search
top

More on the Realignment

Ace of Spades doesn’t get the people who don’t want their elected politicians to fight for their interests. He points out:

I think the biggest difference between the cuck and non-cuck wings of the Republican party (apart from the cucks being liberals) is that non-cucks valorize audacity and aggression, whereas cucks valorize caution and defensiveness.

In a period of relative political stability, caution and defensiveness are what get you through. There are apple carts that don’t need upsetting, so people will tend to select for those traits. The problem is we’re in the middle of the political realignment where everything is up for grabs, and new arrangements are being negotiated. In that kind of political environment, audacity and aggression are what will get you through, but it’ll take a while to move aside all the people who rose under the last period of political stability.

I’m not always happy about the battles Trump picks, but he’s a fighter. He is a harbinger of the realignment. We will need more politicians who fight.

35 Responses to “More on the Realignment”

  1. Alpheus says:

    I don’t like President Trump, and I like Ben Shapiro, but I have to agree 100% with Ace of Spades on this one: the nice thing about Trump is that he’s willing to pull off dirty tricks like this.

    If we were in saner times, I think it would be different. But we’re not. After seeing Republicans get kicked around for decades, it’s nice to see someone willing to kick back for a change!

    • Sebastian says:

      I was not a fan of Trump either in the primary. But none of the other candidates were speaking to the issues that were important. I don’t buy the idea that Trump is any great strategist. I don’t think he works that way. But I think he has a good sense of what ordinary people are thinking and concerned about, and a good sense of theater. He has a tendency, in my opinion, to pick trivial fights he doesn’t need to waste energy on, but this is not one of them.

      The wall was a key campaign promise. He has to deliver. He knows this, and Pelosi knows this, which is precisely why she’s not budging.

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        Pretty much where I’m at too.

        I was a full blow NeverTrumper during the primaries. But he’s been great on Judges and Justices, and gun rights (except for the bump stock issue). Plus he fights back. Sometimes he fights when there just isn’t a point, but I guess you get one with the other with him.

        But making the Dems live by there rules is a big part of his schtick. Look, I loved the old system where we compromised and were cordial (for the most part) and nobody suffered for their beliefs. That system is over. The choice is either we suffer for our beliefs, or both sides suffer- until we come to a truce. There is no third option.

      • aerodawg says:

        A close family friend is a MS state legislator. She got to meet with him privately after one of his very first rallies when we started to campaign in the primary. Her report is that you get an entirely different person in private than in front of the cameras. He comes across as genuinely interested in your issues and how to help solve them. I think the ability to listen and transfer what he learns to the bombastic public persona of “The Donald” is what got him the presidency. He listened to the vast swath of “flyover country” and told them in simple terms he was listening.

      • aerodawg says:

        The OCONUS trip cancelling was epic BTW. Queen drinky drinky has no business flying executive transport for a mini-vacation anyway. That trip was like 98% brussels, 1.9% Egypt and 0.1% fly by Afghanistan on the way back. They were taking family members and other such nonsense with them. There were multiple instances of that hag abusing that process when Obama was president, including one particular trip that had a $250k liquor bill associated with it…

    • adlib says:

      dirty tricks like … not doing anything for gun rights (okay, judges are being appointed, i grant that)?

      • Ian Argent says:

        At the very least, we need judges who won’t reverse Congress on “good” legislation.

        I’m dubious that we shoudl try and roll back the federal status quo via legislative action at the current time. There are some states that need/i> to have their wrists slapped (and that’s where we need a more active SCOTUS). But I’m afraid that pushing too hard via judicial action will end up with freezing the debate a la Roe v Wade did for abortion.

    • Bram says:

      A cuck like Shapiro defines how far right it is permissible to go. In other words, he defines the right limit for his progressive friends. He and his fellow cucks will attack and ostracize anyone to their right.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    “He then gathered himself up in his chair and said in a tone of earnestness that I shall never forget: ‘I can’t spare this man; he fights.'”

    More importantly, he fights back, and encourages others to do the same. Mitch McConnell found his vertebrae…

  3. CarlosT says:

    He’s a fighter! But for what? He won’t fight bump stock bans (“We’re writing them out!”) He won’t fight red flag laws (“Take the guns first!”) When it comes to banning semi-autos, why would we think he’d fight for those?

    • Sebastian says:

      Not necessarily for us, which worries me. But as long as he keeps picking decent court nominees…. a lot of that will fix itself.

      • bombloader says:

        This. The president has little effect other than vetoing bills and picking judges. If you want to stop bad laws, pay attention to your Congressional elections.

  4. adlib says:

    sorry, hurt myself rolling my eyes at an article that spent more time yelling “cucks” than convincing me of anything.

    but more to the point: i care about gun rights a lot more than i care about the wall or other general conservative politics/social issues. Trump doesn’t seem to care much about those… so maybe let me know when he’s going to be a righteous fighter for gun rights?

    • David Miller says:

      Would you have preferred Clinton?

      • adlib says:

        i hear that a lot.
        i also hear what a defender of gun rights DJT is. can someone explain to me why he doesn’t have to keep his word on that front WITHOUT saying “but but but Clinton?”

    • Hank Archer says:

      If we keep importing millions of people who come from non-gun cultures we’ll soon lose on the issue.

      • adlib says:

        maybe we should work to build and expand the gun culture?

        because something tells me we’re not going to be doing that if the attitude is “you can never join it if you’re already not in it.”

        • 34 says:

          They can bring in gun haters, put them on welfare and get them registered to vote a lot faster than we can “convert” them adlib…

          Witness CA.

          • adlib says:

            there’s still a difference between actually trying to convert people and decreeing “can’t be done, let’s just talk about immigration.”

    • Joe says:

      If we don’t build the wall, and then move to repeal the 1986 and 1965 Immigration Laws, then the ‘destiny of demographics’ will wipe out all of our Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment and all…….Look at California since 1992.

      • Richard says:

        What is the “we” of what you speak. More or less half the country are TWANLOC. Unless we separate from them there is no “we”.

      • Hank Archer says:

        Policies can be revisited and reversed later. Demographic displacement is forever.

  5. Antibubba says:

    “Would you have preferred Clinton?”

    It’s hard to imagine my gun rights eroding away faster than they are now. Hellary would never have had BATF redefine a bump stock as a machine gun. She’d work the system, HARD, but it wouldn’t have occurred to her to tell the system to “fuck off”.

    Trump doesn’t play by any rules but his own–and he’s the only one who benefits. Any crumb we get is sheer luck.

    • Blue Falcon says:

      You really think with the way the FBI & DoJ was acting on behalf of Hillary that they wouldn’t have done more to go after guns than Trump’s stupid bumpstock E.O?

      Do you not remember Operation Chokepoint?

      The Clintons & Obamas have the entire system of unelected, non accountable civil ‘servants’ acting like a mafia syndicate carrying out their orders while ignoring those of the duly elected president. It’s a bureaucratic coup and I can’t believe you think it would be better if they didn’t have to fight the current executive vs. working hand in glove with Hillary. Trump is a sand bar trying to hold back the tide and it doesn’t help that the his own party and staff is often doing everything possible to undermine him as quisling supporters of the other side.

      • Joe says:

        Exactly, and 1,000% spot on. Hadd Hillary Clinton won, we’d have a 6-3 outright Communist Supreme Court.

        Heller and McDonald would’ve been overturned, and we’d have Australia-Style bans and confiscations of all Semiautomatic Firearms (Long-Arms and Pistols) in every Blue-State, followed by Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban at the Federal Level.

      • adlib says:

        fine, let’s stipulate that Clinton would have been worse.

        Trump wasn’t sold to us as “better than Clinton.” he talked up his pro-gun positions and was sold to us as actually GOOD on Second Amendment issues. credit to the judges, but every other action he’s taken has been otherwise. and while he has no issue posturing for the wall… remind me of all the times he bothered to use the bully pulpit for the HPA, concealed carry reciprocity, etc.

        • You are forgetting about Trump’s SCotUS picks.

          Trump had to deal with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. I get the feeling Ryan was more of the problem than McConnell. Mitch won’t bring bills up in the Senate that he doesn’t think will pass in the House and he had to deal with squishes in a narrow majority. The political risk was too high for the reward for the establishment clowns and we are going to have to wait for SCotUS to offer some assistance.

          If Trump manages to get relected, we hold the current margin in the Senate and retake the House there’s a chance these bills might come up again. Though McCarthy is a stooge and we really need Jordan or Scalise as the majority leader.

          • adlib says:

            i am not forgetting his SCOTUS picks… and that’s why i said “credit to the judges.”

            but you’re telling me he had to deal with Ryan and McConnell, and yet we’ve seen him spurn them when he wanted to (see also: the wall). again, postures for the wall, never dud for HPA, concealed carry reciprocity, etc.

            and the key point here is “if Trump manages to get reelected.” but again, he was elected calling himself a hero for gun rights only to give us sound bytes about taking guns first, due process second, and Republicans not needing to fear the NRA.

        • 342 says:

          Trump obviously doesn’t give a damn about the Second Amendment, which stinks. Still, his courts picks are supposedly good on this, so we still end up way ahead with him as opposed to Hillary the shrieking anti-gun harpy.

  6. HappyWarrior6 says:

    What the hell is this Bill Barr nomination business? Really? This guy thinks Ruby Ridge was a job well done. Another hostile AG? Is that really what gun owners put Trump in the WH for?

    • Joe says:

      It has the “Jared and Ivanka Influence” all over it.

      Also, Bill Barr was A-OK with what went down at Waco in 1993 too.

    • adlib says:

      this guy’s on record as supporting AWBs in the past and doesn’t seem to be good on gun rights beyond “i guess it’s an individual right.”

      …but Trump thinks he’ll be good for Trump, i guess.

    • 24 says:

      Yeah, the Barr choice is horrible!

  7. Sigivald says:

    … and Ace lost me, yet again, with his embrace of this “cuck” nonsense.

    Just. Stop. It.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top