Sociopath Community

The guy's handled as a radical celebrity, a political rockstar, one where people are conditioned to expect him to fail so far that they've learned to trivialize it. As another I know put it: Kamala has to be Flawless while Trump has to be Lawless. 

that's cope...trump is a visionary; kamala is someone who for the pragmatic purpose of inheriting the biden war chest was propped up. her "persona" is something that probably turned a surprising amount of latino voters against her, even. where i'm at now is majority hispanic and they love trump. because he's like a badass moneymaker who has a lot of sex with beautiful women, and kamala was this cackling woman who seems like something is off. the left was so cut off from what normal people see. they thought running biden when he was clearly senile was the best move, even let the guy sink his own campaign at a debate.

i've said before kamala was a bad pick. all the hype surrounding her that first month was just an uptick of hope after biden dropped out. but in the end the left did not have an actual visionary leader...just a bunch of platitudes. aoc and fetterman put in better pr than kamala did. though i don't know who the left could have even ran. a lot of people think newsom, but newsom is a lot more prickly than people realize. there weren't really any options

Turncoat said:

You don't see shutting down woke discourse and embracing liberal tears as suppressive? You don't see removing the ability to talk about leftist concepts in schools as suppressive? You don't see them being told over and over to "get over it" while being told their ideals are fucked up, degenerate, and disorderly as suppressive? 

This to me looks like a script flip: Rather than Leftists talking over seperation of Church and State, we're now seeing Righties talking over separation of Sex and State (and to a lesser degree Race). 

Both sides aim to censor the other under the name of their own human rights, and neither side wants to be told to shut up. The problem to me looks more like it's over how people haven't gotten over it yet, as we saw similar things happening when Gay Rights were being fought for prior to this development. 

ya well the left also tells the right to get over it when they win...or calls them deplorables or garbage...so let's not wear rose-tinted glasses on this one. but that's just like red team blue team tribalistic sports behavior.

you say schools are losing the ability to talk about leftist concepts. which ones (link a news article if you have it)?

does separation of sex and state mean we aren't going to have 6 gender options on a military recruitment sheet or a tax return? need specifics here

Turncoat said:

See, that's what I've found odd to watch; overtime I've been seeing The Left trying to distance from this. There's a good number of them tired of this shit too, even as a trans person I'll still fight for it but I am among those tired of the conversation. Overtime it's become Right Wingers explaining how The Left behaves far more often than seeing a Leftist act on it, repeating the same stories over and over long after The Left learned to see it as cringy to continue the course. 

I'd argue both sides are tired of hearing it while The Right can't shut up about 'Wokeism' in an ironically Woke way via it's original protest definition; Making sure to keep repeating this shit over and over so no one can forget about it or move past it. What makes it different however is where blame can be directed; Rather than growing tired of and complaining about how it keeps being said to them over who keeps saying it, both sides bringing up the same shit directs them towards one target. 

To me, I see far more Right Wing people going on about trans shit than The Left does. Still though, what are those who ascribe to "the gay shit" supposed to do here? 

Yeah at the start it was about preaching tolerance while intolerant about it, but I've seen the LGBTQ quieting down their intensity for a bit now. By contrast The Right keeps appealing to before this happened as if it's all that's going to happen. Even looking at Right vs Left Wing commercialism it was only The Right going on about Wokeism... while The Left was either quiet about it or outright spoke against that message in their ads. 

Trans rights wasn't a good look anymore, so they focus-fired on female rights instead. We're outright seeing these fringe demographics going more Right Wing, either over a misconception about them having learned to tolerate them, over focusing on how their own party made them feel abandoned or betrayed, or through trying to ignore the issue entirely. 

i was saying this a long while back when i posted the bill maher video of him talking about the need for the left to distance itself from wokeism. and then the fetterman quote about how he isn't "woke". and that basically the far left was dragging the left down with this social stuff that is too extreme for what average people want. this is a rift that has been obvious ever since the trans sports debate blew up. there were left political commentators being banned on twitch over opposing MtF in women's sports...people started to become too zealous about "equality"...we seen this with the war in gaza as well. gays for gaza? give me fucking break

as far as how often a leftist acts that way...yes we know every leftist is not a blue-haired screeching libtard. but let's not act like it's nonzero and that eric weinstein and jordan peterson were not heckled off their campuses by frothing mobs. and that we didn't have years of antifa attacking rightists during protests, or attacking people picketing against an abortion clinic...or when we let cities get ransacked over racial grievances, and then the business owners are the ones who lose everything they spent their lives working on. so there is an extreme faction there which is active, and i think to not see that you'd have to be willfully blind. and i don't want to hear that the people who do the destruction aren't political activists. it's the political activists who green lit all of that and made it possible

Turncoat said:

We've been seeing this for a long long while now. Fairly Odd Parents in 2001, The Simpsons in 1989, and many other shows played into this sort of approach over how writers couldn't get away with writing housewives to be Edith Bunkers anymore. 

The problem in writing became over how social censorship was not allowing for flawed female characters anymore, but those flaws had to be written somewhere. Through being stuck with feeding those traits to male figures it gave across an overall impression. 

i think especially in the 80s and into the 90s, we seen an increase in female leads in a way which wasn't artificial. there was also some transgender media, like the movie "the crying game". this was fine, it wasn't being overdone. but right now the narrative game is just relentless with these movies and shows

Turncoat said:

Trump has publicly stated that he wishes to rid left wing media of their broadcasting licenses, and has already found an alleged excuse to target CBS. Granted, him targetting CBS could be more ego-motivated: His own interview on there with 60 Minutes left a bad taste in people's mouths and he's accusing them of editing their interview with Kamala to make her look good. 

The question to me isn't over if he'll succeed, it's over if he has the desire and the will to try. I hope it fails, but the writing seems to be plainly enough on the wall to have members of the CIA and Pentagon like 'oh shit wtf'. 

yeah, he is suing CBS for 10 billion. well alex jones got fined 1 billion for the sandy hook thing. so i think cbs is gonna be ok. leftists are so afraid of a dictator. i wish he was one so we could fast-track everything. but this is just not that lol

Tryptamine said: 

The guy's handled as a radical celebrity, a political rockstar, one where people are conditioned to expect him to fail so far that they've learned to trivialize it. As another I know put it: Kamala has to be Flawless while Trump has to be Lawless. 

that's cope...trump is a visionary;

A visionary? Bruh that's Kool-Aid language based entirely on faith, and if anything supports my above point. I don't think I'd ever find myself saying that about a political candidate, ever, even when they support my needs. 

If asked, what flaws would you say Trump has? This question in debate formats has had to begin being used just as much as ensuring both people in a debate are using shared terminology. When many of the more cultish Maga are asked that they can't answer it, while an informed person typically can. 

kamala is someone who for the pragmatic purpose of inheriting the biden war chest was propped up. her "persona" is something that probably turned a surprising amount of latino voters against her, even. where i'm at now is majority hispanic and they love trump. because he's like a badass moneymaker who has a lot of sex with beautiful women, and kamala was this cackling woman who seems like something is off. the left was so cut off from what normal people see. they thought running biden when he was clearly senile was the best move, even let the guy sink his own campaign at a debate.

i've said before kamala was a bad pick. all the hype surrounding her that first month was just an uptick of hope after biden dropped out. but in the end the left did not have an actual visionary leader...just a bunch of platitudes. aoc and fetterman put in better pr than kamala did. though i don't know who the left could have even ran. a lot of people think newsom, but newsom is a lot more prickly than people realize. there weren't really any options

See though, from my POV instead of allowing yourself to recognize flaws with Trump, people like you immediately descend on Whataboutisms. Kamala lost, she's not a factor anymore. We have Trump for the next four years, so it makes more sense to focus on that when not otherwise revisiting the past directly. If Trump isn't being compared to a political opponent, what remains of Trump himself?

We saw at the end of his term in 2020 many within his own party no longer impressed with him, and it took four years of Biden to reinvigorate them. I would argue he isn't a Visionary at all, but rather he's trying to translate business practices into political ones more 1-to-1 than what is normally done. Even Elon Musk is a significantly easier sale for the word 'Visionary' when compared to Trump, and many voted Trump in because he wasn't the opposition, rather than over Trump being the radical celebrity/political rockstar he's being made out to be. 

I find it odd how readily people let go of his pre-presidential history. 

Turncoat said:

You don't see shutting down woke discourse and embracing liberal tears as suppressive? You don't see removing the ability to talk about leftist concepts in schools as suppressive? You don't see them being told over and over to "get over it" while being told their ideals are fucked up, degenerate, and disorderly as suppressive? 

This to me looks like a script flip: Rather than Leftists talking over seperation of Church and State, we're now seeing Righties talking over separation of Sex and State (and to a lesser degree Race). 

Both sides aim to censor the other under the name of their own human rights, and neither side wants to be told to shut up. The problem to me looks more like it's over how people haven't gotten over it yet, as we saw similar things happening when Gay Rights were being fought for prior to this development. 

ya well the left also tells the right to get over it when they win...or calls them deplorables or garbage...so let's not wear rose-tinted glasses on this one. but that's just like red team blue team tribalistic sports behavior.

In the part that you're quoting I said the following: 

Both sides aim to censor the other under the name of their own human rights, and neither side wants to be told to shut up. The problem to me looks more like it's over how people haven't gotten over it yet, as we saw similar things happening when Gay Rights were being fought for prior to this development.

These aren't rose tinted glasses, and I've been going on about problems with Kamala for a while now. You don't have to sell to me why Kamala is bad, you don't have to sell to me how you see Trump as a better choice when compared to a political opponent, rather what needs to be sold to me is why Trump is a good enough choice for you to use as grandstanding a word as "Visionary". 

To me he's a business man who wants to be a presidential version of his father, and I have decades of TV time with the guy that lent to me not trusting him long before 2016. 

you say schools are losing the ability to talk about leftist concepts. which ones (link a news article if you have it)?

So far Arkansas bans it up to the 4th grade, Iowa is up to the 6th grade, and Florida and Kentucky ban it all the way to 12th. The only one contrasting this is California so far, where requiring school staff to disclose sexual orientation and gender identity is banned. 

While not the source I originally read, this one confirms what I knew: https://19thnews.org/2023/08/lgbtq-issues-curriculum-bans-schools-survey/

does separation of sex and state mean we aren't going to have 6 gender options on a military recruitment sheet or a tax return? need specifics here

Gender Identity, Sexual Education, and Sexual Orientation are what I'd meant, but it expands to more things than just those three when you reduce Inclusion. Check this map I found a little bit ago: 



While you are in a privileged enough position to see this map as trivia, this affects my associative demographics. After enough years of rearing children in these constraints we're going to begin to see adults reflect those values, so even my not being actively in school still serves to have this bite me down the line. 

I also don't really see how what gender you fill in affects the result of your tax returns, so this reads to me as more of a generalized attack against the concept. I can see the sexism of the military often used as an argument, which from me stands to become a tangent about hormonal balances, but tax returns? Does it really annoy you that much to see extra choices on a piece of paper? 

At most I could argue it kills more trees. 

Tryptamine said:

i was saying this a long while back when i posted the bill maher video of him talking about the need for the left to distance itself from wokeism.

A lot of leftists have been trying to distance from wokeism... but I can't help but feel the right doesn't notice from communicating the issues within an echo chamber. 

As a trans person it's more than clear to me how many within the left don't actually agree with LGBTQ+. They didn't want to be focus fired by their own party far enough to agreeing to things they might not actually abide by, and through guilt tripping about tolerance many found themselves playing into it until they saw that playing into it still had LGBTQ+ types still yelling at them over tiny mistakes. 

It reminds me a bit of the split between the religious right and the business right. 

If you look at recent political advertising from The Left vs The Right, it's The Right bringing this shit up still while The Left wants that stink avoided as much as Trump did over being associated with P25. 

and that basically the far left was dragging the left down with this social stuff that is too extreme for what average people want.

We've discussed in line with this before, this idea that you see the party as pushing "radical acceptance" as a way to make others go through with doing it to themselves rather than as an aspect of tolerance. 

Again there's been trannies all around us for our entire lives, the main difference here is that they never had a voice until Gay Marriage made US society become generally more tolerant of deviations from social norms (even discontinuing homosexuality in the DSM). 

I've never seen The Left tell people they should be trans, but rather I've seen them make allowances for people who come to that conclusion themselves. Still, with how much The Right echo chambers and The Left cringes I can't help but feel that trans people are in a worse position now. 

this is a rift that has been obvious ever since the trans sports debate blew up. there were left political commentators being banned on twitch over opposing MtF in women's sports...people started to become too zealous about "equality"...we seen this with the war in gaza as well. gays for gaza? give me fucking break

Sports seem so trivial to me, and only became a focal point over the convenience it offers. If trans people could be treated as equal in all ways except for sports I'd still see that as a step in the right direction. The majority of trans people don't even play sports anyway, MtF's on HRT would basically be sabotaging their own room for success when they pump their bodies full of Estrogen, and FtM's never come up in conversation as a real problem. 

When people are against trans and gay rights, it's typically at the expense of those who were born male. MtFs and male homosexuality are louder in the cultural sphere, and in time that's what people associate with the party. By comparison if a woman takes hormones and begins to speak deeper and grow stubble it tends to stand out less. 

as far as how often a leftist acts that way...yes we know every leftist is not a blue-haired screeching libtard.

What would you say is roughly the demographic spread between each of the Leftist expressions? 

A libertarian leftist for example is wildly different from a radical Californian, and many from the former have been spending the past four years or so pretending to be LGBTQ+ tolerant out of social pressures. 

To me, the problem isn't the freedom of gender expression so much as said social pressures alienating not just The Right, but even members of their own audience. I'm often saddled with playing the role of a Trans Apologist over how people keep trying to lump everyone into one antagonistic label, reassuring them that I'm not going to sperg when they say something that might not be palatable to me and that I find the room to discuss it more healthy than an argument. 

A lot of people who are anti-Trans on paper would be much more sympathetic to their issues if they weren't being exaggerated into appearing as if it's most dramatic demographics, and if people would stop flipping out about wearing drag around children. The majority of trans people are not trying to invade your sports, your military, or your bathrooms, rather they just want to be treated as a peer, a human being. People who are anti-Trans have been open to accepting it about me, plainly, because I wasn't being a dick about it. 

but let's not act like it's nonzero and that eric weinstein and jordan peterson were not heckled off their campuses by frothing mobs. and that we didn't have years of antifa attacking rightists during protests, or attacking people picketing against an abortion clinic...or when we let cities get ransacked over racial grievances, and then the business owners are the ones who lose everything they spent their lives working on. so there is an extreme faction there which is active, and i think to not see that you'd have to be willfully blind. and i don't want to hear that the people who do the destruction aren't political activists. it's the political activists who green lit all of that and made it possible

Again I think censorship overall is bad, the inability for people of both sides to say things that might offend someone has ultimately led to people finding it easier to become offended via Overstimulation of Concepts; They aren't numb to it yet and only have ingroups to banter with. 

A lot of this loud backlash being experienced that stands to hurt trans people is over how they'd been carrying the feeling of oppression for so long before only recently being told they're allowed to have a voice. Anyone told they can't do something, just to see far enough into their lives that someone has unlocked the closet they're hiding in, will naturally come bursting out of there loudly about what they couldn't say for so long. 

In less words, many within the LGBTQ+ have thought at least once that it's their turn to oppress the oppressors. 

In the very same way people felt like they couldn't insult trans people, trans people overall felt they could not demonstrate their true selves. Where trans people were so loud about their ideas that it became alienating at times even for me as a trans person, we're now seeing a similar level of volume from those who were told they couldn't say bad things about them over how long they've felt suppressed when paired with inflaming media outlets keeping people "right wing woke" (to borrow from it's original protest definition). There's actually quite a lot in common between the patterns of both sides. 

Trying to tell The Right that they can't talk about something is philosophical prohibition; They'll talk about it more than ever once handed a mic and given a spotlight. The same is true for the LGBTQ+, and the main reason you don't see me as flagrantly aggressive about it is over having been raised in an environment that has generally accepted these things, rather than having been beaten up for it or otherwise made to withstand abuse. 

i think especially in the 80s and into the 90s, we seen an increase in female leads in a way which wasn't artificial. there was also some transgender media, like the movie "the crying game". this was fine, it wasn't being overdone. but right now the narrative game is just relentless with these movies and shows

I'm guessing you'd see more problems with a show like Euphoria? 

In media, I have disliked how gay people, and following that trans people, could not be written with flaws similar to female writing being flawless from 2000+. The characters don't feel real, it comes across as preachy in a repetitive way, and through limiting the amount of options for these characters they overall become more predictable. 

We typically see gay people and trans people in media handled as if Shaman or some shit, and I kind of hate it. You see more honesty about the demographic in Reality TV, and that's saying something when that format is edited to hell and back. 

yeah, he is suing CBS for 10 billion. well alex jones got fined 1 billion for the sandy hook thing. so i think cbs is gonna be ok.

I disagreed with them censoring Alex Jones, especially through his checkbook over how that silences him rather than correcting his behavior, and I have never claimed otherwise. Even if I disagree with his message, suppressing it won't silence it and, if anything, it'll embolden them more than being allowed open discourse. Being allowed to speak your piece has a way of calming people down, even if they're saying crazy shit about gay frogs, and keeping them from speaking if anything gives them more grounds to speak via their listeners. 

Silencing Alex Jones made The Right stronger than if they'd just let him keep talking. This POV, naturally, led to a lot of arguments with leftists IRL. Somehow people aren't making the connection that silencing someone does the opposite of it's intent, and if anything attacking schools in this way is going to make for a stronger Trans Movement down the line as a backlash. 

leftists are so afraid of a dictator. i wish he was one so we could fast-track everything. but this is just not that lol

That's not what this country is about, they should be afraid of a dictator, and if that stands to become the norm then you're opening the room for a Left Wing person to become the dictator that follows him. 

I think it's a good thing that the system we have in place stands to show us that The President is not the sole figure involved in our politics, and that when compared to other nations with dictators that it's helped us in ways where their approach by contrast hurt them. 

Turncoat said: 

A visionary? Bruh that's Kool-Aid language based entirely on faith, and if anything supports my above point. I don't think I'd ever find myself saying that about a political candidate, ever, even when they support my needs. 

yeah, because maybe your options SUCK. that's how they lost the election

Tryptamine said: 

yeah, because maybe your options SUCK. that's how they lost the election

I've liked some of them, I was fine with Obama, but again 'Visionary' should have a higher bar than this. 

It'd be 'Visionary' if we could somehow get a third party in there, because frankly until it happens I think it's impossible. Instead we've seen people be their classic selves while being given what feels to them to be a binary choice. It'd be pretty wild if we ever landed someone like Jill Stein, but I don't see it happening. 

bro if u pay attention i was one of the most critical of trump here. i was attacking the campaign managers he chose and his VP pick. 

I must have not been paying attention then, I don't recall this from you at all when I was going on about it more in 2016 and 2020. 

Still, this isn't really a flaw with Trump so much as his VP, right? 

but i think you're asking the wrong questions. you're attuned to this narrative of attacking trump, which was the energy from 2016. but things aren't the same this time around. the leftists should be thinking of what their goals are and what their next move would be, which the americans would actually want

Are you willing to name flaws about him though? I'm trying to grasp if you're MAGA or plainer than that. 

I can name flaws about people on both sides and have been for a while, and I've seen numerous other right wingers not struggle to list flaws in spite of them still choosing to follow him. Prior to Trump I'd even say it was relatively normal to say bad things about political candidates while otherwise still taking a side, so why is there so much resistance in doing so towards Trump for people? 

Doesn't only saying nice things about him reflect a similar problem to only saying bad things about him? I would figure a neutral stance would be fine saying the pros and cons without it feeling like it risks their position in the discussion. 

Would this be easier if I said things I liked about Trump, like how I appreciate that he, like Biden, got over his issues with Marijuana in spite of both having a history with hating drugs far enough to allow it to no longer be considered a partisan issue? Or how about in spite of his former hatred over Obamacare coupled with his desire to change the brand name towards his own that he actually ended up empowering it? Or even further, that the guy admitted to having realistic abortion views (15 weeks rather than conception) to such a point that it makes his "let the states handle it" approach look like it's not deceptive? I also find it fairly radical that The Religious Right voted in a multiple divorcee, which I think stands to do good things towards the public perception of Divorce overall. 

I can talk about good things over a guy I really don't like, and bad things over someone I'd otherwise choose, but can you? 

ok, how am i doing "whataboutisms"?

When asked about Trump, you immediately went to "Whatabout Kamala" with two paragraphs or so of data. 

Data is good, but the question was about Trump. You don't have to try to sell me why Kamala's bad, I'm looking for something else here. 

We didn't have a nationalist, isolationaist, populist leader before then. I know people want to pretend like everything he did is total bullshit, but it has created an entirely new political movement in America which has fought for its existence these last 8 years. No matter how you try to frame it as some guy you don't like who got a ton of loans, people are just going to have to learn how to relate to the average person. 

A lot of what's caused us to get where we are now, I'd argue, is moreover internet access lending to subcultural divides strengthening and a confused Left Wing voting bracket. 

Where before people were like "The Tea Party is splitting The Right which hurts the cause", now they're saying "Wokeism is splitting The Left which hurts the cause". A lot of what I see going on here is a two year long memory for the average citizen. 

Couldn't it be argued he's a modern president, rather than a visionary one? 

If the left knew how to do that so well, they wouldn't have lost the presidency, The House of Representatives, and The Senate all at the same time. This should be a wake-up call

It certainly was for Bernie, he was piiiisssed. 

Turncoat said:

So far Arkansas bans it up to the 4th grade, Iowa is up to the 6th grade, and Florida and Kentucky ban it all the way to 12th. The only one contrasting this is California so far, where requiring school staff to disclose sexual orientation and gender identity is banned. 

While not the source I originally read, this one confirms what I knew: https://19thnews.org/2023/08/lgbtq-issues-curriculum-bans-schools-survey/

i'm sorry bro but you try to act like schools are "banning leftist concepts". when in reality you are talking about how they have been trying to push lgbtq+ issues onto kids, and a major backlash happened over that.

What else would you say in the modern scheme is a Leftist Concept in school? 

talking about these multiple sexualities was never an issue until people have started to make it be one...i'm sorry, but it's time to stop playing victim. unless you want anyone to take you seriously

So your solution by contrast is that they should be Seen But Not Heard? Why should either party ascribe to that when both parties hate it happening to themselves? 

I see both sides playing victim to try to look like a martyr for their own causes, and your approach in the above quote is yet more suppressive language. Rather than inviting the discourse you'll write it off as something to "not take seriously". The problem with both sides right now is that neither want to really listen to the other, and following that they use memes and tropes to Ad Hom. 

I would also appreciate if you didn't try to pigeonhole me in with the ones who are actually flipping out right now, it robs your point of the sincerity that'll allow what's being said to actually appeal to me. You don't see me saying you're too Drunk to know about politics beyond that of a Maga Cultist, so I would appreciate if you didn't use my Trans politics as a means to make me out as a Crybaby when I'd argue I'm otherwise participating in a discussion where we are both on arguably equal footing. 

We're two people talking through the issues, and attempting to distance with this use of language does neither side any favors. I'm not even saying I'm the true victim here, but it does suck to witness what's coming to pass for those who stand to be. 

Turncoat said:

Gender Identity, Sexual Education, and Sexual Orientation are what I'd meant, but it expands to more things than just those three when you reduce Inclusion. Check this map I found a little bit ago: 



While you are in a privileged enough position to see this map as trivia, this affects my associative demographics. After enough years of rearing children in these constraints we're going to begin to see adults reflect those values, so even my not being actively in school still serves to have this bite me down the line. 

I also don't really see how what gender you fill in affects the result of your tax returns, so this reads to me as more of a generalized attack against the concept. I can see the sexism of the military often used as an argument, which from me stands to become a tangent about hormonal balances, but tax returns? Does it really annoy you that much to see extra choices on a piece of paper? 

yes it sounds gay and we're going to take your chicken nuggets away

Do you see how this sort of memeing could be construed as you trying to distance from the discussion, regardless of if that is or isn't the case here? 

well i hope u get over your trans thing, but in the meantime why not focus on the obtainable peaks 

Bruh I've been having these kinds of thoughts since I was five, you can't expect me to get over this any faster than I can expect you to quit drinking. 

At this point it's been a present thought for so long that it can't not be identified with, and frankly I don't see how my having these views hurts anyone rather than opens the floor for mockery and ridicule. 

From my POV, it seems weird to see those who are making fun of me and those like me while claiming to be oppressed. I see how it got there, but it's still weird for The Right to be like "Mah rights" while aiming to take the rights of another away. Why should the weight be put on me to change for your benefit when instead we could learn to tolerate eachother? 

that was a VERY drunk response i did that i probably dont even agree with. will look at it soon

Turncoat said:

I must have not been paying attention then, I don't recall this from you at all when I was going on about it more in 2016 and 2020.

Still, this isn't really a flaw with Trump so much as his VP, right?

2016/2020 i wasn't really following politics closely. i only started paying a lot of attention these last 2 or 3 years. which i wasn't really active on here during. but i made concerns clear this election cycle

Turncoat said:

Are you willing to name flaws about him though? I'm trying to grasp if you're MAGA or plainer than that.

I can name flaws about people on both sides and have been for a while, and I've seen numerous other right wingers not struggle to list flaws in spite of them still choosing to follow him. Prior to Trump I'd even say it was relatively normal to say bad things about political candidates while otherwise still taking a side, so why is there so much resistance in doing so towards Trump for people?

Doesn't only saying nice things about him reflect a similar problem to only saying bad things about him? I would figure a neutral stance would be fine saying the pros and cons without it feeling like it risks their position in the discussion.

Would this be easier if I said things I liked about Trump, like how I appreciate that he, like Biden, got over his issues with Marijuana in spite of both having a history with hating drugs far enough to allow it to no longer be considered a partisan issue? Or how about in spite of his former hatred over Obamacare coupled with his desire to change the brand name towards his own that he actually ended up empowering it? Or even further, that the guy admitted to having realistic abortion views (15 weeks rather than conception) to such a point that it makes his "let the states handle it" approach look like it's not deceptive? I also find it fairly radical that The Religious Right voted in a multiple divorcee, which I think stands to do good things towards the public perception of Divorce overall.

I can talk about good things over a guy I really don't like, and bad things over someone I'd otherwise choose, but can you?

oh no, i think trump is great. i even wish he was the thing the left is hysterical about—total fascist and dictator. but i don't have any qualms saying some of the stuff i find negative about him. for example:

• susceptible to flattery, which can be an oversight when it comes to who he can trust
• is old, getting older
• strong reliance on delegation—wants to steer the ship without micromanaging the levers. let jared kushner et al. run everything
• off-the-cuff with everything. that's a strength in some ways, but a weakness when you don't even prepare adequately for a debate on your run for presidency. blindsided by a question on medical insurance that he was hit with in 2016 or 2020
• cuts a bit too many deals and some of them work against us. opposes immigration as a platform, but cuts a deal with silicon valley to attach more green cards to visas. opposes american intervention as a platform, but takes money from the adelsons and starts talking about how israel needs to expand. very curious how he is going to handle this iran situation
• tied to the last point, a willingness to vacillate on hardline issues when things get brutal. for example, the wall never ended up quite being what it was supposed to be
• and in connection with the wall, he only did handle migration appropriately during the last phase of his term. but we may be able to expect something different after this red tide and all the powers that be lining behind him

Turncoat said:

A lot of what's caused us to get where we are now, I'd argue, is moreover internet access lending to subcultural divides strengthening and a confused Left Wing voting bracket.

Where before people were like "The Tea Party is splitting The Right which hurts the cause", now they're saying "Wokeism is splitting The Left which hurts the cause". A lot of what I see going on here is a two year long memory for the average citizen.

Couldn't it be argued he's a modern president, rather than a visionary one?

well really anything could be argued. but love him or hate him, trump was a true iconoclast. an outsider of the political system who could suddenly come in and change the dynamics, and who ran on the idea of rooting out these people who the american public has known are corrupt for decades. you can argue he isn't doing that, but you can't argue that this platform hasn't introduced a new paradigm. one which is being followed across the americas for starters, think el salvador and argentina

and the desire for nationalism is something which has been deep and buried, and subjugated by globalists and their tendrils in the media. in germany, people tried to assassinate afd politicians. now afd is winning popular votes in regions. in spain, nationalists have been marching through the cities. in sweden, the sweden democrats are becoming socially acceptable again, and they are running programs for remigration. in italy they voted in meloni (though she has been too weak). in hungary they get victor orban. in argentina there is milei. these are not disparate, unassociated data points. this is something that has been brewing in the pressure cooker for a long time; there is a deep urge to return to the roots, to shed these postmodernist pretenses and return to something real

Turncoat said:

It certainly was for Bernie, he was piiiisssed.

 might not all go totally bad for him

Turncoat said:

What else would you say in the modern scheme is a Leftist Concept in school?

i think that's what everyone is really in a furor about (the lgbt stuff)

Turncoat said:

So your solution by contrast is that they should be Seen But Not Heard? Why should either party ascribe to that when both parties hate it happening to themselves?

I see both sides playing victim to try to look like a martyr for their own causes, and your approach in the above quote is yet more suppressive language. Rather than inviting the discourse you'll write it off as something to "not take seriously". The problem with both sides right now is that neither want to really listen to the other, and following that they use memes and tropes to Ad Hom.

I would also appreciate if you didn't try to pigeonhole me in with the ones who are actually flipping out right now, it robs your point of the sincerity that'll allow what's being said to actually appeal to me. You don't see me saying you're too Drunk to know about politics beyond that of a Maga Cultist, so I would appreciate if you didn't use my Trans politics as a means to make me out as a Crybaby when I'd argue I'm otherwise participating in a discussion where we are both on arguably equal footing.

We're two people talking through the issues, and attempting to distance with this use of language does neither side any favors. I'm not even saying I'm the true victim here, but it does suck to witness what's coming to pass for those who stand to be.

yeah that's fair, i'm a bit over the top if i drink. i don't do that normally, and i don't even really mean that much by it. that is how a lot of my friends and i throughout my life speak normally and we recognize when to actually take offense. tho to someone not used to that it looks like i'm ready to fight or something. so my bad on this, i disagree with you on some essential stuff along these lines but it doesn't need to be insulting or childish

Turncoat said:

Bruh I've been having these kinds of thoughts since I was five, you can't expect me to get over this any faster than I can expect you to quit drinking.

At this point it's been a present thought for so long that it can't not be identified with, and frankly I don't see how my having these views hurts anyone rather than opens the floor for mockery and ridicule.

From my POV, it seems weird to see those who are making fun of me and those like me while claiming to be oppressed. I see how it got there, but it's still weird for The Right to be like "Mah rights" while aiming to take the rights of another away. Why should the weight be put on me to change for your benefit when instead we could learn to tolerate eachother?

ya that's part of why i feel bad about the drunk response, i am aware of that. i do think people are being "convinced" they are trans because of the media programming. but i know also how some have the experience you describe, as well as the brain structure correlates. i do ultimately think you can't ever actually be a woman, therefor you have to make a decision. at best someone can "fit in". even then i think of ladyboys in greece or whatever...absorption of the feminine within the masculine. one can hope to be blair white or contrapoints, but is that the kind of reality that is going to play out well? but at any rate the intention is not to be demeaning

Turncoat said: 

Bruh I've been having these kinds of thoughts since I was five, you can't expect me to get over this any faster than I can expect you to quit drinking. 

Basically born that way? Or environmental causes?

Some think exposure to endocrine disrupters is causing this trend.