Never, you should just keep telling yourself that neocons and “Old Guard” is owned while they are getting everything they ever wanted and you don’t even get chump change. But hey, at least you can consider yourself politically relevant because you apparently voted for it
Trump seems to be a guy who creates enemies. Maybe because he's so charismatic that certain people are drawn to him, like groupies, but then Trump spurns them somehow and they react like scorned women. I mean, Bush made many bad decisions but you didn't see Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly disavowing with the heat of a thousand suns. Trump somehow has this hold over people.
Or maybe it's the new social media environment. Like you said Scott, it's being run by middle-aged people who think they're 22. They act like they're 22 when they should know better. A lot of political discourse is being driven by actual 22-year-olds too. I don't think this is healthy. We probably were better off as a country when nobody cared about anyone under 40 and without a family. (Except for Scott.)
Or maybe it's because social media is so siloed that right-wingers on X have nothing better to do than burn other right-wingers. Maybe Elon buying Twitter wasn't so great in the long run. Perhaps we should've kept Twitter as a center-left platform where right-wingers had to use clever keywords so they didn't get banned, and engagement slop artists who barely hid their bigotry and idiocy did get banned.
"Iran is not going well". Again with this. Within 10 to 14 days, Iran won’t be able to store oil and will have permanent long term damage to oil wells for extracting oil. Oil wells perform poorly after you stop the flowing process. Iran exports oil, but it also imports gasoline and diesel. Iran lacks the ability to refine enough of their own oil into gasoline and diesel. So very soon Iran will be running out of fuel everywhere. Will everyone quit acting like the desperate behavior of this inordinately aggressive regime somehow proves what a hothead Trump is? Or that they've shown themselves resourceful rather than out of options? How is it a loss for Trump in anything other than the very short term and only when viewed through the prism of relatively high gas prices?
"Real politics is often boring and despiriting". Okay, let me get this straight. Investment coming back on shore, manufacturing growth, job growth, more take home pay, homeownsership increasing, illegals deported, an obnoxious dangerous theocratic regime put in its place is a downer but shape shifting chameleon lizard pedophile murderers, and aggressive bible thumping with campaigns against hot sex videos is a blast? All zoomers should just be lobotomized.
By the way, a lot of people in the consipatard right have in fact said they want Iran to have a nuke, and they want Iran to win, so presumably that would include a lot of us dying and I know they aren't kidding because these people see discourse as a blunt instrument and they are completely incapable of anything like irony or good humor. I'm really sick and tired of people apologizing for these folks while taking every chance to dump on the president. Hopefully they sink like lead come '28 and go the way of the dodo bird.
The people held up as forerunners of Trump, such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, could not command majorities in the party, let alone the nation. They tried and failed.
Trump is not as ideologically consistent or principled as either of those two, yet he hijacked the party from the establishment and won the presidency, twice.
As Scott says, politics is a drab, boring business filled with compromises. Trump has the magic gift for it. Who else on the right does? And if the answer is no one, why are we so critical of the best thing that ever happened to us?
> And if the answer is no one, why are we so critical of the best thing that ever happened to us?
I have dual opinions on this. On one hand, Trump 2016 was the best thing that ever happened to us in 2016. He provided a Schelling point that united the boomers with the /pol/ teenagers and educated the former on immigration. He allowed the Right to rally against and survive the tide of mass censorship, which would have been much more thorough, coordinated, and effective under someone like Hillary.
On the other hand, barring a black swan event in which he exiles Levin and Graham from his administration (and if costing him the next two elections plus what was left of his approval ratings didn't cause this, what would?), I think the Teflon Don is gone. We'll get occasional good news on immigration, barring further ingress by the neocons, but "Mean Tweets, World Peace" was crucial to disaffected normies' willingness to vote for him, and that's dead now. I do not see any path to victory for a future Republican president.
I'd be careful about characterizing the 25th amendment as a coup. It's a legal, legitimate mechanism, of relieving the president of his duties. Like it or not, Trump isn't a king and isn't entitled a full term of office if he loses the confidence of his own administration.
Fealty to MAGA shouldn't be any kind of determinant or loyalty test.
Being MAGA is like playing a constant game of whack-a-mole with your sources of information as the individual characters inevitably self-destruct in a maniacal rage of impotent narcissistic tantrums. Very tiring.
I try not to be too tinfoil, but I remember a lot of these people being very well-spoken and reasonable for years on end, before suddenly jumping off the deep end. I have to wonder why they all suddenly went crazy in the exact same way.
Thomas Massie, for instance, had a lot going for him before his anti-Trump spergout. He had effectively weathered an AIPAC primary campaign and emerged as a leading figure among Republicans. Then he allowed himself to be portrayed as an anti-Trump, pro-immigration lunatic and lost all hope of relevance.
I think you're being overly pessimistic about the Iran War a.k.a. GWIII, we have Iran under siege by air and sea, they have no way to sell their oil and only two more weeks of land-based storage before they have to start shutting down wells which may permanently impair their capacity. Their regional enemies are going to start seeing if they can take bites out of them soon, and eventually protests will reappear which they will have a harder time handling. On our end, things will appear to calm down, gulf oil traffic will pick up (we let a Chinese tanker through this morning that we had previously turned around) and gas prices in the US will come down. In a week or two something else will take over the news cycle and this Iran business will go on the back burner for whatever the crisis of the week is. Sometime after that, Iran will quietly capitulate, possibly 'selling' us their 60% U-235 and promising to keep the Strait open in exchange for us GTFO and lifting sanctions. They'll claim victory, we'll also claim victory, it will be on the 3rd page of the newspapers so no one will care but the whole thing will disappear as a wedge issue. The summer boom and increased GOA oil traffic (some of which will end up becoming permanent) will lift the economy at least partly out of the doldrums. Probably around September-October the DOJ will start initial prosecutions for WF&A, 2020 election tampering, and possibly even Epstein related stuff and/or J6, which will begin to defang the Rumble Right's opposition to Trump. This will have a secondary (possibly primary) effect of sending the left into a frothing psychotic episode which will remind the RR why they voted for Trump in the first place. Rs keep the Senate in a tie, Ds swap totals in the House and take all the wrong lessons from this, impeaching Trump again and turning the crazy up to '12.' This scares the living poop out of everyday Americans, and Vance sweeps the board in '28.
This is why I've come around and I want Vivek to win in Ohio. If he wins, it'll be proof that you don't even need to engage online in order to win elections. Big blow to the Rumble Right.
At this point I prefer a Hindu who holds 80% of my views to a white guy like Swalwell. This is the mature position. I love white excellence and colonialism and a funny ethnic joke as much as the next based white guy, but Vivek (and Kash etc.) are assimilated enough for me, and I'm sure we can all trade racial barbs informally.
Trump himself probably believes in ideas not genetics, but he's also a white guy who talked shit about nons and women. He was a regular man of the 1970s and 80s. This made him "far right" in 2015-16. This had the effect of resurrecting genetics talk, and allowing white guys to talk like a 1970s celebrity roast again. I still think normalizing this behavior while under the tyranny of Elizabeth Warren types was the single biggest thing that set the left (and regime) on fire, and why TDS is such a thing.
Anyway, can't we have ideas and genetics? I'm fine living in a based Brazil with enough human capital to keep the electricity on. I'd prefer it to a libtarded Finland.
Supporting an openly anti-White pajeet who promises to turn the state GOP into a vehicle for his racial interests in order to own the mean internet people is proof of total unseriousness.
Even from the perspective of a completely pragmatic reformist Republican, it is better to vote for the Democrat just this once in order to be permanently rid of his ilk.
So what’s someone who’s voted Trump three times because he wants a “New Right” that’s more nationalist to do? Am I supposed to support whatever Hannity- and Levin-esque Republicans Trump endorses because they kiss his ass the best? Or am I to support the conspiracists, grifters, and just plain retards who may or may not have legitimate issues of dissent, but who have chosen to voice it in the most destructive manner possible?
I think this is what Greer consistently fails to address. Snarking about Candice Owens isn't a strategy, and it doesn't offer any useful information, but nearly everything he writes falls under the umbrella of "snarking about Candice Owens".
Sure, she's not a viable alternative. Obviously true. But when you ask him for a strategy, you get empty platitudes about "building power". Nothing actionable.
You must not read me or have a low intelligence (or both) to think I don't offer a strategy. Supporting good elements within the GOP to push the Right in the proper direction is the strategy I hammer home in every podcast and article.
But people want me to suggest some fantasy about building "intentional communities" with disagreeable misfits or pretending we can secede from reality.
My issue is that none of those things constitute a strategy - they’re simplistic and non-actionable. This sentence:
Supporting good elements within the GOP to push the Right in the proper direction
is a long stream of empty platitudes. “Supporting” is a meaningless word, “good elements” are undefined, and “push the Right” is vague to the point of uselessness, as is “proper direction”.
Broadly, I am in favor of what you claim to be in favor of, but you never articulate any part of it. I was an avid reader of Ricky Vaughn in 2016, and the political engagement threads on old /pol/ that guys like him developed in. They talked about strategies for taking over institutions and getting things done, and they put them to the test, and they discussed the results.
My issue is that you spend 75 percent of your timeline snarking at irrelevant podcasters who certainly aren’t going to change their minds. If you understand what you’re advocating for, it’s far more useful (and interesting) to discuss actionable examples of it working!
I think you don't know what "empty platitude" and "meaningless" mean.
You attack my strategy and then point to fantasies of taking over institutions that didn't result in any actions or results. They never put anything to the test besides doing Cville, which was a disaster. Btw, the GOP and conservative movement are institutions which my strategy involves and has had actual results, unlike the fantasies you think are "real" strategies.
It's very dumb to compare my strategy people are currently implementing, with real results, with daydreams of posters that involved zero action or results.
My issue is that you don’t elucidate one. You don’t provide any actionable advice at all. “I want to ‘build power’” is not any more of a strategy than “I want to be rich”.
> They never put anything to the test besides doing Cville, which was a disaster.
I think you’re making incorrect assumptions about me. I have no interest in the fatty marches offered by the “wignat” crowd. I don’t think it’s productive to spend all day snarking about them and then have nothing to offer when people ask “what do you propose we do?”.
> Btw, the GOP and conservative movement are institutions which my strategy involves and has had actual results
Again, the issue isn’t that you claim that there’s value in working within the GOP. The issue is that you don’t go any further than vagueposting about it.
> It's very dumb to compare my strategy people are currently implementing
If it’s concrete enough to implement, and it works, you should spend time describing what it is and how to do it so that more people can do that.
Again, I check the timelines of your faction of Twitter, and there’s no mention of this. There’s no “Reader Dave from North Dakota took actions <ABC> and achieved <XYZ> results”, it’s just an endless stream of gossip about podcasters.
I literally offer a clear strategy with actionable advice. Being stupid and committed to an imagined grievance forces you to pretend I didn't offer one.
We can see your commitment to this grievance by claiming that this strategy is only bolstered by "vagueposting" and that I need to put a disclaimer to all my tweets and articles saying it. That would still not satisfy you as would insist I didn't offer a strategy.
What matters to you is a false impression of me, not actually getting a strategy of what I'm offering. You still don't have one yourself. Like a lot of people in this sphere, you're both angry and stupid, which leads to comments like this.
“The Rumble Right has an audience but not a constituency. And that’s perfectly fine for a media operation. They can sustain themselves as entertainers who discuss politics independent of results. There isn’t a need to demonstrate a direct electoral impact.”
Because there is no direct electoral impact anymore. Mail-in ballots proved that national elections are fake, and will continue to be fake as long as Zionists run the show. Trump knows this more than anybody else: he only won in 2024 because, unlike in 2020, he was able to convince them that he was their man.
But don't forget, this is what people were saying about Trump. They were saying, "Politics is supposed to be boring, and this clown is something totally separate from mainstream politics." Hugh Hewitt was saying "The old political things still matter." Trump was the Insane Clown Party in 2016, including his original descent down the escalator. People were shaking their heads, rolling their eyes and dismissing him as "irrelevant." NOPE! Trump introduced Politics 2.0 in the US. So why wouldn't the Rumble Right introduce Politics 3.0, the next iteration?
“But it will never have the same level of influence it does as with Trump. The 47th president presented a unique opportunity for forces previously excluded from the mainstream.”
The non-existing influence? There was no “opportunity”, the lunatics and streamers were taken for a ride by oligarchs and got the opposite of what they thought Trump was going to do
Yeah, if anything it seems like Trump provided a unique opportunity for Zionist maximalists who were previously excluded from the mainstream for GOOD REASON. Some people's crazies got in the driver's seat, it just wasn't OUR crazies.
> Then again, it’s hard to say you’re still MAGA if you think Trump needs to be couped.
I agree that the people saying this are mostly disingenuous or stupid, but I don't think it's accurate to treat MAGA as 1:1 with publicly supporting Trump. MAGA is the political preferences of the guys who showed up for Trump in 2016 and would not have showed up for any other Republican candidate. A significant portion of that coalition is now disillusioned, and it seems likely that Trump isn't going to win them back.
A lot of 'dissident intellectuals' are only interested in snarking at these people for being insufficiently pragmatic. That's all well and good, maybe they'd do better if they were more pragmatic, but they aren't, and complaining about that doesn't offer a winning strategy of any kind.
It's the same deal as Reform/Restore. You can call the latter grifters all you like, but even if they didn't accuse Reform of selling out by weakening their rhetoric, their establishment opponents could just as easily astroturf the sentiment themselves, to the same effect. If you need right-populist votes to win elections - and you do - then you have to pay certain political costs to avoid alienating those voters.
I'm with Vance on this. If you don't like some policy the administration has, you need to get more involved in politics, not less. Trooning out/trying to burn the MAGA coalition to the ground means you need to be excised and blacklisted, and never taken seriously again. I think that'll happen no matter what though, with the direction these "influencers" are going. Sure it doesn't look good in the moment, but we'll be glad we did when 2028 comes around.
Self-indulgently (and performatively) throwing a fit and falling for fake news, as these “influencers” so often do, has only ceded influence over Trump to the Lindsey Grahams.
Is not starting a war in Iran and not declaring yourself Jesus so much to ask of Trump ? When are we allowed to criticize Trump.
I literally wrote an article criticizing Trump last week about it. You post the same shrill reply to every article.
Never, you should just keep telling yourself that neocons and “Old Guard” is owned while they are getting everything they ever wanted and you don’t even get chump change. But hey, at least you can consider yourself politically relevant because you apparently voted for it
Trump seems to be a guy who creates enemies. Maybe because he's so charismatic that certain people are drawn to him, like groupies, but then Trump spurns them somehow and they react like scorned women. I mean, Bush made many bad decisions but you didn't see Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly disavowing with the heat of a thousand suns. Trump somehow has this hold over people.
Or maybe it's the new social media environment. Like you said Scott, it's being run by middle-aged people who think they're 22. They act like they're 22 when they should know better. A lot of political discourse is being driven by actual 22-year-olds too. I don't think this is healthy. We probably were better off as a country when nobody cared about anyone under 40 and without a family. (Except for Scott.)
Or maybe it's because social media is so siloed that right-wingers on X have nothing better to do than burn other right-wingers. Maybe Elon buying Twitter wasn't so great in the long run. Perhaps we should've kept Twitter as a center-left platform where right-wingers had to use clever keywords so they didn't get banned, and engagement slop artists who barely hid their bigotry and idiocy did get banned.
The reason why Trump creates enemies is because him and his fans don't let you criticize him.
"Iran is not going well". Again with this. Within 10 to 14 days, Iran won’t be able to store oil and will have permanent long term damage to oil wells for extracting oil. Oil wells perform poorly after you stop the flowing process. Iran exports oil, but it also imports gasoline and diesel. Iran lacks the ability to refine enough of their own oil into gasoline and diesel. So very soon Iran will be running out of fuel everywhere. Will everyone quit acting like the desperate behavior of this inordinately aggressive regime somehow proves what a hothead Trump is? Or that they've shown themselves resourceful rather than out of options? How is it a loss for Trump in anything other than the very short term and only when viewed through the prism of relatively high gas prices?
"Real politics is often boring and despiriting". Okay, let me get this straight. Investment coming back on shore, manufacturing growth, job growth, more take home pay, homeownsership increasing, illegals deported, an obnoxious dangerous theocratic regime put in its place is a downer but shape shifting chameleon lizard pedophile murderers, and aggressive bible thumping with campaigns against hot sex videos is a blast? All zoomers should just be lobotomized.
By the way, a lot of people in the consipatard right have in fact said they want Iran to have a nuke, and they want Iran to win, so presumably that would include a lot of us dying and I know they aren't kidding because these people see discourse as a blunt instrument and they are completely incapable of anything like irony or good humor. I'm really sick and tired of people apologizing for these folks while taking every chance to dump on the president. Hopefully they sink like lead come '28 and go the way of the dodo bird.
I wonder if Scott saw that Tucker was going to become pro-Muslim?
Conservatives are the real coexiters!
I was wondering about that. It's an interesting turn of events. Some have speculated that he's being paid by Qatar.
I was wondering about it because Scott worked for the Daily Caller when Tucker was co-owner.
The people held up as forerunners of Trump, such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, could not command majorities in the party, let alone the nation. They tried and failed.
Trump is not as ideologically consistent or principled as either of those two, yet he hijacked the party from the establishment and won the presidency, twice.
As Scott says, politics is a drab, boring business filled with compromises. Trump has the magic gift for it. Who else on the right does? And if the answer is no one, why are we so critical of the best thing that ever happened to us?
> And if the answer is no one, why are we so critical of the best thing that ever happened to us?
I have dual opinions on this. On one hand, Trump 2016 was the best thing that ever happened to us in 2016. He provided a Schelling point that united the boomers with the /pol/ teenagers and educated the former on immigration. He allowed the Right to rally against and survive the tide of mass censorship, which would have been much more thorough, coordinated, and effective under someone like Hillary.
On the other hand, barring a black swan event in which he exiles Levin and Graham from his administration (and if costing him the next two elections plus what was left of his approval ratings didn't cause this, what would?), I think the Teflon Don is gone. We'll get occasional good news on immigration, barring further ingress by the neocons, but "Mean Tweets, World Peace" was crucial to disaffected normies' willingness to vote for him, and that's dead now. I do not see any path to victory for a future Republican president.
I'd be careful about characterizing the 25th amendment as a coup. It's a legal, legitimate mechanism, of relieving the president of his duties. Like it or not, Trump isn't a king and isn't entitled a full term of office if he loses the confidence of his own administration.
Fealty to MAGA shouldn't be any kind of determinant or loyalty test.
Being MAGA is like playing a constant game of whack-a-mole with your sources of information as the individual characters inevitably self-destruct in a maniacal rage of impotent narcissistic tantrums. Very tiring.
I try not to be too tinfoil, but I remember a lot of these people being very well-spoken and reasonable for years on end, before suddenly jumping off the deep end. I have to wonder why they all suddenly went crazy in the exact same way.
Thomas Massie, for instance, had a lot going for him before his anti-Trump spergout. He had effectively weathered an AIPAC primary campaign and emerged as a leading figure among Republicans. Then he allowed himself to be portrayed as an anti-Trump, pro-immigration lunatic and lost all hope of relevance.
I think you're being overly pessimistic about the Iran War a.k.a. GWIII, we have Iran under siege by air and sea, they have no way to sell their oil and only two more weeks of land-based storage before they have to start shutting down wells which may permanently impair their capacity. Their regional enemies are going to start seeing if they can take bites out of them soon, and eventually protests will reappear which they will have a harder time handling. On our end, things will appear to calm down, gulf oil traffic will pick up (we let a Chinese tanker through this morning that we had previously turned around) and gas prices in the US will come down. In a week or two something else will take over the news cycle and this Iran business will go on the back burner for whatever the crisis of the week is. Sometime after that, Iran will quietly capitulate, possibly 'selling' us their 60% U-235 and promising to keep the Strait open in exchange for us GTFO and lifting sanctions. They'll claim victory, we'll also claim victory, it will be on the 3rd page of the newspapers so no one will care but the whole thing will disappear as a wedge issue. The summer boom and increased GOA oil traffic (some of which will end up becoming permanent) will lift the economy at least partly out of the doldrums. Probably around September-October the DOJ will start initial prosecutions for WF&A, 2020 election tampering, and possibly even Epstein related stuff and/or J6, which will begin to defang the Rumble Right's opposition to Trump. This will have a secondary (possibly primary) effect of sending the left into a frothing psychotic episode which will remind the RR why they voted for Trump in the first place. Rs keep the Senate in a tie, Ds swap totals in the House and take all the wrong lessons from this, impeaching Trump again and turning the crazy up to '12.' This scares the living poop out of everyday Americans, and Vance sweeps the board in '28.
Let's revisit this in a month.
This is why I've come around and I want Vivek to win in Ohio. If he wins, it'll be proof that you don't even need to engage online in order to win elections. Big blow to the Rumble Right.
At this point I prefer a Hindu who holds 80% of my views to a white guy like Swalwell. This is the mature position. I love white excellence and colonialism and a funny ethnic joke as much as the next based white guy, but Vivek (and Kash etc.) are assimilated enough for me, and I'm sure we can all trade racial barbs informally.
Wasn't that the libtard position that it's about ideas and not genetics ?
What was the point of Trumpism then we had that.
Trump himself probably believes in ideas not genetics, but he's also a white guy who talked shit about nons and women. He was a regular man of the 1970s and 80s. This made him "far right" in 2015-16. This had the effect of resurrecting genetics talk, and allowing white guys to talk like a 1970s celebrity roast again. I still think normalizing this behavior while under the tyranny of Elizabeth Warren types was the single biggest thing that set the left (and regime) on fire, and why TDS is such a thing.
Anyway, can't we have ideas and genetics? I'm fine living in a based Brazil with enough human capital to keep the electricity on. I'd prefer it to a libtarded Finland.
He's entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with it but I agree with more things he says that what Dick Durbin says
Supporting an openly anti-White pajeet who promises to turn the state GOP into a vehicle for his racial interests in order to own the mean internet people is proof of total unseriousness.
Even from the perspective of a completely pragmatic reformist Republican, it is better to vote for the Democrat just this once in order to be permanently rid of his ilk.
So what’s someone who’s voted Trump three times because he wants a “New Right” that’s more nationalist to do? Am I supposed to support whatever Hannity- and Levin-esque Republicans Trump endorses because they kiss his ass the best? Or am I to support the conspiracists, grifters, and just plain retards who may or may not have legitimate issues of dissent, but who have chosen to voice it in the most destructive manner possible?
I think this is what Greer consistently fails to address. Snarking about Candice Owens isn't a strategy, and it doesn't offer any useful information, but nearly everything he writes falls under the umbrella of "snarking about Candice Owens".
Sure, she's not a viable alternative. Obviously true. But when you ask him for a strategy, you get empty platitudes about "building power". Nothing actionable.
You must not read me or have a low intelligence (or both) to think I don't offer a strategy. Supporting good elements within the GOP to push the Right in the proper direction is the strategy I hammer home in every podcast and article.
But people want me to suggest some fantasy about building "intentional communities" with disagreeable misfits or pretending we can secede from reality.
My issue is that none of those things constitute a strategy - they’re simplistic and non-actionable. This sentence:
Supporting good elements within the GOP to push the Right in the proper direction
is a long stream of empty platitudes. “Supporting” is a meaningless word, “good elements” are undefined, and “push the Right” is vague to the point of uselessness, as is “proper direction”.
Broadly, I am in favor of what you claim to be in favor of, but you never articulate any part of it. I was an avid reader of Ricky Vaughn in 2016, and the political engagement threads on old /pol/ that guys like him developed in. They talked about strategies for taking over institutions and getting things done, and they put them to the test, and they discussed the results.
My issue is that you spend 75 percent of your timeline snarking at irrelevant podcasters who certainly aren’t going to change their minds. If you understand what you’re advocating for, it’s far more useful (and interesting) to discuss actionable examples of it working!
I think you don't know what "empty platitude" and "meaningless" mean.
You attack my strategy and then point to fantasies of taking over institutions that didn't result in any actions or results. They never put anything to the test besides doing Cville, which was a disaster. Btw, the GOP and conservative movement are institutions which my strategy involves and has had actual results, unlike the fantasies you think are "real" strategies.
It's very dumb to compare my strategy people are currently implementing, with real results, with daydreams of posters that involved zero action or results.
> You attack my strategy
My issue is that you don’t elucidate one. You don’t provide any actionable advice at all. “I want to ‘build power’” is not any more of a strategy than “I want to be rich”.
> They never put anything to the test besides doing Cville, which was a disaster.
I think you’re making incorrect assumptions about me. I have no interest in the fatty marches offered by the “wignat” crowd. I don’t think it’s productive to spend all day snarking about them and then have nothing to offer when people ask “what do you propose we do?”.
> Btw, the GOP and conservative movement are institutions which my strategy involves and has had actual results
Again, the issue isn’t that you claim that there’s value in working within the GOP. The issue is that you don’t go any further than vagueposting about it.
> It's very dumb to compare my strategy people are currently implementing
If it’s concrete enough to implement, and it works, you should spend time describing what it is and how to do it so that more people can do that.
Again, I check the timelines of your faction of Twitter, and there’s no mention of this. There’s no “Reader Dave from North Dakota took actions <ABC> and achieved <XYZ> results”, it’s just an endless stream of gossip about podcasters.
I literally offer a clear strategy with actionable advice. Being stupid and committed to an imagined grievance forces you to pretend I didn't offer one.
We can see your commitment to this grievance by claiming that this strategy is only bolstered by "vagueposting" and that I need to put a disclaimer to all my tweets and articles saying it. That would still not satisfy you as would insist I didn't offer a strategy.
What matters to you is a false impression of me, not actually getting a strategy of what I'm offering. You still don't have one yourself. Like a lot of people in this sphere, you're both angry and stupid, which leads to comments like this.
“The Rumble Right has an audience but not a constituency. And that’s perfectly fine for a media operation. They can sustain themselves as entertainers who discuss politics independent of results. There isn’t a need to demonstrate a direct electoral impact.”
Because there is no direct electoral impact anymore. Mail-in ballots proved that national elections are fake, and will continue to be fake as long as Zionists run the show. Trump knows this more than anybody else: he only won in 2024 because, unlike in 2020, he was able to convince them that he was their man.
And they allowed him to win accordingly.
If American boys set foot in Iran, I’ll be in favor of the 25th also. I don’t check for, or care to check for any of the ICP members or their takes.
I almost feel like he’s trying to get removed from office.
But don't forget, this is what people were saying about Trump. They were saying, "Politics is supposed to be boring, and this clown is something totally separate from mainstream politics." Hugh Hewitt was saying "The old political things still matter." Trump was the Insane Clown Party in 2016, including his original descent down the escalator. People were shaking their heads, rolling their eyes and dismissing him as "irrelevant." NOPE! Trump introduced Politics 2.0 in the US. So why wouldn't the Rumble Right introduce Politics 3.0, the next iteration?
Right because saying mexico isn't sending its best is the same as aliens and the anti christ
At the time, the effect was similar. The term "MAGA" was like aliens and conspiracy theories, and treated with the same dismissal and contempt.
My thoughts exactly Scott is mad at people using the same tactics Trump used. Either it was wrong when Trump did it or it's valid.
I would argue he still is the insane clown party he says all sorts of conspiracy shit.
“But it will never have the same level of influence it does as with Trump. The 47th president presented a unique opportunity for forces previously excluded from the mainstream.”
The non-existing influence? There was no “opportunity”, the lunatics and streamers were taken for a ride by oligarchs and got the opposite of what they thought Trump was going to do
Yeah, if anything it seems like Trump provided a unique opportunity for Zionist maximalists who were previously excluded from the mainstream for GOOD REASON. Some people's crazies got in the driver's seat, it just wasn't OUR crazies.
> Then again, it’s hard to say you’re still MAGA if you think Trump needs to be couped.
I agree that the people saying this are mostly disingenuous or stupid, but I don't think it's accurate to treat MAGA as 1:1 with publicly supporting Trump. MAGA is the political preferences of the guys who showed up for Trump in 2016 and would not have showed up for any other Republican candidate. A significant portion of that coalition is now disillusioned, and it seems likely that Trump isn't going to win them back.
A lot of 'dissident intellectuals' are only interested in snarking at these people for being insufficiently pragmatic. That's all well and good, maybe they'd do better if they were more pragmatic, but they aren't, and complaining about that doesn't offer a winning strategy of any kind.
It's the same deal as Reform/Restore. You can call the latter grifters all you like, but even if they didn't accuse Reform of selling out by weakening their rhetoric, their establishment opponents could just as easily astroturf the sentiment themselves, to the same effect. If you need right-populist votes to win elections - and you do - then you have to pay certain political costs to avoid alienating those voters.
I'm with Vance on this. If you don't like some policy the administration has, you need to get more involved in politics, not less. Trooning out/trying to burn the MAGA coalition to the ground means you need to be excised and blacklisted, and never taken seriously again. I think that'll happen no matter what though, with the direction these "influencers" are going. Sure it doesn't look good in the moment, but we'll be glad we did when 2028 comes around.
Self-indulgently (and performatively) throwing a fit and falling for fake news, as these “influencers” so often do, has only ceded influence over Trump to the Lindsey Grahams.