Considering he has no policy plans for anything, that kind of goes without saying.
Surprised you didn’t go with the *de facto * Hitler comparison.
You probably meant de rigueur?
Davis was a bigger threat than Hitler ever was. Hitler had no means to subjugate the US, Davis tried to split it in two and actually did so for four years. Trump would have the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who would undo the last 60 years of progress in civil rights and worker rights.
de trop, but not by much.
If we’re working with French phrases here, bête noire needs to fit in somewhere.
Is this why he said his daughter will take care of the family business after he becomes President?
I refer you to the old saw about ‘military intelligence.’
Who cares? What insight do they have?
Right. Because no sexist has ever loved his daughter.
sexists prefer their daughters over sons for taking care of family business?
Of course sexism is in the mix as well. It’s pretty easy to unpack his promise to “make America great again”, combined with his repeated complaints about “political correctness” and this latest bit about how women have gained some unfair advantage over men. It is, just as that GOP operative with the Southern drawl said on NPR, about wanting to “go back to 1956”. That’s the approximate time, when Drumpf was coming of age, that America was “great”. White males were at their ascendancy, dames knew their place, as did “colored people”, and there weren’t many immigrants around thanks to draconian policies including Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” program to round up Hispanics and deport them (or shoot them at the border), about which Drumpf spoke approvingly at one of the debates.
Then how do you explain all the prominent Republicans, including the last three presidential nominees and the Speaker of the House, who are not supporting him?
Yeah, that was another facepalm. Drumpf has repeatedly used phrasing like this (or “America First”, or “I love the Hispanics”) that people in the know find risible. But the beauty of it for Drumpf is that the rubes who like him don’t know that “waste, fraud, and abuse” is a longtime Washington punchline. They can nod and be all “hmm, yeah, that does seem like a good place to go to get all the money we need to save the system”. :smack:
LOL, good point.
I think you’re on to something there.
However, the main reason there were few immigrants around was the national-origins-quota system embodied in the Immigration Act of 1924, the explicit purpose of which at the time was to preserve America’s character as a white man’s country, defining “white” as “Northwestern European.” This system was repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, since when America has received millions of immigrants from parts of the world most Americans were barely aware of in 1965, as well as from Mexico and LA of which they were always aware.
It is in that sense, I think, that so many Pubs, RWs and Trumpies want to go “back to the '50s” – to the time before that happened.
Only the ones they want to sleep with.
Yes, this is precisely what I meant (so why did you start with “However…”?). I believe that as a result of the policies you’re talking about, the late 1950s was the period in time with the fewest immigrants and non-English speakers in the population in all of American history.
Sexists don’t necessarily hate all women, or think all women are inferior – they might hate most women, or think most women are inferior, but they carve out exceptions for their daughters or other chosen women.
So just like it’s possible to be a racist with a black friend (or even with a black spouse or child), it’s also possible to be a sexist who loves and advances his daughter.
Also, notice that being willing to have your daughter guide the empire you created (if we can describe The Donald’s business interests that way without laughing), is not the same thing as being willing to have your daughter surpass you in wealth and power (as with men being asked how they react to a wife earning more than her husband). It’s more along the lines of 'sure, dear, you can tend my flame, glorify my memory, and carry on my work, to let my achievements live on forever’ and that sort of thing.
In other words, his idea of Ivanka taking over isn’t anything other than his usual ego trip. She will (in his imagining) be performing the worshipful function of preserving his legacy.
Two points:
-
My primary concern is truth and honesty, and if that harms my ‘credibility’, so be it. I’ve gotten into many an argument around here over the years because of my insistence on the facts in the face of unpopular opinion. I’m still not supporting Trump for president but that doesn’t mean I think I should sit here and let all sorts of inaccurate and/or dishonest things be said about him and let them become accepted because no one who knows better will speak up.
-
In the post above you’re doing pretty much exactly what I was talking about in the post you’re responding to when I said that to the liberal mind there must always be some sort of mental deficiency involved in order for a voter to be Republican. Note your use of the words “stupid”, “rubber chicken on his head”, “moose from Wasilla”, “insanity”, “nutbars”, etc. So as I said and you just demonstrated, to you guys there’s simply no rational or right thinking way anyone can be a Republican.
Actually there is, Starving Artist. You believe in capitalism, law and order, fiscal conservatism, that’s good reasons to be with the GOP. But pandering to the Fundieloons and the xeno/homophobes and the prison-industrial complex(*) and acting like one should be proud of being stupid will earn someone my derision.
(* don’t think you’re off the hook for this one, Dems…)
But one never (or given your post, rarely) hears anyone on the left express such sentiments. Instead it’s almost always that conservatives are some form of evil or stupid, and the takeaway is that a person would have to be evil or stupid to be a conservative or Republican in the first place.
Take for example your comment to me further up thread, “For a long time it was considered “beneath” someone respectable to be…”
Any time I dare make a comment harkening back to a more respectable time I immediately get accused of wanting to see black people lynched and gays forced back into the closet. One simply can’t disagree with liberals about anything without being accused of bearing some form of deficiency as a human being.