Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Return of the Freaker]

....please let there not be a surge of femboi drumpf art coming out of this.

I have already endured the nightmare of official canon femboy luke skywalker this past week, I dont need to see estrogenised plod turd twink erotica
Ver archivo adjunto 1319622Ver archivo adjunto 1319623
- yes this is the official disney redesign of luke skywalker, i had to see it, now you have to see it -

TIL midichlorians are really phytoestrogens

 

[Terrorist]

MAGA used to have true dissident meaning but now it's just another hashtag lifestyle brand for people to make youtube videos about. If "Blaire" White, Rob Smith, and Alan Dershowitz can all claim your label then your label means nothing. FFS there's even a drag queen named "Lady MAGA" now.

 

[Jarolleon]

Reality:
>Is a billionaire
>Married to a supermodel
>Is President
>Takes no crap from the media
>By all accounts has a great attitude with the random little guy

Atlantic:
Ver archivo adjunto 1319617
Archive

He must think that "manly" means "Saxton Hale from Team Fortress 2" , and secretly wondering why blue collar voters aren't clamoring for president Chuck Norris.

Wait a minute, now they care about being masculine? I thought traditional masculinity was toxic and it’s something to be avoided.
And if Trump is considered unmanly, then what’s their idea of manly anyways?

You’ve been beat to the punch; there’s been cross dressing and sissified versions of Trump ever since he came into office. Also spoiler that shit next time, I just had breakfast!

They have a strawman of what the right is supposed to value that's based on years of parodies one-upping each other, resulting in something akin to Flanderization except as applied to one's conception of a real-life political group rather than a cartoon character. Once saddled with this warped worldview, they attempt the cultural equivalent of that "Of course I'm not a Christian I just think this argument would work on you" meme, and this shit happens.
Edit: Partly ninja'd by Honest Coyote

 

[X Prime]

From the article:

"I am a son of the working class..."

So he's trying to take credit for his father's work, while spending his time writing treatises about how that same working class should shut up and listen to self-described experts.

I know it's a cliche, but this is some serious "how do you do, fellow kids" shit here.

Nichols is the exact kind of person who Thomas Frank warns about in Listen, Liberal.

The working class doesn't listen to experts because A) much of the time they're actually wrong, and B) they never admit A.

 

[Jarolleon]

Nichols is the exact kind of person who Thomas Frank warns about in Listen, Liberal.

The working class doesn't listen to experts because A) much of the time they're actually wrong, and B) they never admit A.

And C), someone they know goes to college and finds out what the experts are really like.

Not sexual interest, sexual interest specifically in women. Democrats confirmed as faggots.

In all seriousness, it's interesting how often leftwing insults are sexual in nature (small hands, bimbo accusations, impotence, "whyte bois can't compete", etc.). Isn't sex shaming suppose to be a no-no for the sex-positive party?

It's not just allowed, it's required. What do you think "make love not war" was about? If a man's value isn't based on sexual prowess, then our ape-brains will default to valuing him on how handy he is in a fight, that's what Freud taught, and you never get past Freud in high school.

 

[X Prime]

MAGA used to have true dissident meaning but now it's just another hashtag lifestyle brand for people to make youtube videos about. If "Blaire" White, Rob Smith, and Alan Dershowitz can all claim your label then your label means nothing. FFS there's even a drag queen named "Lady MAGA" now.

It's hard to figure out what Dershowitz's deal is.

He has lost tremendous social cred for defending Trump. All I can figure is that it's out of gratefulness for Trump's stance on Israel, but that seems too easy.

 

[Robert James]

Not sexual interest, sexual interest specifically in women. Democrats confirmed as faggots.

In all seriousness, it's interesting how often leftwing insults are sexual in nature (small hands, bimbo accusations, impotence, "whyte bois can't compete", etc.). Isn't sex shaming suppose to be a no-no for the sex-positive party?

My favorite is when they use incel, nothing says we respect women more then telling men they only have value if the fuck one. You know objectifying them and turning them into awards men would use to judge eachother by.

 

[Jarolleon]

My favorite is when they use incel, nothing says we respect women more then telling men they only have value if the fuck one. You know objectifying them and turning them into awards men would use to judge eachother by.

Those women aren't awards, but judges.

 

[Shaka Brah]

It does. If it didnt, then California would have left the union in 2016. But it didnt. Democrats wont follow through because they know they dont have the votes int he various state legislatures and congress to pull this move off, and trying to do it without votes would lead to civil war.

California is the biggest welfare leech of any state. They love the Fed's pocketbook and would never leave.

 

[Kiwi Farms Lurker]

We should just repeal all sex laws and see what happens to the fake outrage.
Ver archivo adjunto 1319521

For one thing, lots of lawyers will have to find another job even ones that are more manual like electrician or plumber.

Or end up as an unemployable lolcow, like Michael Avenatti.

Ver archivo adjunto 1320861

That's actually a troll account, yeah.

The BidenHarris2020 shit kinda gave it away, nobody's that stupid.
Yeah I know

 

[Jason "Qriist" Close]

5 new blue states from DC and other territories

Making new states from DC

You make the mistake of thinking the constitution still matters.

DC cannot be a state without a constitutional amendment that revises at least two sections

Article I:8:17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To be the District you had to explicitly give up your statehood. Virginia and Maryland both "donated" to the cause (though it was primarily picked out by George Washington) and Georgetown, MD + Alexandria, VA were suddenly no longer represented in Congress. (VA eventually got its land back, Alexandria was suddenly represented again)

Amendment XXIII:1
The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

All of these are very particular bits of language that no longer apply if DC is a state. The second one even introduces a paradoxical ambiguity because of basic logic and math. The most generous reading would imply that, at best, it would never be able to increase electors beyond when it was introduced because DC itself is the least populous state. It may even permanently lose electors if another state dips below and (by way of Constitution) forces DC to lose some to match.

All of that's besides the point. The Founders explicitly didn't want DC to be a state because they didn't want the seat of the government to have more power upon the States than the cosmic scale power it would already have by mere dint of being the nexus of all statehood mechanics.

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

If Trump loses, it's Boogaloo Time. Calling it now.

Because Trump losing would probably involve a massive amount of vote fraud and shady counting practices. Right wingers are also highly aware of what left-wingers in power would do to them, thanks to said leftists shrieking it at the tops of their lungs for the last 4 years...

 

[jje100010001]

It does. If it didnt, then California would have left the union in 2016. But it didnt. Democrats wont follow through because they know they dont have the votes int he various state legislatures and congress to pull this move off, and trying to do it without votes would lead to civil war.

IMO, there might not be such drastic moves, but I personally don't doubt that the groundworks for a long-term Democractic entrenchment in the government are being considered.

Stuff like amnesty helps push demographic shift in certain key states, and things like the interstate compact that bypasses the electoral college is popular among Democrats and doesn't really affect daily life nor provide Republicans with much ammunition.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

If Trump loses, it's Boogaloo Time. Calling it now.

Because Trump losing would probably involve a massive amount of vote fraud and shady counting practices. Right wingers are also highly aware of what left-wingers in power would do to them, thanks to said leftists shrieking it at the tops of their lungs for the last 4 years...

Whether there will be a boogaloo or not in the aftermath, I do think there will be a metric fuckton of cheating and they will be spectacularly unsubtle about it. Like, "not bothering to hide it at all" unsubtle. It will be massive, blatant, and they'll basically just be daring anyone to stop them.

 

[heyitsmike]

That's....not how that works. At all. Any new states being added into the union have to be approved by congress and the state legislature, and you cant simply split a state up to get votes. There is an ages old amendment addressing this very issue

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the constitution states:

The Admission to the Union Clause also forbids the creation of new states from parts of existing states without the consent of both the affected states and Congress. The primary intent of this caveat was to give Eastern states that still had western land claims a veto over whether their western counties could become states. This clause has served the same function since, each time a proposal to partition an existing state or states has arisen.

There have only been 7 states in history that were not created from territories. Vermont, Maine, and Kentucky were all created from land of pre existing states, but all 3 you'll notice were the result of the 13 original states being too spread out and cutting off some extraneous part of their state. Maine was a district of Massachusetts, Kentucky was created form land from Virginia, which was just a goddamn massive state at one point, and Vermont was created from a land dispute before the revolution and created by order of King George. EDIT: also Tennessee was formed form land from north carolina.

The next two are california and texas, both made of land seceded from war with mexico.

The only state that has ever split from its host over political differences is West Virginia during the civil war. If it were not wartime it is highly unlikely this would have been allowed, as it was not agreed upon by the Virginian legislature. Making new states from DC and land from other states would require all those states to agree to give up their land and redraw lines, which the other states will never agree to, and must be agreed upon by congress.

Now, congress will be a continuous roadblock. The Senate is predominately republican controlled, and this is much by accidental design. The Senate is designed to represent states with low populations, and by extension this currently means republican states. They are not about to approve these radical changes and will not let democrats stack the courts. Democrats had their change in 2008 and blew it.

Speaking of which, 2008 shows how two faced political parties are. Politicians will not fix the problems they are elected to fix, because then there is no reason to re-elect them. Democrats can campaign on healthcare and citizenship all they want, but if given actual power wont implement these plans, because once they do not only will they torpedo their own re-election speeches but will hand ammunition to their political opponents. Same reason republicans will never cut social security to any degree. Remember, democratic Obama hit new heights of deportation while in power, and his party has been arguing for more aliens for decades.

When did I ever say split up a state? I said territories. As in Congress passing a bill making Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Bikini Atoll and God knows where else a state.

DC cannot be a state without a constitutional amendment that revises at least two sections



To be the District you had to explicitly give up your statehood. Virginia and Maryland both "donated" to the cause (though it was primarily picked out by George Washington) and Georgetown, MD + Alexandria, VA were suddenly no longer represented in Congress. (VA eventually got its land back, Alexandria was suddenly represented again)


All of these are very particular bits of language that no longer apply if DC is a state. The second one even introduces a paradoxical ambiguity because of basic logic and math. The most generous reading would imply that, at best, it would never be able to increase electors beyond when it was introduced because DC itself is the least populous state. It may even permanently lose electors if another state dips below and (by way of Constitution) forces DC to lose some to match.

All of that's besides the point. The Founders explicitly didn't want DC to be a state because they didn't want the seat of the government to have more power upon the States than the cosmic scale power it would already have by mere dint of being the nexus of all statehood mechanics.

If you believe RBG's hologram and rest of the liberal wing of SCOTUS cares about what you wrote... I got a bridge to sell you. Sotomayor don't give a shit and will rule in whatever way helps the Democrats.

 

[Gehenna]

IMO, there might not be such drastic moves, but I personally don't doubt that the groundworks for a long-term Democractic entrenchment in the government are being considered.

Stuff like amnesty helps push demographic shift in certain key states, and things like the interstate compact that bypasses the electoral college is popular among Democrats and doesn't really affect daily life nor provide Republicans with much ammunition.

You are a bit late to this party. They were WELL underway with doing that under Obama. Trump winning was a massive spanner in the works and a lot of what you are seeing today are attempts to salvage an operation gone awry. Things like the interstate compact you mention will only ever really be a thing in hard blue states, which aren't likely to vote Republican anyway.

When did I ever say split up a state? I said territories. As in Congress passing a bill making Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Bikini Atoll and God knows where else a state.


If you believe RBG's hologram and rest of the liberal wing of SCOTUS cares about what you wrote... I got a bridge to sell you. Sotomayor don't give a shit and will rule in whatever way helps the Democrats.

Adding a state also has hiccups. Namely, it has to pass BOTH houses of congress with 2/3rds majorities and be signed into law by the president.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

When did I ever say split up a state? I said territories. As in Congress passing a bill making Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Bikini Atoll and God knows where else a state.


If you believe RBG's hologram and rest of the liberal wing of SCOTUS cares about what you wrote... I got a bridge to sell you. Sotomayor don't give a shit and will rule in whatever way helps the Democrats.

Well then I guess we should be thanking God that SCOTUS isn't majority-liberal.

 

[jje100010001]

You are a bit late to this party. They were WELL underway with doing that under Obama. Trump winning was a massive spanner in the works and a lot of what you are seeing today are attempts to salvage an operation gone awry.

I know this, but I completely expect them to accelerate this and reapproach this from a V2 perspective if they win- namely the inoculation of the political system to prevent someone like Trump from ever appearing again.

 

[Cast Iron Pan]

Ver archivo adjunto 1320871

That's what they said last time! "Trump wins, then him and his followers will go mad with violence and such!" And it turned out to be the complete opposite. Oh ye of zero fucking self awareness.

If it didnt, then California would have left the union in 2016.

Removing themselves from the game wouldn't serve them whatsoever. They want Eternal California coast to coast, and California is a fantastic cudgel to assist in achieving that.

FFS there's even a drag queen named "Lady MAGA" now.

 

[HumanHive]

Ver archivo adjunto 1321499

Yeah, I saw this troon at CPAC. Creepy as fuck.