Nick Fuentes says we need a Dictatorship

[Edge-]

Could you be a tad less disingenuous when you throw all the baggage on the question. Just a bit.

Maybe, but outside of that bit which seems to bother you, do you have a position on the GOP, writ-large, refusing to specifically condemn their former party leader and current presidential candidate of their party for suggesting that the Constitution be suspended so that he can retake power?

[Endus]

Could you be a tad less disingenuous when you throw all the baggage on the question. Just a bit.

Trump's the current leader in the 2024 Republican Presidential race. Albeit, by virtue of being alone in the race, so far, but still. And given that he's a past President, it's not like his candidacy is so ridiculous you can handwave it.

[Endus]

Honest question, why do any of you respond to Tehdang? You know exactly what his deal is. He's as likely to engage in an honest, genuine debate as a person is likely to sprout wings.

Because his arguments aren't unique or special, and demonstrating the inherent dishonesty behind them applies to anyone else making those arguments. He's not the audience for that information, everyone else is, to try and innoculate greater society from falling for that kind of deceit.

[Cthulhu 2020]

People are genuinely ratio'ing people on Twitter for criticizing Ye for saying he loves Hitler and Nazis.

"Hitler did some good things."
"Name something."
Ratio.

What the fuck is going on.

[s_bushido]

What the fuck is going on.

Nazism is okay so long as it's being endorsed by someone famous enough. Obviously.

[Captain N]

So if Trump discards the Constitution and already has support from folks like Dave Joyce (R-OH), does that mean that the 2nd Amendment no longer exists and Republicans are coming for your guns?

[tehdang]

if he wins the primary

The absolutely wild thing is that Republicans vote for the winner of the Republican primary (with the usual caveats).

Maybe, but outside of that bit which seems to bother you, do you have a position on the GOP, writ-large, refusing to specifically condemn their former party leader and current presidential candidate of their party for suggesting that the Constitution be suspended so that he can retake power?

Other than rejecting the entire premise? Remind yourself of the last time you dragged in the "refused to specifically condemn" line for stuff. Trump condemns Charlottesville, but it's too many hours past your deadline. DeSantis rips the protesters with confederate flags, but that isn't specific enough for you. The form that you're playing games with is just a construction that serves you. I'll give you one better. Trump is the party's past and the best way of moving on is not giving heed to the latest ramblings of the man who never accepted that he lost the 2020 election. He will be defeated in the primary, and the disappointment in 2022 is the earliest sign that it will happen. That's the rejection of Trump that's necessary and even proper.

Honest question, why do any of you respond to Tehdang? You know exactly what his deal is. He's as likely to engage in an honest, genuine debate as a person is likely to sprout wings.

Just stop trolling other right-of-center posters into giving up or ending up banned. Granted, that won't happen in these parts, so you get the ones that slip through the cracks.

The other issue here is much harder to understand. Radically different viewpoints will be regularly perceived as absolutely disingenuous when viewed across the great ideological chasm. The American ~6% Progressive Left squints to see the ~7% Committed Conservatives (in the Pew Research typology), and vice versa. It will look like intentional bad faith and all that. But let me remind you that the country contains a vast middle that is still persuadable to some degree, just looking at independents and suburbs etc in 2022 midterms should convince you of this. They are much more moderate than internet discourse would have you believe. That's one reason why you should use words despite thinking somebody must be fundamentally dishonest to not already agree with your points and justifications. You may find yourself occupied with calling people fascists and bigots, while the arguments find purchase in the population as anything but.

[Breccia]

Remind yourself of the last time you dragged in the "refused to specifically condemn" line for stuff.

Um, Edge- isn't the one supporting the leader of his party who suggested Nazis were very fine people, or more recently, suspending the Constitution. That's your chosen leader, Trump. And before you say "he's not my chosen leader" bear in mind, we do have your post history, yes he is.

[Edge-]

Trump condemns Charlottesville, but it's too many hours past your deadline.

It should not take 48 hours to say, "Nazi's bad."

It did not take Joe Biden 48 hours of sustained bipartisan pressure to say "Hitler fuckin sucks."

DeSantis rips the protesters with confederate flags, but that isn't specific enough for you.

"Governor DeSantis, there are a bunch of Nazi's protesting in public in Florida. Do you have any comment?"

"Nazi's suck."

So hard.

The form that you're playing games with is just a construction that serves you.

No, you have a former president of the United States of America calling for the suspension of the Constitution to facilitate his return to power. Oh, and he's running for president again.

That's significant. It should cause a justifiably provoked unified chorus condemning that rhetoric. This is not a "gotcha". This, as all the other examples, are literally a, "Everyone wins." because everyone does win.

I'll give you one better. Trump is the party's past

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3862

Republicans are evenly split over who they prefer to win the Republican nomination with 44 percent preferring Trump, 44 percent preferring DeSantis and 11 percent not offering an opinion.

Dunno, based on polling from just a bit ago it seems like he's still very much in the present for the Republican party. Though I do wonder how the whole, "Dining with a couple of Nazi's" thing will affect his poll numbers.

is not giving heed to the latest ramblings of the man who never accepted that he lost the 2020 election.

While he still has a considerable amount of influence within the Republican party? While he still has a bunch of radicalized cultists that were willing to assault the Capitol building a few years ago? Nah, I'm done with that. He's still a very real threat, and even if he's an embarrassing reminder of who the Republican party hitched their wagon to. As he should be for a long, long, long time.

He will be defeated in the primary, and the disappointment in 2022 is the earliest sign that it will happen.

Man, this sounds a lot like what we were all saying in 2015/16. A lot can happen between now and then, and I'm not about to not take the very real risk of a second Trump presidency not seriously.

[Gabriel]

People are genuinely ratio'ing people on Twitter for criticizing Ye for saying he loves Hitler and Nazis.

"Hitler did some good things."
"Name something."
Ratio.

What the fuck is going on.

We stopped hitting people with stupid opinions.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Man

[Nastard]

"And when I said Hitler was a great person who did many wonderful, tremendous things, I was referring to Steve Hitler. The mechanic up the street. He's quite the person even though he married a stinky rotten Jew. I don't know who this Adoff person is."

[s_bushido]

"And when I said Hitler was a great person who did many wonderful, tremendous things, I was referring to Steve Hitler. The mechanic up the street. He's quite the person even though he married a stinky rotten Jew. I don't know who this Adoff person is."

You joke...but this is the level that fucking moron operates at.

[Edge-]

Who the fuck is Daisy Fuentes? Also, even for Trump that's a pretty weaksauce load of BS.

Old racist uncle is losing his touch in his advanced age.

[Gestopft]

Who the fuck is Daisy Fuentes? Also, even for Trump that's a pretty weaksauce load of BS.

Old racist uncle is losing his touch in his advanced age.

I'm still not sure if it's a parody or not. It's almost too on the nose to be real.

[Edge-]

I'm still not sure if it's a parody or not. It's almost too on the nose to be real.

Fair point, it is a touch off. I'm trying to find sauce but it's looking like that's just a parody by someone.

[Breccia]

I'm still not sure if it's a parody or not. It's almost too on the nose to be real.

A little skepticism is healthy. Some things are just so wild -- such as Kanye West in a gimp suit admitting to being a Nazi -- that part of your brain pushes back.

I cannot find the quote in question in any real media, and Daisy Fuentes is not trending. She is married to Richard Marx, four-time Grammy winner and in no way related to the Marx brothers, Communism, or Neiman Marcus cookies.

[tehdang]

It should not take 48 hours to say, "Nazi's bad."

Hence, why I held that the denials have been diminished in values from all these constructions like "not soon enough" or "not specific enough." You've shown via your own actions that you're just making stuff up as you go along. And then you pretend to be shocked when people stop playing your games.

Dunno, based on polling from just a bit ago it seems like he's still very much in the present for the Republican party.

We'll see how accurate Quinnipiac is once campaign season gets going, and not just after Trump makes a very early announcement for 2024.

While he still has a considerable amount of influence within the Republican party? While he still has a bunch of radicalized cultists that were willing to assault the Capitol building a few years ago? Nah, I'm done with that. He's still a very real threat, and even if he's an embarrassing reminder of who the Republican party hitched their wagon to. As he should be for a long, long, long time.

At least you've started to come off the "current head of the Republican party" to a closer "considerable amount of influence." I consider that a success, though I will be entirely blown away if you end at "a not insignificant amount of influence" or "wields some influence."

Man, this sounds a lot like what we were all saying in 2015/16. A lot can happen between now and then, and I'm not about to not take the very real risk of a second Trump presidency not seriously.

I could've told you in the 2015 campaign season that focusing all your attention on Trump just gave him free press and attention, culminating in a primary plurality and presidential win. But no, you still want to make Trump and reactions to Trump a media focal point to do it all again in 2024.

But Democrats profited by spending big money in Republican primaries to pick their opponents, so I don't expect any different this time around trying to make Trump center stage. Surely this time you can demand every candidate react to one candidate and not fuel a Trump rise!

We stopped hitting people with stupid opinions.

Yes, the time-honored tactic of corporal punishment in exchange for opinions. I demand swift and specific denunciations of Gabriel's defense of violence, or the entire progressive movement is complicit. 72 hours from now is too late, and it must directly mention his name and offense.

(Show for once you actually like these rules you wish to enforce against others, even in this meager case. Call it a show of good faith.)

I am unwilling to respond to posts, but I also like quoting replies to ask questions

If you're troubling yourself to quote reply edit "Nonsense," then maybe you're demonstrating that you're not really interested in a response. I'm happy to assume any replies will get equal attention from you.

I don't think greater society hangs out on MMO-C. Just a handful of gamers, bored nerds, and forum trolls.

Some of this functions as a microcosm for the broader far-left-wing discourse within the country. I saw that in your post, and that's what I remarked upon in my response.

[Breccia]

Hence, why I held that the denials have been diminished in values from all these constructions like "not soon enough" or "not specific enough."

So, if I were to, hypothetically now, corner you in an alley and start punching you repeatedly in the face, and you asked me to stop, you'd be okay with me stopping two days later? Two hours later? Two minutes later? Or if I instead started punching you over and over in the dick?

Because that's what it sounds like, when you're defending Trump -- yes you are -- by ignoring his "both sides" comment 24 hours later was the only thing he'd said on a Nazi murdering an innocent human on an American street. You know, there's a word for people who pretend not to know something when making a point. Gosh, I can't remember what that word is. Maybe you can remind me? Dis genius can't remember it.

Just so we're clear, I do not condone violence, but I do condone and encourage strongly-worded metaphors. I don't legitimately think I could punch someone in the face for two solid hours anyhow.

[Edge-]

Hence, why I held that the denials have been diminished in values from all these constructions like "not soon enough" or "not specific enough." You've shown via your own actions that you're just making stuff up as you go along. And then you pretend to be shocked when people stop playing your games.

We'll see how accurate Quinnipiac is once campaign season gets going, and not just after Trump makes a very early announcement for 2024.

At least you've started to come off the "current head of the Republican party" to a closer "considerable amount of influence." I consider that a success, though I will be entirely blown away if you end at "a not insignificant amount of influence" or "wields some influence."

I could've told you in the 2015 campaign season that focusing all your attention on Trump just gave him free press and attention, culminating in a primary plurality and presidential win. But no, you still want to make Trump and reactions to Trump a media focal point to do it all again in 2024.

But Democrats profited by spending big money in Republican primaries to pick their opponents, so I don't expect any different this time around trying to make Trump center stage. Surely this time you can demand every candidate react to one candidate and not fuel a Trump rise!

Yes, the time-honored tactic of corporal punishment in exchange for opinions. I demand swift and specific denunciations of Gabriel's defense of violence, or the entire progressive movement is complicit. 72 hours from now is too late, and it must directly mention his name and offense.

(Show for once you actually like these rules you wish to enforce against others, even in this meager case. Call it a show of good faith.)

If you're troubling yourself to quote reply edit "Nonsense," then maybe you're demonstrating that you're not really interested in a response. I'm happy to assume any replies will get equal attention from you.

Some of this functions as a microcosm for the broader far-left-wing discourse within the country. I saw that in your post, and that's what I remarked upon in my response.

That's a lot of words that aren't condemning Trump's rhetoric nor do they acknowledge the lack of specific condemnations from members of his political party. Lots of concern about tone and tenor as usual, but not a lot of meat and potatoes about the subject of my post/our discussion.

I guess there really is No True Republican/Conservative(TM) anymore, everyone is a fringe conservative whenever convenient to the pretense that the conservative movement in the US isn't diseased, deranged, and extremist.