MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
But once the shape of the 2016 primary became clear, Trump was running against Cruz, so "I want a real Republican and not a RINO" doesn't point to a Trump vote.
I know a lot of people who thought that way did vote for Trump over Cruz, and it sounds like you were one of them. I would be interested to hear what the logic is - was it simply that Trump was hated by the GOPe even more than Cruz was, or was it a specific policy or issue? (The small number of non-Mormon conservative Americans I know all voted for Cruz, although they thought of it as a 2 good options scenario rather than holding their noses and voting for the lesser evil).
Very much agreed. Trump got about 40% of the 2016 Republican primary vote if you only look at states which voted while the race was still competitive. Cruz voters don't need to hold their nose to vote for Trump, but I don't think they are any happier with him than they would be with another winning Republican who appointed pro-life SCOTUS justices.
Most of the issue isn't value over replacement on substantive issues, it is value over replacement on beating Democrats.
MAGA supporters are right that Trump is more electable than a Goldman-Aramco Republican who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and let another million H1Bs in, but I suspect they are wrong that he is more electable than a more competent, less divisive populist Republican like DeSantis.
he's probably in line with most of Christian morality
apart from the bits about sexual morality, bearing false witness against neighbours, dealing honorably with social inferiors etc. (The Bible explicitly condemns stiffing workers, something Trump thinks is just obvious business savvy).
So basically he isn't in line with Christian morality.
I agree with you that while Trump is a huge narcissist, he doesn't think he is God. A worrying number of his core supporters think he is a Godlike figure (I remember Trump as the W40K Emperor being a popular meme back in 2016), and Trump is delighted to humour them.
OR an unconscious sign of romantic interest, which you were both wise not to have acted on given that she was engaged to someone else. Fidelity is a social institution (and one which is deep and regrettable decay), not a biological adaptation.
At the level of detail needed to tell an 8 from a 9 from a 10, I can't tell what those chicks look like because the Wikipedia infobox pictures are taken in soft focus. Is this normal for Chinese women in Chinese media?
If American poasters think the consequences of his policies were terrible but Canadians kept re-electing him, there is the definite possibility that the consequences of his policies were not, in fact, terrible, at least for his first two terms.
I can't speak for Canada under Trudeau, but the two examples in the UK of a long-serving, historically successful, Prime Minister becoming catastrophically unpopular in their third term both involve the country being worse governed and not chickens coming home to roost from the honeymoon period. Thatcher did the Poll Tax, which was a genuine disaster. Blair did Iraq, which was unpopular in itself, but also became a distraction which prevented him continuing to push his ambitious domestic-policy agenda (which had been working in the first term - public services got visibly much better with only a small increase in spending). The "domestic policy" section of the wikipedia article on Blair's third term is entirely about counter-terrorist policy, which was also something which was less important than it looked and should have been delegated.
But the first two terms of both Thatcher and Blair were genuinely great times to be British. (Unless you were a union worker in one of the industries Thatcher stopped subsidising, I suppose). Thatcher's legacy was generally good - most of the damage of "Thatcherism" is about the next generation of right-wingers hanging on the ramblings of an increasingly demented elderly lady rather than doing the work of applying her insights to the circumstances of their (our) own generation. The worst parts of the legacy Blair left were not entirely his fault - the things that are most wrong with the UK post-GFC (not building enough houses, failure to diversify the economy away from business and professional services, not integrating or civilising the descendants of Mirpuri Pakistanis who immigrated in the 1960's) are all the working out of trends which predate Blair, although he enthusiastically allowed them to continue.
Or in cases of fetal abnormality. These span a spectrum from absolutely non-viable cases (like anencephaly) to clearly viable babies who are likely to be severely disabled (like Down's) but Christian pro-lifers want abortion to be illegal in almost all of them and normies with an ick about abortion think they are some of the good examples of legitimate abortions.
I remember this type of feeling after the 1997 election in the UK. I didn't even support Labour, but the Tories who had been fucking things up since before I was born were finally kicked out, and it felt good.
The best British example is former Home Secretary and Vice-President of the European Commission Leon Brittan
De Gaulle remains the best example globally, I think.
Although blocking oil exports while continuing to freeze Iran's foreign assets will mean that food and essential humanitarian imports will cease reasonably quickly because Iranians can't pay for them.
This happened to Iraq between the two Gulf Wars - food and medicine imports were excluded from sanctions, but the exports to pay for them were not. There was an oil-for-food programme at one point, but it never worked because Saddam didn't care about disfavoured ethnic groups starving and accordingly didn't actually want food imports, he wanted to embarrass the countries imposing sanctions.
There was the time a major-party Presidential candidate sang a "Bomb Iran" filk at a rally. The American voters rejected this rhetoric, but I think the Iranian voter would reject "Death to America" if they got the opportunity. The American establishment didn't reject it - McCain remained the Great White Hope of pro-establishment centrism until his death. Donald Trump spent most of his life as part of that establishment, and his recent behaviour re. Iran is strong (although by the nature of such things, not conclusive) evidence that he is fake-anti-establishment controlled opposition and not the turncoat determined to cleanse the Augean stables that his supporters like to think he is.
What would that look like? Some of the things he's done, notably on migration, necessarily involved picking fights with Brussels. Are those issues no longer salient for the EU leadership?
The EU institutions have never been committed to unlimited immigration, its just that most players (including potential illegal immigrants) correctly see Germany as more powerful within EU politics than the leadership of the EU institutions, and Merkel was committed to unlimited immigration.
A deal where Hungary lets in a small number of vetted refugees (who are already settled in Italy) in exchange for a large amount of cash and promises not to close its intra-EU borders works for both sides.
It isn't Iran's model. It was first set out a written policy by the Kennedy-era CIA (the "plausible deniability" memo which would later be made public by the Church Committee) and had already been in use by the USSR since the late 1950's.
Mao also did the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which are a lot crazier than anything the Iranian mullahs have done.
If Americans say "Fuck Iran", are they expressing a literal desire to copulate with the mullahs?
"Death to America" is an idiom with a similar meaning in a different language and cultural context.
This take hugely discounts the tail risks of having an unstable country with a history of exporting terrorism having these things.
Iran exports less terrorism than the USA (probably) or the USSR (definitely) did during the Cold War. Unless you think that Israelis count for more than, say, Londoners, which I suppose the American establishment does. Both superpowers funded the IRA, although I suppose the involvement of Rep Peter King (IRA-NY) doesn't technically make the IRA an official US client group. Empirically, being a state sponsor of terrorism is not strongly correlated with being a country that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons under MAD.
In the vast majority of traditional societies, male status continues to increase with age until you are visibly decrepit. I don't think there was ever a society where young men were at the top by default.
He hasn't lost until he has signed. He is kicking the can down the road and not taking the hit and signing a peace treaty. The US should have pulled out of Afghanistan at least 18 years earlier than it did. It was easier to continue the war than to take the short term loss and accept defeat.
I note that one of the best things 1st-term Trump did was admit this and surrender to the Taliban. For face-saving reasons he had to sign the surrender agreement in the last year of his term, dated to take effect after he left office - I am not going to complain given that the alternative was continuing to throw good men and money after bad.
Leaving the TDS angle aside, the conventional dovish view on Iran (which was also the official MAGA position during the 2024 campaign) was "Of course the US can curbstomp the Iranian military, but the consequence of winning is that you either have to occupy Iran (which would be a worse quagmire than Iraq) or you have a failed state on the shores of the Straits of Hormuz." Fundamentally, it was a prediction that Iran would end up like Iraq, but bigger, coupled with the long-standing and extensively battle-tested conventional wisdom that you cannot effect a regime change by air power alone.
Iran is exceeding my expectations in terms of its ability to put up a meaningful resistance to American air power, but the problem is that either America is planning to invade or they are not, and neither is a good outcome. If America bombs Iran back to the Stone Age but leaves the regime intact, then they can carry on obstructing shipping on the Straits of Hormuz with stone age technology (plus imported Russian or Chinese drones).
A man for every woman and a woman for every man, no less. Also one of many johnny foreigners the Brits sent packing, although not in the schoolboy history. (Sellars and Yateman in 1066 and All That say that British schoolboys remembered that Julius Caesar conquered Britain in 55BC. I remember being taught that Caesar's expedititions to Britain in 55BC and 54BC were failures and that Britain was conquered by Claudius in 43AD). Not to mention a world conqueror, possibly a God, and an author of remarkably clear Latin prose that makes his memoir good material for students.
I can't forgive Microsoft for making its first stab at virtual assistant so annoying and usurping the name of Cortana to do so.
Not Microsoft's first offence on this point. Remember when Clippy wasn't a misaligned AI. (I suppose the OG Microsoft Clippy was misaligned and artificial, but it definitely wasn't intelligent)
Because the Cold War was a planet-scale existential conflict lasting almost half a century, it provides examples of most of the tropes human conflict can generate. Because nukes made a direct heroic battlefield victory obviously impossible and, with hindsight, the goodies won almost entirely by soft power, most of the lessons of the examples come out in the "war bad" direction.
The basic argument against waging Albigensian Crusades is timeless. I suspect it was already old when Croesus crossed the river and destroyed a great empire.
TV as the dominant medium across a wide range of IQs was taking us towards the post-literacy era, but the text-based internet probably pushed it back a couple of decades. Respite over, I now go full old fogey every time the content I want exists in Youtube videos or podcasts but not text-based websites.
- Prev
- Next

Did the RINOs line up behind Cruz? My memory is that Kasich went the distance until it was mathematically impossible to beat Trump and the RINOs supported him in doing so.
More options
Context Copy link