Here's a disturbing article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...77b29ad4128bfd&ei=66

Ben Shapiro: I’m Willing to Endure Great Hardship to Vote for “Deeply Flawed Human Being” Donald Trump


(excerpt)

"the speaker emphasized their commitment to honesty"

=========================================================

I don't follow Ben Shapiro or know who he is.

This article mostly explains Lane's commitment, which I think he has been "honest" about, to the extent of the expression but not the full basis. One could think the basis for getting there is not so honest, but I can't argue the commitment itself is not an honest expression on his part.

That doesn't mean the commitment and basis together are not deeply flawed, maybe even more flawed than Trump.

After all, cult members, and Hitler's Nazis were "honest" about their commitment, yet deeply flawed in their basis.

Thusly, honesty and sincerity and commitments need to be evaluated in their context.

Both Lane and Shapiro share a deep loathing for the Left, as fomented in their ideological minds. That means a lot, if not practically everything as stimulus for their commitments, and overlooking the deep and profound flaws in the individual Trump. Plus, bigly, it overlooks the deep flaws in the consequences of Trumpism, as a whole organism, given the power in the federal govt.

One can assume, rationally, that it's that power they want both to give to Trump and Trumpism and thus for themselves and their ideology. Apparently, they think it can run amuck only so far because they can control it or the system can control it. Maybe the chaos is actually what they want as a means to whatever end.

Maybe they understand this too - that once Trump and Trumpism has achieved their goals, made the transitions, defeated and transformed the system, and all the opposition crushed or jailed, what will that require to sustain?

Can it be sustained? Or, is sustaining not important? Instead, the fulfillment of the events believed inevitable to follow? Thus, Trump and Trumpism are transitional?

I think that in order to make any sense out of it is to look at it from the perspective of Christian Nationalism.

I could go on, but the answers, and more questions, are not difficult to imagine.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

I could go on, but the answers are not difficult to imagine.

I think it unfortunate I point out you "imagine".

There's far to much that gets assumed around here and imagined. You and I have been participating here for years and I believe still have a very incomplete picture of the members we discuss issues with. Doc Lane certainly seems the Boogie man of choice lately and I guess I think he asks for it a bit., but to be honest, after all this time here on the pf I don't believe I or we have a detailed bio of the guy.

I say to you again, lighten up a little. It's just the pf, it's just national partisan politics. You told us a little while ago you spent the day working with your ultra right wing relative, that seemed to go fine I think you said.

quote:

You told us a little while ago you spent the day working with your ultra right wing relative, that seemed to go fine I think you said.

It goes fine when we work and don't talk politics.

I would like to include him in my will, but hesitate because he's a Rightist nut.

I'm thinking of surprising his sons instead.

That's how much I don't like the far-right ideology, but I can like the person for their redeeming qualities, if any exists, i.e. there is a favorable balance on the scales of virtue/ethics/morals/principles.

================================================

In general, I agree with your post.

Sometimes I do get a bit intense, and focus on an issue using a person's words herein as a fulcrum.

Yet, it still remains the issue, not the person.

I can't stop analyzing why someone supports Trump. Herein, all we have to go by are words in cyberspace. Their reasons, if expressed, have to be incomplete. I figure people expressing their reasons don't even fully understand themselves. And when pressed for facts for support, well, poof. When presented with actual facts and evidence, also poof.

OTOH, I think I can fully express and fully understand why I personally loath Trump and Trumpism. In his case, it's both the person and issues.

In summary, my guess is that if a person becomes and adult deficient in critical thinking skills, then such asset can't be endowed from the outside.

I think it's beyond fair to mess with such people, especially on a forum, where words are all we have.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

I could go on, but the answers are not difficult to imagine.

I think it unfortunate I point out you "imagine".

There's far to much that gets assumed around here and imagined. You and I have been participating here for years and I believe still have a very incomplete picture of the members we discuss issues with. Doc Lane certainly seems the Boogie man of choice lately and I guess I think he asks for it a bit., but to be honest, after all this time here on the pf I don't believe I or we have a detailed bio of the guy.

I say to you again, lighten up a little.

Scott, did you read the article I linked above? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...77b29ad4128bfd&ei=66

I thought that is a "lighten up" article.

There were several points I was trying to make with the article. First how innocuous it is in tone. It's bland reporting, with no specific quotes, just summarizing what was said. The speaker and the author gave no facts supporting the claims and assertions, nor especially specifically defining long term goals or vision or trajectory.

Yet, what they are opposing does have defined long-term goals and trajectory, consistency with past, present and future.

Note the use of the words/phrases, "perspective", "asserting a belief", "the speaker emphasized their commitment to honesty in evaluating" , "Despite any reservations, they underscored the importance of supporting Trump", "Highlighting the perceived dangers of a second Biden term", "They portrayed Biden", "Amidst this backdrop", "rallying support behind Trump as the candidate best positioned to prevent a second Biden presidency", "Beyond just advocating", "This gesture signaled a deeper level of commitment and investment", "The speaker’s statement reflected a resolute stance".

The author is writing about hollowed out ideology.


One quote from the article stands out to me:
"rallying support behind Trump as the candidate best positioned to prevent a second Biden presidency"

Really think about, and "imagine" why Trump is "positioned" - I mean all the reasons you can think of as known facts or evidence, plus, realizing there are intangibles and unknowns, imagine them, or speculate. We know RINOs are purged from the GOP, for example. Speculate why.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Trump had 44 confirmed or Acting Cabinet members.

4 are endorsing him. 4.

That is about as loud a warning as someone could ever be given and to think that some are too deaf, dumb and blind to hear it is truly sad.

[The fact that there were 44 confirmed or acting Cabinet members in the course of just a four year term is almost equally damnable. Another reality lost on the Trumplicans.]

Most probably those are the four who got caught with their pants down at MaraLago.

Ex-Trump Officials Who Refuse to Endorse Him in 2024

. . . I am sure they are all losers, has beens, deep state creatures and non-believers . . . or maybe they are just folks that recognize a turd when they see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It’s a no brainer ME…if you studied Reagan.

There is no way to "study" Reagan in an unbiased way.

The guy was far more articulate, principled, sensible, benevolent, likable, genuine, etc. than Trump.

I think Reagan would be appalled and embarrassed at the spectacle of Trump, and especially due to the behavior of congressional GOPers, those kowtowing. I think he would be proud of those who have stood up to Trump, based on their morals, ethics, principles. Even though the cost is evident, those are the republicans who are the real heroes and patriots.

Reagan did an excellent job in Bedtime for Bonzo. You have to give credit where credit is due!

I served under Reagan my last couple of years in the Army; he was our first (at least in my lifetime) mentally handicapped President, although exactly what day he crossed completely from reality to fantasy I can't say (I think it was on a Tuesday). He certainly couldn't differentiate what he did in movies from what he did in real life by the end of his second year in office, and surrounded himself with a crew of the most unscrupulous people to be found in D.C., like Casey, who made the deal for the Iranians to hold the hostages to help Reagan, and Lee Atwater, and George Bush the Elder, who was the actual Chief Executive for decision making for practically the entire Presidency.

Reagan was an amiable dunce, the perfect Republican frontman.

Father of deficit spending.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It’s a no brainer ME…if you studied Reagan.

There is no way to "study" Reagan in an unbiased way.

The guy was far more articulate, principled, sensible, benevolent, likable, genuine, etc. than Trump.

Reagan did an excellent job in Bedtime for Bonzo. You have to give credit where credit is due!

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
I served under Reagan my last couple of years in the Army; he was our first (at least in my lifetime) mentally handicapped President, although exactly what day he crossed completely from reality to fantasy I can't say (I think it was on a Tuesday). He certainly couldn't differentiate what he did in movies from what he did in real life by the end of his second year in office, and surrounded himself with a crew of the most unscrupulous people to be found in D.C., like Casey, who made the deal for the Iranians to hold the hostages to help Reagan, and Lee Atwater, and George Bush the Elder, who was the actual Chief Executive for decision making for practically the entire Presidency.

Reagan was an amiable dunce, the perfect Republican frontman.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Father of deficit spending.

I agree with everything you guys say about Reagan.

And:

He was far more articulate, principled, sensible, benevolent, likable, genuine, etc. than Trump.

Has anyone wondered why GOPers are susceptible to voting for people like Reagan or Trump whose career had been acting or pretense, with no experience in governance?

I am more concerned why GOP voters are so infatuated, attracted to nationalist strongmen in positions of Executive Power.

On this site, this week, we have a self-proclaimed libertarian arguing a president use executive orders to close a border through military force, then Congress work together to pass legislative reform on the issue.

He ignores that even if Congress did not act to stop such action, that nothing would be present to bind the next president to that course of action.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I am more concerned why GOP voters are so infatuated, attracted to nationalist strongmen in positions of Executive Power.

And an Executive who is not a nationalist strongman is deemed weak.

Lately I read that Trump has doubled-down on having Liz Chaney jailed.

He's calling for Cassidy Hutchinson to be prosecuted.

Why are GOPers so attracted to and influenced by nationalist strongmen? There are many tandem or associated questions, such as why are GOPers not attracted to strongwomen in executive power?

Anyway, the answer is it's about what their belief system dictates and how such beliefs fomented. The latter is just as important as the evident condition. It takes a lot of effort to effectively quash critical thinking.

It's loyalty to rigid belief.

https://youtu.be/DHv1cQMwXpo?si=zdZwaf8Q7HP8OrGg

This article may provide some answers:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1da9b82146eba&ei=128

Making Sense of the Fascism Debate
Opinion by Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins • 9h •

(excerpt)

given all the spilt ink, exploring the debate might disclose something fundamental about the Western mindset, culture, and political values by revealing our ultimate—and sometimes conflicting—concerns and how we choose to portray them.

But is it even necessary to make recourse to Europe to explain American fascism?

The historian Robert Paxton claims “that the earliest phenomenon that can be functionally related to fascism is American: the Ku Klux Klan.”

As this brief tableau suggests, historians dominate today’s fascism debate. This might explain why so much of the debate is wedded to the horrors of the past.

Still we should be suspicious of historians moonlighting as prophets of doom and democratic avengers. Their desire to sound the tocsin against the threat of recurrent heresy too often obfuscates, rather than clarifies, the complexity of current events.

Being over fixated on the traumas of history can make it difficult to grasp what is new. “The past may live inside the present,” observes the historian Matt Karp, “but it does not govern our growth.” Instead of letting fears distort politics, as another fascism debate is most likely bound to do, the goal now should be to push forward with the hope of building a better society for a new age.

======================================================

I did a search on the question: Why are conservatives attracted to strongmen? Results: https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

Take your pick

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I am more concerned why GOP voters are so infatuated, attracted to nationalist strongmen in positions of Executive Power.

On this site, this week, we have a self-proclaimed libertarian arguing a president use executive orders to close a border through military force, then Congress work together to pass legislative reform on the issue.

He ignores that even if Congress did not act to stop such action, that nothing would be present to bind the next president to that course of action.

I wonder if it’s kind of like hypnosis? This phenomenon is far from the first in history - people willingly commit mass murder for some ‘charismatic’ leaders, they go to war in religious fervour, they strap bombs to their children’s chests and weep with joy at creating a martyr.

We have people right here, in this forum, who are thus enthralled - people who absolutely refuse to consider their positions or objectively weigh evidence that is right in their face. They BELIEVE, and that’s the end of it. They’re Evangelical. They’re Republicans. They’re Muslim, or Kurd or Sikh. That becomes WHO they are, because they’ve surrendered their own personal identity to an ideology, therefore they are absolved of personal responsibility.

Maybe it’s evolutionary, maybe it’s like forests burning before they regenerate. It seems a shame though, that a society like the U.S. that has achieved so much in such a short time, should be at peril so soon because of such magical thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:


Maybe it’s evolutionary, maybe it’s like forests burning before they regenerate.

I've thought for a while that the GOP needs to be completely destroyed, no remnant of the former should be used in the reconstruction of a conservative organization.

Trump has taught us a lot about the country, ourselves, history, values, etc. The gift that keeps on giving.

In this short video, I like the last part best - where the eagle bites a chunk out of Trump.

https://youtu.be/lsLApEoBE2Q?si=Gs9HJQbVh-D89Lii

1 day ago

quote:

I've thought for a while that the GOP needs to be completely destroyed, no remnant of the former should be used in the reconstruction of a conservative organization.

Well, that's post-Trump. And that's assuming he loses to Biden again, and gets convicted.

If he wins the election, he beats the rap, and there will be no post-Trump. He and the GOP will be vindicated and the trajectory they started and plan will mature.

The GOP is rapidly purging RINOs or conservative lites, as Lane calls them.

Has everyone already forgotten Don Jr’s words on the podium on Jan. 6?

He said right out loud, “This is the Trump Party!”

Don Sr. has alluded numerous times to having more than two terms, how ‘maybe we should try that sometime’ when speaking of Putin and Xi.
And his snaggle toothed followers are bellowing “We need a dictator!”

How clearly can the message be transmitted? If Trump wins, it’s the last election you’re going to see for a very long time. The U.S. will be withdrawn from NATO, Putin will reassemble the Soviet Union and take additional lands to boot, Trumps debt to Putin will be paid and Trump will have the U.S. by what remains of its balls.

I quoted two previous posts below - one by me and a response by Scott King. The discussion in the two posts is what I want to continue, after thinking about it for a while and with some new information.

First - the heading of this thread "Tells you all you need to know"; Now IMO, there is a lot more that needs to be known. Given that Mike Pence is a Christian and won't endorse Trump, and given that Pence knows far more about why and doesn't fully explain. He just gives reasons in conclusion, not how he got there - what info. I figure Pence knows all about the Christian Nationalist movement and coalitions.

I outlined some ideas in my post below and raised some questions or unknowns or mysteries, and used the word "imagine", which Scott took exception to. What I meant by the use of that word was keep seeking answers. I try to identify and shun conspiracy theories, but we all know there are lots of pieces to this puzzle than we know as fact. Knowing there are some big pieces missing is important.

My key takeaway from his response is: "I say to you again, lighten up a little. It's just the pf, it's just national partisan politics."

"it's just national partisan politics." That's like saying business as usual.

And Scott suggests that I "lighten up a little." In my view, that's the same as suggesting that I quit trying to figure this era out, what's behind it, what's pushing it; that I'm making more of it than is there - it's only business/politics as usual.

In big part, perhaps mostly, the reason I'm on this forum is to learn stuff, sometimes from the thought-provoking views of others. More often, my own research yields answers.

The more I know and think about Trump and Trumpism, the more I think this ain't political business as usual. Often, we analyze it from the perspective of the voter/supporter, but not from the top down.

In addition to the Heritage Foundation's Project 25, here's an epiphany/realization:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4096de37528db8&ei=15

The Society for American Civic Renewal, or SACR for short, is a group that was uncovered earlier this month by Talking Points Memo, which described them as, “a secret, men-only right-wing society with members in influential positions around the country who are on a crusade to recruit a Christian government that will form after the right achieves regime change in the United States, potentially via a 'national divorce.'"

I know the topic of the video seems like a conspiracy theory, but I think it's a missing piece of the puzzle. This is the stuff MTG talks about. Tuberville and MAGA Moses Johnson knows about, but doesn't talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...erican_Civic_Renewal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Haywood

https://www.theguardian.com/us...-civic-renewal-links

https://www.businessinsider.in...leshow/102955236.cms

https://www.sltrib.com/news/po...under-attack-inside/

============================================================================================
============================================================================================

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Here's a disturbing article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...77b29ad4128bfd&ei=66

Ben Shapiro: I’m Willing to Endure Great Hardship to Vote for “Deeply Flawed Human Being” Donald Trump


(excerpt)

"the speaker emphasized their commitment to honesty"

=========================================================

I don't follow Ben Shapiro or know who he is.

This article mostly explains Lane's commitment, which I think he has been "honest" about, to the extent of the expression but not the full basis. One could think the basis for getting there is not so honest, but I can't argue the commitment itself is not an honest expression on his part.

That doesn't mean the commitment and basis together are not deeply flawed, maybe even more flawed than Trump.

After all, cult members, and Hitler's Nazis were "honest" about their commitment, yet deeply flawed in their basis.

Thusly, honesty and sincerity and commitments need to be evaluated in their context.

Both Lane and Shapiro share a deep loathing for the Left, as fomented in their ideological minds. That means a lot, if not practically everything as stimulus for their commitments, and overlooking the deep and profound flaws in the individual Trump. Plus, bigly, it overlooks the deep flaws in the consequences of Trumpism, as a whole organism, given the power in the federal govt.

One can assume, rationally, that it's that power they want both to give to Trump and Trumpism and thus for themselves and their ideology. Apparently, they think it can run amuck only so far because they can control it or the system can control it. Maybe the chaos is actually what they want as a means to whatever end.

Maybe they understand this too - that once Trump and Trumpism has achieved their goals, made the transitions, defeated and transformed the system, and all the opposition crushed or jailed, what will that require to sustain?

Can it be sustained? Or, is sustaining not important? Instead, the fulfillment of the events believed inevitable to follow? Thus, Trump and Trumpism are transitional?

I think that in order to make any sense out of it is to look at it from the perspective of Christian Nationalism.

One quote from the article stands out to me:
"rallying support behind Trump as the candidate best positioned to prevent a second Biden presidency"

Really think about, and "imagine" Wink why Trump is "positioned" - I mean all the reasons you can think of as known facts or evidence, plus, realizing there are intangibles and unknowns, imagine them, or speculate. We know RINOs are purged from the GOP, for example. Speculate why.

I could go on, but the answers, and more questions, are not difficult to imagine.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

I could go on, but the answers are not difficult to imagine.

I think it unfortunate I point out you "imagine".

There's far to much that gets assumed around here and imagined. You and I have been participating here for years and I believe still have a very incomplete picture of the members we discuss issues with. Doc Lane certainly seems the Boogie man of choice lately and I guess I think he asks for it a bit., but to be honest, after all this time here on the pf I don't believe I or we have a detailed bio of the guy.

I say to you again, lighten up a little. It's just the pf, it's just national partisan politics.