one, without reading the full thing I may agree with the headline. If you're a Constitutional Monarchist who thinks having the head of state be a symbolic figurehead with no real power or capacity to intervene in politics I may not disagree with you.
The US could elect Trump as king and let him spend his days waving at crowds and attending weddings, maybe doing the jerk-dance in receptions with other monarchs. A remarkable number of democracies operate this way and do alright. Certainly better than letting him run any country for real.
Trump isn't the problem. His rhetoric is. Giving him a a figurehead position just hands him a megaphone to spout more of it.
You're taking the joke a bit too seriously. But hey, in any case it doesn't seem like he's struggling on that department. I haven't seen so much media attention devoted to unbearably annoying ramblings applied to a monarch. They mostly just sit in the corner and try to avoid reminding people that ceremonial dynastic positions are an anachronism.
because he’s a candidate. if he loses a second time that will change.
I mean, talk about an incentive to go vote for Harris if you can.
yeah, that’s usually how it works.