I’m going to take a break from my normal writing to correct some misconceptions about politics and Donald Trump.
The headlines are blaring this morning: Trump will send American troops to Gaza and cleanse the land of Palestinians! That’s not exactly what Trump said, of course, but it does reflect the shocking words and actions of our President.
The tariffs he announced last week sent the stock market into a tailspin. We expected the lefties to throw a fit, but even conservative economists are complaining: Trump Bites the Hand that Feeds Us says Peter Schiff. You can find similar noise from the likes of Michael Hudson and others.
…
I’ve already pointed out that the core policy for Trump seems to be a return to the Monroe Doctrine as a way to face a multipolar world. That part in itself is not a bad idea, in the sense that it’s probably the best he could do in the circumstances. That doesn’t mean good things are coming. The various commentators are quite correct that a Monroe-based tariff war with the world is going to hurt us economically.
We live in a fundamentally feminine society. It is a society where boys and men are viewed as defective girls and women (respectively). It is a society that finds masculinity shocking, abhorrent, and toxic. So when the modern man wants something done, he is expected to try to achieve this by being nice. In fact, if he tries any other tactic, he’s being a big meanie who will be subjected to shaming by the group in order to get him back into line. This is known in some circles as The Cult of Nice.
The Cult of Nice applies to the modernist Western sense of morality: if you are nice, you are a good person, but if you are not nice, you are an evil person. Fundamentally, the Cult of Nice is about avoiding confrontation.
You see this a lot when Jack @ Sigma Frame complains about my confrontation of the errors that I observe. I’m constantly being told that I need to build things up and be less confrontation to suffering men and people on our team. That’s the Cult of Nice speaking.
Trump—and Musk—comes from a business environment where being nice in high stakes negotiations leads to vastly inferior outcomes. Trump realizes that all negotiations where winning is important are fundamentally hostile. Avoiding confrontation is equivalent to losing the negotiation.
Remember J3 when World War III began? Me neither. Yet that was the same level of hysteria regarding Trump that you see now.
In order to win at almost any negotiation, you begin with your strongest, most self-interested position and then negotiate until you reach a mutually beneficial outcome. In the case of global politics involving nations with standing armies, this is quite threatening with extremely high stakes.
Remember when Trump was the only modern president who didn’t start any wars? Remember when the Cult of Nice fomented the war in Ukraine? I do.
So I’m going to state what is obvious to those involved in these high stakes negotiations: Trump doesn’t actually want a trade war. He’s bluffing and everyone knows it. But because he has a better hand than the opposition—everyone knows that too—the opposition will eventually fold, caving to his demands and settling on a compromise that favors the U.S. interests.
This is exactly what is happening. Trump threatened Canada and Mexico with tariffs and their leaders almost immediately capitulated. Trump has already agreed to suspend the tariff on Canadian goods. This was the plan all along.
A small few may decide to call his bluff and engage in a standoff, but the U.S. is projected to come out ahead, relatively, even if their opponents decide to play hardball. Not every negotiation ends in success and it’s absurd to expect it. Some pain is to be expected in any negotiation. But this is better than the Cult of Nice, which says that the party with the upper hand should just surrender.
Everyone knows that a trade war is bad, including Trump. But, the United States holds the better cards. It has the stronger bargaining position. It can afford to threaten and bluster.
But this isn’t a very nice thing to do. It’s just good business.
If Trump and the Republicans hold their ground, America won’t suffer much economically. Indeed, it will gain concessions that will likely improve economic and other political outcomes and offset any loses.
So emasculated is our Western culture that a fully masculine response by a politician is just terrifying. They are so used to caving in to the demands of their enemies, that they can’t even imagine abandoning niceness to fight for their own interests. The Cult of Nice is, in large part, why leftists favor out-groups over their own interests:
It has been decades since there has been a politician in Congress or the White House who was a strong negotiator. Many people alive have never witnessed one. They probably have never seen one in their places of employment, schools, and churches. This latter is why church discipline almost never happens in modern churches. It’s just not very nice.
God favors decentralization; that’s a primary lesson of the Tower of Babel. God knew that “world peace” would foster such catastrophic wickedness that humans must be tribal and compete for resources. A global economy is anathema. God demands that we learn to live with what He provides locally. If we want something else, we have to move and fight whoever is already living there.
That’s how it works outside the Covenant.
Trump’s negotiations are placing Americans in a situation where they are forced to be tribal and compete for resources, just as, presumably, God intended. And they don’t like it. Not one bit. It’s uncomfortable for both Democrats and Republicans, who are used to their feminized approaches to conflict.
If you find Trump’s masculine and tribal negotiation tactics to be shocking, you might want to ask yourself why that is. Don’t you find it curious, at all, that the blustering Trump avoiding starting a new war? It seems a bit ironic, perhaps, until you realize that you can’t actually achieve “world peace” simply by being nice. Ukraine, anyone?
Oh, and none of the above contradicts this:
Let’s be clear: By no means do I defend Trump’s actions. Rather, I want to respond to what’s happening from a biblical point of view. Also, I want to help our parish members prepare for what God is doing in this time of tribulation.
See that you understand why.
I think you are both wrong!
It is wrong to insist on niceness and criticize toughness (but this is only ever very selectively applied); but it is also wrong to be tough in a wrong cause.
Why on earth should the President of the US suddenly be tough about this particular issue; involving an alien and overseas nation? Could it *maybe* really be motivated by that nation’s easterly neighbour?
I shall answer my question – because IMO the intent is — after the US has spent untold sums of US taxpayers money on ethnic cleansing and rebuilding, and the native populations of various Western nations have undertaken to pay, house, educate, provide health care etc for the resulting wave of displaced migrants — to hand Gaza over to Israel.
Surely it’s obvious that this is what would happen? (if the scheme was implemented) – surely this is exactly Why the scheme is being proposed? Does anyone Really believe this is about the US acquiring a bit of Mediterranean real estate and running it efficiently and peacefully?
In other words, old-man Trump is acting tough this time around in ways he did not act tough not when eight years younger, and this is because of who is pulling his strings and underwriting him this time around: a very wealthy and very powerful set of handlers and backers.
No mystery.
I think you are both wrong!
Fair enough. There is a reason I limit how much I post about politics on this blog. I’m like a fish out of water. It’s hard to talk about politics and be truly apolitical (as someone who doesn’t vote or otherwise participate in government).
it is also wrong to be tough in a wrong cause
I agree. Consider my caveat at the very end of the OP.
Crisis? What Crisis?
Trump is a symptom of a problem. He isnt the problem, and he isnt the solution. He is a reaction to very deep problems in the country probably going back to the 1970’s.
The problem with the people who chant “Trump” loudly like at a WWF wrestling match is not because they are racists. They’re not.
When for decades now, their buying power has dropped, their standard of living has slowly eroded. Their livelihoods in the communities have been decimated by drugs, factories closing, taxes, smug attitudes from politicians in the statehouses (both republican and democrat). Their freedoms eroding on all levels. Its costs 400.00 to get a tag on your car that say “you have permission to drive your vehicle” for example.
When you curtail their speech, talk down to them………the only solution in the end IS to vote and support someone like Trump who doesnt care one bit about them mind you. If the two big political parties were actually running the country instead of running it into the ground Trump would not be president.
I support some of his policies. He mostly embodies what is wrong with this country…….policies over the decades that HE benefitted from and now wants to do something about it. Very little will get done in the end.
The USA is like that plane, when the red light comes on in the cabin (back in the old days, I dont know about today). Meaning, there is not enough fuel to make it back to the original launch site. The USA passed that decades ago, we cannot go back……and now the drastic measures we are using probably are too little, too late. I think Trump knows this too if truth be told.
We have to find a friendly runway or crash….and our friends are few and far between (we f*cked many of them over since the 1970’s policy wise) and its looking like we have to brace for impact. Trump may slow that by a few years……but its coming.
Its not “Gods will” it was the fault of man, and per usual………the (cough) Alphas in charge over the decades DID this. Betas like me will bear the brunt and the Alpahs will blame powerless, nameless men like me for the problems and the crash.
Our leaders never left high school.
The problem with the people who chant “Trump” loudly like at a WWF wrestling match is not because they are racists. They’re not.
YEAH most people know TRUMPS’ connection with WWF/ Vincent Kennedy Mcmahon but almost nobody even the most diehard of fans of the late 1990s ”Monday Night Wars” know that Vincent Kennedy Mcmahon’s evil=megalomaniac businessman character ”MR.Mcmahon” actually started in ’93 Memphis at a USWA show in a feud with Jerry Lawler NOT with Stone cold Steve Austin or Bret Hart in late ’97/early ’98:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v6zhcLMMmg
Vince McMahon heel debut in 1993 USWA Memphis
&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbisFuv2mRw
Vince McMahon cuts heel promo in 1993
See Vincent Kennedy Mcmahon’s ”MR. McMahon” character and (unknown even to him most likely) TRUMPS ”YOU’RE FIRED”(which started as part of the ”MR. McMahon”character when he wanted to fire a wrestler)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfpV5JVv9AY
Vince McMahon You’re Fired Compilation (HQ)
tough-guy business character was both born back in the summer of 1993.
All of that and more is why our non-”friend” Anon used to say at Dalrock that the Republicans and Democrats put on a Nationwide WWF wrestling show every 4 years to keep everyone placated with panem et circenses in Latin or from our Mother (even more literally for some of us here)country’s tongue ”Bread & Circuses”.
I find it funny, some overdone journalist on MSNBC or CNN or ABC was posing on a panel “What is Trump doing for the cost living! Nothing!!!”
Hmm, that’s funny
Because all through the summer and fall…..right up to election day. These same people on all these “expert” panels were telling us “Inflation / cost of living is down” from a year or ten months or fifteen months ago. So it was a non-issue.
A few weeks into the new administration, suddenly its the “top” issue facing the nation
None on that panel are affected by the “cost of living” mind you.
Good writeup.
per the pink elephant in the room (azagay), I’ve seen both very good leadership and very bad leadership through the years. Most (if I’m honest) were bad. Mike learned a lot from bad leaders (nothing shows you what not to do like a bad boss, that has an emotional and physical toll on others which is memorable and painful). Yes, they were weak and watched what they said (at least to the people they needed and wanted to impress).
I agree with what you stated about Trump.
Most people are “fish out of water” on politics unless they are part of the problem. Few good people aspire to go into politics as a career choice, and if and when they do they tend not to last.
To quote something I read recently which rings true: Complexity is always a cover for fraud. Bureaucracies love complexity as the results are non-attributional. Poor results are lost in the chase: “Hey we followed the procedures can’t be our fault ” and “we’ll set up a new group to study that”. Usually I steer far away from the creation of any new government agency, and if anyone other than Musk were in charge of DOGE I would worry. But he is quite adept. And more has happened in the past two…or is it three? Hard to keep up changes are coming so fast…weeks than I thought I would ever see even over the course of years.
I met Rubio, he came to our base. He was one of many many politicians who visited but the ONLY one who really followed through and helped us with what he said he would (it was a base housing issue). Kind of funny, before he arrived Mike said, “Little Marco is coming to visit”. It was hard not to think of him as “little Marco” but over time he earned Mike’s respect. Never met Trump in person, unfortunately, but our successor (not a prior fan of his, this was a liberal guy) had a long personal interview with him and he was impressed. He said Trump “was a good listener, and knew his stuff”.
All this to say that when a leader establishes credibility like Trump has (now that he is no longer a fish out of water, as he was the first 4 years), I give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ll wait and see, think he has earned that in my estimation.
Side notes, since I don’t plan on posting more I’ll get this out:
Side note 1: If NATO is such an important alliance, it would seem members would be meeting their basic treaty spending obligations (some haven’t done so in decades, and this is their own military funding, with us in the hot seat to defend them with our money).
Side note 2: When leftists say nobody voted for Elon Musk, remind them nobody voted for Fauci but he created a problem and then created a bigger problem. All now a matter of public record as DOGE’s band of autists have revealed. God bless them.
Side note 3: Kind Solomon probably looked crazy when he said to split the baby.
Side note 4: Musk has stated that DOGE’s final act will be to delete itself, and that is as it should be. We don’t need to have a department of government efficiency into perpetuity.
No one voted for Hillary Clinton in 1992….yet there she was at every policy decision in Bill’s first term “you vote him, you get me too!” she replied. This was accpeted as a “reasoned, normal and good answer”
AS for the “cult of nice”
Been hearing this since the 1990’s “Oh dont be *nice* be good.”
Mind you, for the most part it means the same thing now. Just take the “yucky” word and replace it with another one. Poof! Problem fixed! And yet, by actions of many who claim they are not *nice* and are *good* still behave in the exact same way.
Trump is going to change or wants to change the name of HUD (Dept of Housing and Urban Dev) to a new name……and poof! All the problems HUD has will now go away!
And as for *good*
Jesus said none were good. The fundamental bottom line hasnt changed with these word switches in the ‘sphere
“Change yourself, do this, do that, everything for female validation so she wont be ‘mad’ at you or will “like” you while the baseline behaviors are still to please her and her and her fickle needs and wants. We’ll call it ‘good’ instead of ‘nice’ and besides WOMEN told us they think the word nice is ‘icky’ so we have to change the word.”
They all pat themselves on the back at the amazing wisdom they are passing on to their fellow “lesser” men and this wisdom actually is making theses lesser men…..even lesser. Exactly what they want
Jesus said none were good. The fundamental bottom line hasnt changed with these word switches in the ‘sphere
“Change yourself, do this, do that, everything for female validation so she wont be ‘mad’ at you or will “like” you while the baseline behaviors are still to please her and her and her fickle needs and wants. We’ll call it ‘good’ instead of ‘nice’ and besides WOMEN told us they think the word nice is ‘icky’ so we have to change the word.”
They all pat themselves on the back at the amazing wisdom they are passing on to their fellow “lesser” men and this wisdom actually is making theses lesser men…..even lesser. Exactly what they want
i’m pretty sure that guys like ED Hurst, Jack, and Oscar mean by ”DON’T BE NICE, be good” is what’s in this video MOD!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFNXGWSRovM
Stop Being Nice, Start Being Kind. A Words MADDER word battle!
Chris “The Brain”(see?-he’s like the self-proclaimed Geniuses in the ‘sphere that can’t get TRUMPS time of day)
20.6K subscribers
Subscribe
313
Share
Save
3,119 views Oct 19, 2023
Growing up, we are constantly told to “be nice.” Ironically, this expression teaches us to tailor our behavior to external social expectations. This hurts our mental health, harms our relationships, and fosters a world of sociopathic behavior.
We too easily transpose “nice” and “kind” in our speech, and they are not even close to the same thing. Kindess is what the world really needs. Learning to distinguish between these words will help expose the wolves among us, and better examine our own behavior.
00:00:00 Kind vs. Nice, Fight!
00:01:05 Being “Nice” is an Act
00:03:26 Kindess Doesn’t Always Feel Good
00:06:50 Nice Villians and Kind Heroes
00:08:02 Being “Nice” or “Kind” Affects Your Mental Health
00:11:03 The Dark Truth About “Nice” People
All I get from this nonsense is:
Be an asshole, but when someone is an asshole to you???? Oh, its not “godly” or “holy” and “not loving your neighbor as yourself” nonsense that spews out.
Basically if you have the Ego the size of God, the looks to back it up, a higher than normal IQ (even if you are a total jerk in everyday matters) and you have women attracted to you…..just wanting your baby
Then being “good” is a normal “masculine” and “red pill” thing. Anyway else is a blue-pilled cuck who really doesnt love Jesus and deserves to be spat on.
Basically if you have the Ego the size of God, the looks to back it up, a higher than normal IQ (even if you are a total jerk in everyday matters) and you have women attracted to you…..just wanting your baby
Then being “good” is a normal “masculine” and “red pill” thing. Anyway else is a blue-pilled cuck who really doesnt love Jesus and deserves to be spat on.
Almost exactly right! Remember Terry T. Turnage?AKA the ”Tennessee man dubbed ‘worst deadbeat dad’ after reportedly fathering more than 25 children” he was ”good” with women!
https://fox4kc.com/news/tennessee-man-dubbed-worst-deadbeat-dad-after-reportedly-fathering-more-than-25-children/
Jesus said none were good. The fundamental bottom line hasnt changed with these word switches in the ‘sphere
“Change yourself, do this, do that, everything for female validation so she wont be ‘mad’ at you or will “like” you while the baseline behaviors are still to please her and her and her fickle needs and wants. We’ll call it ‘good’ instead of ‘nice’ and besides WOMEN told us they think the word nice is ‘icky’ so we have to change the word.”
Most of the ”DON’T BE NICE, be good” in the ‘sphere talk is just to cover up how sinful the ”RP Genuis leaders” were let alone the supposed many, many women who had sex with them.
They mainly don’t like that ROISSY=HEARTISTE https://heartiste.org/2014/07/28/women-prefer-jerks-and-men-prefer-nicegirls/{Women Prefer Jerks And Men Prefer Nicegirls
Jul 28th, 2014 by CH
Chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. It’s a stereotype for a reason. Our ancestors who had experience with women beyond typing furious white knight screeds on feminist blogs and collecting cheetos dust in their manboob cleavage have witnessed this adage in action so often that it’s long been accepted wisdom, passed down from grandfather to father to son. (Until the chain of realtalk was broken with the advent of equalism.)
This facet of female sexual nature is so plain as day that even indignant feminists and ignoramus tradcons have conceded some ground on the issue. As they have retreated in shame ahead of the advancing armies of the Chateau id-palers, they’ve been reduced to arguing “yeah, well, ok but so do men!” and babbling incoherent nonsense about men preferring “bitches”.
CH corrected their misunderstanding in as gentle a manner as befits this noble house, noting that, absent a few rare self-gelding exceptions to the rule, the desire to love and be loved by a jerk is a far stronger and frequently expressed impulse in women than the desire to love a bitch is in those few men who like to be pegged.
Or: If the “bitch” is hot, men will still want to fux her, albeit with reservations concerning any long-term commitment potential. If the “bitch” is not hot, they won’t.
Women, as is their sex’s formerly inscrutable wont, are markedly different from men in this regard. The jerkboy attitude ITSELF is inherently attractive to women, and women even prefer to harness the commitment of jerks to the detriment of beta male supplicants.
But, why bother retelling the wisdom of the ancients and of the clear-eyed moderns to low born plebes when one can summon a mighty Shiv forged of Heartistian steel instead? A twist of the hilt and equalist ego guts spill out in technicolor anguish.
Men are sexually attracted to women who show an interest in them or who are responsive during a date, the study found. On the flip side, women are not sexually interested in the responsive men they meet for the first time, the research also discovered.
“We wanted to understand the reasons for these gender differences,” said the study’s lead researcher, Gurit Birnbaum, an associate professor of psychology at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel. “What makes a responsive woman sexually attractive, and what makes a responsive man less sexually attractive?” […]
Men who perceive women to be interested in them rated the women as more feminine and sexually attractive. They also showed more interest in having long-term relationships with the responsive women than with the nonresponsive women.
Men dig non-bitchy, feminine women. Commence with the flabbergasting!
At the end of each experiment, the students rated their partners on scales such as responsiveness, attractiveness and masculinity or femininity.
Gender-based stereotypes may play a role in the men’s preference for responsive women, Birnbaum said. During a first date, people tend to rely on gender stereotypes for how they think a person should act. Men may find women more attractive if they fit the female stereotype of showing care and concern, she added.
Nope.
Or, men may think that responsive women are sexually interested in them. This may explain why men rate these “nice” women as more attractive and feminine, Birnbaum said.
Bingo. Also, I’d add that a nice, feminine woman signals to a man that she’ll be a faithful wife and nurturing mother to his children.
“I didn’t know until this [journal] article that men perceive responsive women not only as feminine, but also as sexually arousing,” Finkel told Live Science in an email. “I could have imagined a different set of results in which men found such women feminine, but then viewed them as dainty or less sexually desirable. Birnbaum and colleagues showed that the opposite is true.”
Yes, nicegirls aren’t just admirable or coveted for nonsexual reasons; they are also very arousing to men.
In contrast to the men, the women in the study did not rate the responsive men as more attractive or masculine than the nonresponsive men — a finding that surprised experts.
“Nonresponsive” = “jerk”.
The study did not reveal why women are not sexually interested in responsive men on the first date, but Birnbaum offered several ideas.
Women are typically more cautious daters than men are, and may be skeptical of a responsive man, Birnbaum said. Or, she added, women may think the men are trying too hard to win their affection and get them into bed.
Or, women may see responsive men as eager to please, or even desperate, Birnbaum said. Perhaps, the researchers noted, women may view a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.
Bingos all around!
“Regardless of the reasons, perhaps men should slow down, if their goal is to instill sexual desire,” Birnbaum said.
Or, be a challenge.
For Hivemind takes on the studies, see “Study finds that men like nice women, but not the other way around” and “Why playing hard to get only works for men.”} told on them so they try to make everything ”Christian® ” to look ”good” and grab the reins of power and Authority over others (including reality)like they did in the Churches they hated and destroyed before they came into the sphere to destroy it with their same ”BE NICE, BUT NOT REALLY NICE BUT WORD CHANGE HERE KIND” Ggibberish NONSENSE that destroyed America, Marriage and western Civ with their full blessings then and now(Sharkly still plays the ”good wife” AMENing as Jack still says ”Fornication is pretty good as long as it’s not with my daughters that is”).
Eh well…….this is where I get lost in all of this. Especially christianity in these matters.
We talk of vetting, actions, deeds, and what people do instead of what they say. And….I get can get on board with that.
Then, in comes “pre-destination” and “genetics” and preclusions to being a certain way behavior-wise…..and your physical attributes, many of which you cannot change, including your intellect.
And you are still supposed to be married. Because that is “God’s plan” evidently. Yet, before 1970 many people, most did find someone to marry. Now, our friends will save “muh feminism” and “chivalry” and list a ton of of other gentical factors, cultural factors.
It just comes off….not saying its right to say this…..but it does come off as “Well, God had a plan, and he changed his mind around 1970 or thereabouts and the only way. The ONLY way to get a sex-on-tap marriage to a hot virgin christian gal six / ten years younger than you is is to: learn Game”
Mind you, most marriages in feudal Europe thru the Victorian Age in many large swaths of rural Europe (and I have proof of this in my own family line in Wales) . A man had to get permission from the local Lord (Arglwydd in Welsh) to marry. A man (pleb or peasant / serf which is what 90% of Europe was back then) in 1512 Wales just didnt chat up the cute “maiden” at church and marry her. He didnt date her, vett her, take her for a “test drive” it was pretty much determined that said peasant would marry fellow said peasant by the local Arglwydd and that was it.
Arranged marriage is still very common in many parts of the world. It was through family, the local Lord, the local church. We scoff at this in todays world….but it did have its benefits back then.
A couple I knew when I lived in India (jaswinder and Omana) had an arranged marriage. They both were of the same class, same family standing and societal view. They both admitted to me “the first couple years of our marriage was hard, but we have made it work. Our FAMILY reputations were on the line” They were both in their early thirties at the time (1997) and had been married since 1988.
There is something to be said for a model like this. When integrity and reputation and duty to family matters over “love” or “shes not hot enough” and wasting time with “spinning plates” and everything else a real “ladies man” must do to have an iota of a chance to be married.
Just remember…..as a young / younger man, you have to just have confidence! And, Western women are 100% no good. Go to Asia where all women just want to be a wife! From PRC / China
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijk9KSRAblw
Hey MOD stop me & Nate if you have heard this one before:
Nate Hochman
@njhochman
·
Follow
These are Trump’s best approval numbers ever. But look at the generational breakdown.
Boomers are 50/50. Millennials are +4.
Gen Z is +10.
I’ll keep saying it: Zoomers are going to be the most right-wing generation in recent memory.
https://x.com/njhochman/status/1888656126776058040
Zoomers lived through the Zoom’s of 2020 and 2021—thus the name—and experienced leftist tyranny and stupidity firsthand. As Twitter’s @policalmath said years ago, when the older generations start lying about their support for illegal and intrusive covid policies, at least some of the young will remember what actually happened because they lived through it.
As a parent of zoomers, it’s incredibly easy to simply point out how stupid those policies were and how they continue to this day. Schools still do brainless “virtual days” when there is a snow storm.
Remember Lexit’s predictions and political commentary here, here, and here. To wit:
By contrast, my analysis of JD Vance (here and here) before the election appears to have been even more accurate than I thought it would be!
Not buying it.
I heard in the early 2000’s that the “Millennials” were conservative, they grew up in divorced homes and saw the damage, they want traditional values and hate Bill Clinton! 100% wrong.
I remember in 2017 / 2018 all the pundits saying “Gen Z” is very conservative because they hate Woke Ideology and have a family orientated focus, and they hate Barak Obama! 100% wrong.
A large swath of my generation (Gen X) DID give the “conservatives” a chance in 1994 with that huge election sweep. The first time they took over the House since the 1950’s btw and threw out many supposedly “red states” (remember, Texas was once a Red State…..no one remembers that today……….)
Well, all we got was Newt Gingrich who was more concerned with “The people have spoken, they want Bill clinton removed from office”
No, they wanted balanced budgets, violent criminals jailed and taxes cut.
We got none of that. Budgets were not balanced. Spending still went up. We were told there was a “massive labor shortage” and the doors were flung open for massive immigration……and they spent their whole time going after Bill Clinton…they threw anything and everything at him. They also had the confused notion that they were elected because “America wanted Jesus” (the last throes of the Fundamentalist types)
Trump will accomplish little or nothing in the end. Its already going to the “courts” which will tie it up in that process for years. As soon as he leaves office and the Democrat comes in, all his orders will be “un done”
And Zoomers dont want one penny cut from anything that will require them to work for a living.
The claim was that the younger generations will lean Republican and continue to—mostly—do so over time. In other words, on average, the young will vote Republican in the future.
Are you saying that this is wrong and that Lexet will ultimately be vindicated in the long run?
This is highly likely, though we’ll know for sure one-way-or-the-other once SCOTUS weighs in. Wait to make your predictions until then.
I’ve been saying for a while now that Trump—a 90s Democrat—is a product of leftism and is using almost every one of the leftist tactics that the left has been perfecting and using for decades. All of this was made possible because Congress has refused to do its job for decades.
So whatever Trump can do—using leftist tactics—will just be undone and made 10x worse when the next leftist takes over. That is, unless by some miracle the Republican controlled Congress decides to actually legislate. Which it probably won’t, because it hates Trump. Plus, Trump has done more in a couple weeks than Congress does in any given session. Congress isn’t the one wearing the pants in that relationship, and it is certainly not on top.
Do you know any Zoomers? Zoomers don’t consider second-order effects (including long-term planning), and so what you are saying isn’t going to factor into the conversation. For now.
People like Lexet dont live in reality. They live in plastic affirming bubbles. When I was at IBM the whole computer world was changing in the mid 1990’s and inside at IBM they were saying “We’re doing a great job!”
Well, they were so insulated they couldnt accpet the reality that was around them. Even if a few did see it, and raised the alarm about the massively changing high-tech landscape outside their doors……well, it was scoffed at and “the charts, facts, studies show” that these changes were wrong.
Just blind denial.
When the layoffs and restructuring hit…..IBM…still a player, even today…….but its dominance ended.
I blame intellectuals at IBM in the legal, HR and management departments.
Social pundits today who love Trump forget he’s doing everything by “executive order” and not going through Congress (that is against the Constitution btw and conservatives SCREAM and claw their eyeballs out when the other side does it).
In the end, most of this will get thrown into the courts and so much time will be wasted, then lawsuits, then payouts, time wasted……..
And people in his Cabinet and allies / confidents are already talking about “opening” hearings and investigations to prosecute, investigate the other side….ANYTHING to not handle and run the country.
And yes, Trump is a 1990’s styled Democrat.
FWIW, I’ve noted this rather extensively on Twitter. I rarely do so on this blog.
I would only note that Republicans know this is “hypocritical,” but don’t care because these are leftist tactics being used against leftists. In other words, Democrats are reaping what they sowed. What they started is coming back to bite them in the face. This isn’t, strictly speaking, hypocrisy. It’s utilitarianism. But if it is hypocrisy, it’s leftist hypocrisy on account of them complaining that Trump is doing what they themselves started.
Is it hypocritical to vote for a leftist to dismantle leftism from within? Or is it just the self-refuting nature of leftism leading to its logical and natural conclusion?
Perhaps I’m delusional, but I don’t see how this is hypocritical. Republicans gave the Democrats a taste of their own medicine, gave them what they asked for. There are definitely some strong moral judgments one could make about this, but I don’t think hypocrisy is one of them.
Right. If Charlton is to be believed, all these actions are just there to push some narrative and to grab attention, but the real actions will be undone “off camera.” I can’t say one way or another, but I wouldn’t bet against it.
Leftist Michael Moore understood Trump as a hand grenade. His purpose, from the voter’s perspective, was to blow up the system. A 90s Democrat steeped in leftist tactics was a far better hand grenade than a classic Do Nothing Republican.
But you can’t actually fix evil without first changing the hearts of man. Indeed, changing the hearts of man—actively doing good—is precisely what we are to do.
And Zoomers dont want one penny cut from anything that will require them to work for a living.
This is a moot point for a lot of them though MOD.
As seen here:
https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-leaving-us-cant-afford-it-1952423
Gen Z Is Leaving the US Because They Can’t Afford It
Published Sep 12, 2024 at 12:00 PM EDT
Updated Sep 12, 2024 at 5:14 PM EDT
Gen Z is looking to leave United States because they can no longer afford to live there, according to a new report from Greenback Expat Tax Services.
The 2024 Expat Report found that 45 percent of Gen Z expats had left the country because they wanted a lower cost of living.
That differed from their millennial elders, who were far more likely to leave the United States for political reasons (40 percent).
By Suzanne Blake
Reporter, Consumer & Social Trends
Trust Project Icon
Newsweek Is A Trust Project Member
FOLLOW
news article
16
Gen Z is looking to leave United States because they can no longer afford to live there, according to a new report from Greenback Expat Tax Services.
The 2024 Expat Report found that 45 percent of Gen Z expats had left the country because they wanted a lower cost of living.
That differed from their millennial elders, who were far more likely to leave the United States for political reasons (40 percent).
More From Newsweek Vault: Checking Account vs. Savings Account: Which is Best for Your Finances?
“It’s a wake-up call,” Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of michaelryanmoney.com, told Newsweek. “These kids are facing financial obstacles their parents never dreamed of. Sky-high rent, massive student loans, and paychecks that barely cover a night out. No wonder they’re eyeing the exit.”
But you know how Jack and Oscar are reading=interepting that as ”Passport bros=MEN leaving uppity Ameriskanks while looking for dedicated ” who just want to be penis-worshipping(that isn’t how they see women from long ago who they imagine in their sex/p@rn-soaked minds were essentially private p@rn stars for their husbands?-they really believe their ”Patriarchal” porn fantasies have a basis in reality) wives and moms of the Eastern Orthodox and Asian persuasion” like they do to everything MEN do in America?
They heard about all the sex the Kennedys, Bill Clinton, King David, and Solomon were supposedly getting, and as natural leftist blank statists and as lying deceivers of the prosperity ”gospel” they ”name it and claim it” for themselves as they say me too like foolish solipsism wimminz.
Hey MOD you know sooner or later RP ® Genius Leaders will have to stop telling MEN TO MAN-UP=IMPROVE and have to to cough up money with their daughters to marry the remaining MEN who have Annual incomes of at minimum 40K & up.
Like these China Leftover Women have to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VzqHj1EZQ
China’s Leftover Women Panic! No Dowry if Not Virgin? Dowries Cut From 800K to 100K, or Reversed
China Observer
566K subscribers
Join
Subscribe
4K
132,967 views Jan 26, 2025 ✪ Members first on January 26, 2025 #chinaobserver
The anxiety of older single women in China has become increasingly visible on social media. Some people mock them for wanting children at 38, using phrases like “the power’s about to go out.” Others compare women who have had abortions to “houses where someone died.” These harsh comments reveal a cruel societal attitude, tying women’s personal experiences to their perceived worth in marriage. In this hostile environment, many women are desperate to “get married quickly,” with some even openly offering to “marry down” or provide dowries on platforms like Douyin, Chinese version of Tiktok.
But you know the RP ® Genius Leaders will still claim they don’t have to take out the trash or make dinner sometimes at least.
Thought I’d mention the new appointment for the Chairman of the Joint chiefs, “Raizin” Caine, is a very good one. I don’t think they’ve ever had a Guard guy in that position, let alone a retired one and a 3 star. This will ruffle a lot of feathers….many, many 4 stars have been waiting in expectation for that position. I cannot fully convey how ecstatic we are about this appointment. Mike knows him, BTW, pretty well. He was a “patch wearer” also (and the only Guard guy we know of who ever got Outstanding graduate in weapons school).