The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,328
The big city sheep will NEVER accept or admit that the REAL threat is not the wolves - it's not even the sheepdog.
The real threat is the shepherd.
Sure, a wolf may get in and grab a snack every now and then but the wolves really do only take what they need to survive.
Wolves are part of the natural order. Sheepdogs are not.
The sheepdog may bite a few ankles or nip a few asses now and then.
The shepherd simply sits back and profits from the very lives of the sheep that make up the flock.
The shepherds breed them and feed them - for the shepherds' own table.
The shepherd doesn't tend the flock as pets; the flock is exploited for personal gain.
Then of course there is the modern desire for the self righteous to pretend they are the noble sheep dog - protecting and serving.
Well - that's bullshit too...
The shepherd only employs the sheepdog as a way of keeping the flock in line to protect the investment. Sheep dogs don't actually "protect" the sheep from the wolves. Sheep dogs "preserve" the sheep for the shepherds. The sheep dogs job is to nip and bite the sheep to keep them in line. All the while, the sheep complain that the sheep dog is oppressing them when it is actually the shepherd that bears responsibility.
The problem in modern politics is that the Shepherd has learned how to exploit the wolves as well as the sheep. The shepherd can always rely on the threat of "wolves at the door" to scare the sheep into compliance.
The Shepherd can blame the brutality of the sheepdogs for the cruel domestic treatment.
The shepherd can blame the incompetence sheepdogs for the intrusions committed by the wolf pack.
In the end the shepherd will even save money by divesting sheepdog expenditures under the guise of making the flock safer by protecting them from the sheep dog.
In the end, the wolves will still feed on the flock when they get hungry and the shepherd will still exploit the flock for their wool, their milk, and their flesh.
Big city folks need to learn that shit.
The real threat is the shepherd.
Sure, a wolf may get in and grab a snack every now and then but the wolves really do only take what they need to survive.
Wolves are part of the natural order. Sheepdogs are not.
The sheepdog may bite a few ankles or nip a few asses now and then.
The shepherd simply sits back and profits from the very lives of the sheep that make up the flock.
The shepherds breed them and feed them - for the shepherds' own table.
The shepherd doesn't tend the flock as pets; the flock is exploited for personal gain.
Then of course there is the modern desire for the self righteous to pretend they are the noble sheep dog - protecting and serving.
Well - that's bullshit too...
The shepherd only employs the sheepdog as a way of keeping the flock in line to protect the investment. Sheep dogs don't actually "protect" the sheep from the wolves. Sheep dogs "preserve" the sheep for the shepherds. The sheep dogs job is to nip and bite the sheep to keep them in line. All the while, the sheep complain that the sheep dog is oppressing them when it is actually the shepherd that bears responsibility.
The problem in modern politics is that the Shepherd has learned how to exploit the wolves as well as the sheep. The shepherd can always rely on the threat of "wolves at the door" to scare the sheep into compliance.
The Shepherd can blame the brutality of the sheepdogs for the cruel domestic treatment.
The shepherd can blame the incompetence sheepdogs for the intrusions committed by the wolf pack.
In the end the shepherd will even save money by divesting sheepdog expenditures under the guise of making the flock safer by protecting them from the sheep dog.
In the end, the wolves will still feed on the flock when they get hungry and the shepherd will still exploit the flock for their wool, their milk, and their flesh.
Big city folks need to learn that shit.
This guy (Mamdani) immigrated to America at age 7- and now wants to hold public office on the policy platform of socialism (which is communism) and banning all guns. Not "assault weapons", not "rifles"... all guns. I was under the impression that it was in the constitution, and he didn't have that authority.
We (the board and America writ large) aren't ready for this conversation yet, but when we are, I am going to have some unpopular opinions on immigrants and holding public office. The unfortunate thing is I am going to have a great data set (from illegal immigrants, to terrorist sympathizer/apologists, to communist socialists) to use in that conversation.
For every Arnold, we have an Ilhan. For every Ro Khanna, we have a Mamdani- and the net positives of each of the former are exponentially lower than the net negatives of the latter.
We (the board and America writ large) aren't ready for this conversation yet, but when we are, I am going to have some unpopular opinions on immigrants and holding public office. The unfortunate thing is I am going to have a great data set (from illegal immigrants, to terrorist sympathizer/apologists, to communist socialists) to use in that conversation.
For every Arnold, we have an Ilhan. For every Ro Khanna, we have a Mamdani- and the net positives of each of the former are exponentially lower than the net negatives of the latter.
Big claims require big proof, and as always, we will just have to wait and see... but.
Imagine. Imagine if this comes to fruition.
Imagine. Imagine if this comes to fruition.
I know people will focus on Gaza, but expanding the AA is massive...and expansion for some nations is predicated upon resolving the Palestinian issue. You know who was really wanted to sign back in 2021? The Saudis.
Another fun fact people forget is who mediated those accords? Trump 1.0's administration.
IF, and I'm skeptical but want to see this play out however it ends, but IF they end Gaza and expand the AA? The Nobel vote should be a formality. I can hear the protests now, "From the river to the sea. Wait, are you fucking kidding me?!?!?!" Annnnnnnnnd scene.
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,328
I wonder how many American 'ex-pats' that hold views that are openly caustic to the country they are living in, are later elected to public office at the level of Mayor, Governor, Senator, or Congressional Representative???
Probably a lot.
Tons.
In fact, I'll bet there are Americans all over the world working to change foreign governments from within as part of a global effort to "make the world America".
For what its worth - even as I type this - I am pondering the possibility of becoming the Minister of Commerce in someplace like Iran or Cuba so that I can work to finally make Persian Rugs and Cuban cigars available to the American consumer - because FUCK Cuba and Iran...
...all I need to do is come up with a viable campaign strategy
Probably a lot.
Tons.
In fact, I'll bet there are Americans all over the world working to change foreign governments from within as part of a global effort to "make the world America".
For what its worth - even as I type this - I am pondering the possibility of becoming the Minister of Commerce in someplace like Iran or Cuba so that I can work to finally make Persian Rugs and Cuban cigars available to the American consumer - because FUCK Cuba and Iran...
...all I need to do is come up with a viable campaign strategy
Florida173
SOF Support
To your first, you're either trolling me or woefully ignorant of statistics. On the second, of course there are gay Republicans. Did you know some Republicans are even Black? I too didn't know that was possible until yesterday.
Topkick
Verified Military
I understand both of these points. It's true that gay rights is a left leaning view. Social conservativism has really always been about not being open to change. I myself do not like a lot of the direction our country is going. I am a conservative, but do not GAF who you sleep with. That ship has sailed, regardless of party.
Florida173
SOF Support
Assuming you're still trolling, but I'll entertain this one last time for some reason.
LGBT voters who are Democrat vs Republican. One group is larger than the other.
Florida173
SOF Support
The idea that gay rights is inherently left-leaning hasn’t held true for over two decades. Support for gay rights, particularly same-sex marriage, has become broadly bipartisan. Gallup polls show over 70% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, now support same-sex marriage, reflecting a mainstream consensus that transcends political divides. The issue lies with modern Pride events, which remain rooted in the activist rhetoric of the 1960s and 1970s. Pride often ties itself to left-leaning causes like social justice, anti-capitalism, and intersectionality, creating an automatic association with progressive politics. However, its increasing politicization and commercialization; while coupled with the aggressive inclusion of fringe or made up concepts like "Two-Spirit" identities... has misaligned it with the original goals of gay liberation, which focused on equal rights and societal acceptance. This disconnect fuels the perception that gay rights are still a left-wing issue, despite widespread bipartisan support.
Topkick
Verified Military
I disagree. Current support from Republicans on same sex marriage is at about 40% in 2025 and steadily declining. Dems at over 80%. You could argue that same sex marriage isn't the full issue, but imo, you can't really say you believe in gay rights, but it's not okay to marry.
Florida173
SOF Support
Similar threads
