Nick Fuentes says we need a Dictatorship

[Gabriel]

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'm not a progressive.

[jonnysensible]

trumps gonna be running against biden wtf hes mainstream republican, am i following this right?

[Edge-]

trumps gonna be running against biden wtf hes mainstream republican, am i following this right?

No, you see the former president and party leader who still wields considerably influence within the party is a fringe person not worth paying any attention to.

Also, CPAC, the biggest conservative political gathering of the year in the US, is also now a fringe gathering of crazies and not in any way, shape, or form a representation of the modern Republican party apparently. Even if the lineup of speakers in Texas was packed with elected Republican politicians including...

Donald Trump, former Republican president (very fringe!)
Steve Bannon, his former strategist (very fringe!)
Senator Ted Cruze (also very fringe!)
Governor Greg Abbott (so fringe he just won re-election handily!)
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (see above!)
AG Ken Paxton (once again, see above, with gusto!)
Former governor, VP candidate, and House Rep. candidate Sarah Palin (so fringe she's been involved in Republican politics for a decade! And she can see Russia from her house!)
Fox News host Sean Hannity (Six most watched news program on TV, behind The Five, Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Watters, and Brett Baier)

And those were just the headliners. It's obviously a bunch of crazy random extremists nobody has heard of.

Oh yeah, and they invited Hungary's dictator, Victor Orban, to speak.

[RaoBurning]

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.

Building on this for a moment: While I'm also often frustrated with the pages of responses to the same handful of obvious bad faith interlocutors, I have learned a lot over the years from reading through those same exchanges with our more informed and citation-loving posters. I'd call it a fair trade, most days, in lieu of more long term solutions for bad actors.

[Gelannerai]

Building on this for a moment: While I'm also often frustrated with the pages of responses to the same handful of obvious bad faith interlocutors, I have learned a lot over the years from reading through those same exchanges with our more informed and citation-loving posters. I'd call it a fair trade, most days, in lieu of more long term solutions for bad actors.

Personally, I just put certain people on ignore, but then watch as they get bodied in replies by posters who aren’t sea-lioning hacks.

[Fugus]

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.

Daisy Fuentes, I remember her from a magazine about 15 years ago when I was working in a convenience store overnight. She was a model of the time.

So basically, Trump perving on an model whom he would likely reject now because she would be too old for him.

[tehdang]

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.

You act like you had asked me what I thought about Trump's rhetoric, rather than invent and sustain games to play with opposing politicians. If you need more one-sentence summaries of posts, try "The solution to Trump isn't to make him center of attention, it's to starve him for attention." If you need further explanation, try reading the post and asking for more clarity on what you don't understand.

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.

Dodge and change the subject as you might, you're still offering up poor defenses. But I am thankful that you moved from "current head of the Republican party" to a closer "considerable amount of influence." If that's where you want to leave it, that's fine by me.

I'm not a progressive.

Sorry, the standard people set around here is assert allegiance and demand responses. And given that nobody wants to specifically cite and condemn corporal punishment in exchange for opinions, then I guess they're showing these standards are made up and changeable as needed.

Building on this for a moment: While I'm also often frustrated with the pages of responses to the same handful of obvious bad faith interlocutors, I have learned a lot over the years from reading through those same exchanges with our more informed and citation-loving posters. I'd call it a fair trade, most days, in lieu of more long term solutions for bad actors.

These threads would certainly be a lot shorter if accusations of bad faith weren't interspersed in responses. But don't mind me when I echo them right back.

[Breccia]

You act like you had asked me what I thought about Trump's rhetoric

Um, I did that, and you still haven't answered. So you're still dodging a direct question.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Um, I did that, and you still haven't answered. So you're still dodging a direct question.

Something something "It's against forum rules, and this totally isn't a transparent excuse to not talk about my beliefs on the matter!"

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/polit...ion/index.html

Eyyyyy, there we go.

I guess they needed around 48 hours to strategize on just how to handle, "The former leader of our party and president, currently running under our party banner for president again, called for the elimination of the Constitution." because it's not as simple as an immediate, direct, explicit condemnation. But the more explicit condemnations are rolling in.

But hey, this whole 48 hours thing seems to be pretty common for Republicans as it takes them that long to really think about the hard issues. Like, "Should say that Nazi's are bad?"

[tehdang]

So instead of condemning someone who wants to terminate the constitution and dines with nazis, you get offended? Why are conservatives so thin-skinned and lacking in principles?

Instead of posting to ask a question, you quote a post, replace the words with "Nonsense," and ask an unrelated question. Are you training people to understand that you don't care what they write, or is it purely unintentional? I'll quote my post since you haven't demonstrated that you read it:

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.

[Breccia]

Instead of posting--

You know, you wouldn't have to twist and worm your words around not answering a direct question, if you just answered the direct question.

[Captain N]

You know we've had posters here admit to supporting pedophilia. We've had posters admit to beating their significant other. Admitting that you'd vote for someone who wants to terminate the Constitution and dines with Nazis isn't the worst thing we've seen around here.

[Gestopft]

You know we've had posters here admit to supporting pedophilia. We've had posters admit to beating their significant other. Admitting that you'd vote for someone who wants to terminate the Constitution and dines with Nazis isn't the worst thing we've seen around here.

Lots of Conservatives (and "Conservatives" are making it pretty clear that they'd rather live in a conservative country than a democracy. It's hardly surprising.

[Kaleredar]

It's not a hard question man: Would you vote for someone who wishes to terminate the constitution and dines with nazis or not?

Hell, make it even more direct:

"If the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for Donald Trump, known for his publicly stated desire to suspend the constitution, stated conspiracy theorist of the 2020 election, and known to dine with nazis... or Joe Biden?"

Because I think the answer would still be a begrudging "Donald Trump" from them. Which, begrudging or not, is still support of Donald Trump.

[Kaleredar]

It's so common place atm, indirectly claiming Trump can't win the nomination, he's wholly unelectable, but when approached on, "But in the scenario where he wins the nomination, would you vote for him?" "Well yes because he's still republican".

Partisan hacks with absolutely no morals, integrity or intelligence. Charlatans looking for their next buck, and nothing more, with their supporters just being useful patsies.

They've been lead into fearing things by the GOP more than they fear Trump and his ilk's real and present threats to American democracy.

For instance @tehdang. He's usually incredibly vague about his political beliefs, but the one thing he's actually slipped up and revealed is that he is against a woman's right to choose. His support of Trump, then, would likely be an extension of the fact that he believes Trump- despite his dangerous conspiracies, despite his affiliation with nazis and white supremacists, despite his now publicly stated desire to overturn the constitution of the united states, would be worth it to ensure that more republican judges are installed to uphold restricting women's rights. I'll be charitable and assume that Tehdang naively thinks that Trump, despite all these shortcomings, is still just "an embarrassing, but harmless, loud mouth" who would be unable to actually accomplish these political actions he might raise an eyebrow at. But he's still willing to take that chance.

And then of course you have the other boogeymen GOP voters are afraid of. It doesn't matter if Trump wants to suspend the constitution, he's going to be strong-armed against the illegals and finally build that border wall. It doesn't matter if Trump associates with Neo-nazis and white supremacists, he's going to make sure those trans people don't play in the wrong type of sport. It doesn't matter if Trump spurred on violent action and continues to lie about american democracy, he's going to stop the liberals from taking our guns.

It's self delusion couched in myopic single-interests (and that's completely letting alone how misguided or downright bigoted those interests even are.) It's voting for the "Jaguars eating people's faces" party whilst idly hoping they don't make good on their promise to eat your face. It's naive, and it's dangerous.

[Kaleredar]

Sitting here reading this, and thinking "what do they have to gain from being such pieces of shit?" and it's clear as day, but ol' me doesn't see it because I'm also naïve: Just having control, power over others just because is enough of an end-game goal and benefit. We're just not allowed to have nice things.

Well that's part of the "fear." They want to have "control" over those they fear, plain and simple.

They can tell those "unnatural" LBTQ+ people what and what not to do. They can put those "scary illegals" behind a wall or in cages if necessary. They can "threaten" the socialist liberals into being too scared to come after their guns. They can "force the whores" to give birth to "teach them a lesson." And all they have to do... is let the people in power do and say whatever they want. Even if they don't like those things, it's worth it, because they can stop other people from doing the things they don't like.

The GOP says "fear this. Elect us without question, and we'll control the things you fear."

[s_bushido]

Because I think the answer would still be a begrudging "Donald Trump" from them. Which, begrudging or not, is still support of Donald Trump.

"Begrudging" is extremely charitable. They'd happily vote for him again...they just don't want to admit it, because they know how shitty it looks to acknowledge that the principles they pretend to stand for don't mean jack next to gaining/maintaining the power to achieve their political goals.

[Breccia]

Hell, make it even more direct:

"If the election were held tomorrow, would you vote for Donald Trump, known for his publicly stated desire to suspend the constitution, stated conspiracy theorist of the 2020 election, and known to dine with nazis... or Joe Biden?"

No, that's actually less direct. We're not asking who he's voting for. We're asking him to specifically and directly comment on the "Trump said terminate the Constitution" issue. For example, I said:

I know you have been active recently, and as a known Trump supporter, surely this topic interests you. You also posted recently using the word "disingenuous" so I know that interests you, too. Do you think Trump is being "disingenuous" when he said today he didn't mean to terminate the Constitution? And yes, the word is "terminate" Flarelaine pointed out that very specific use of a word that Trump actually typed and posted.

And I'm not the only one who asked, either. He has refused to comment on the topic, and there are all kinds of colorful reasons he might be doing so¹, but the reason I think is most likely is "he will have to say Trump's call to terminate the Constitution was wrong"

You're suggesting it would be followed by "but he'll vote for him anyhow". And I think you're right. But let's not put the cart before the horse. Until he actually answers a question about his own chosen candidate Trump being this deplorable, his vote doesn't matter, because he's not addressing the issue of Trump being this deplorable. Without his specific, direct addressing of the issue at hand, his opinion on who to vote for just lacks any context and may as well be a coin flip.

Now, you're probably going to say "Of course he--" and yes yes we all know that. He has to admit it in public, or it means nothing. We all know Trump supporters know they backed a loser. We all know Trump supporters know they backed a liar, a criminal, an adulterer, a thief, more recently a murderous insurrectionist, and more more recently someone who would rather throw out the Constitution than admit he lost an election. They need to say it.

Every passing minute that a Trump supporter, when directly asked about this topic but refuses to answer, they prove more and more about their own character by refusing to answer. Oh, that's not me insulting them, that's them insulting themselves and me pointing it out. But they should still be forced on the issue. Every topic they raise in any Politics forum should be ignored and redirected towards their refusal to comment on Trump saying terminate the Constitution, until they finally answer, or give up on trying to deflect because it's not working.

---

¹ Most of the colors are yellow.

[The Stormbringer]

It's not a hard question man: Would you vote for someone who wishes to terminate the constitution and dines with nazis or not?

Maybe he just needs someone to show him how to answer it directly. Here, allow me.

*Clears throat and leans towards the microphone* No, I would not vote for them.