one thing thats noticeable is the right does not lock step with the people they support. we have seen this when trump gets booed

the left never questions any thing they can be moved on a dime, all of them, lock step all the way and thats weird.
one is forced to consider things like
Klaus Schwab Henchman Talks About Humans Being Hackable Animals
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0xMFCE4SOtGM/

and
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=90498100&f=119

maybe its all as simple as demon possession?

This doesn't make any sense. French is more popular and relevant today than he was pre-Trump. And you seem to be implying that the laudable move is for political writers to change their beliefs in order to fit in with whatever the mob happens to believe. That's not an honorable thing to do.

Yes, but popular with whom? Not conservatives, for certain. David French is relevant today because he has spent the better part of the last 6 years carrying the water of the establishment-left. He's an Eric Snowden, locked in a foreign court and doing the needful to ensure that he's fed and watered. The minute he's not useful, he'll be cast out. There's no room for contemporary Christian thought on the left, and no room for moral thought at all for that matter. Either you subordinate morality to secular left-dogma, or you're out.

Snowden did a great service to society at great personal cost.

David French is a one of many self-serving warmongering govt official turned status-quo journalists. He likely cheered when russia was dismissed as a cold war relic in 2012 for political points, only to see russia invade Ukraine twice when the politicians in executive branch at the time were president within 1 decade.

he probably wants us to establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine. no wonder the gop swamp that icepeon belongs to has long been the stupid party

This "contrarian faction" on the right only exists because the mainstream of the GOP refused to address their very justified concerns and criticisms for several decades. Trump's rise was the consequence, rather than the precursor, of this deep-running and almost reflexive anti-establishment sentiment on the right. The "mainstream Republicans" betrayed the priorities of a big chunk of their voters and put up nothing but token resistance against the triumph of liberalism for so long that voters on the right started considering them closeted allies of the liberals and part of "the swamp".


Trump and trumpism are the monsters created by the very people who bemoan their rise the most, people like David French or David Frum. The root cause is not that conservative rank and file suddenly lost their minds or entered a mass psychosis for no good reason - no, the root cause is that conservative elites failed to do their job and racked up too many "losses". But they still don't get that. (And then, when they were headed toward the much-deserved "punishment" and much-deserved reality check in the form of a second Trump term, they got bailed out by a once-in-a-century pandemic. *sigh*)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2022 01:06am

As usual you haven't been paying attention long enough to know what's actually happening.

Trump and Trumpism came directly from the Tea Party, which were an astroturfed movement by the same people who fund the GOP's mainstream. The "token resistance" you describe was actually a total stop to all Democrat legislation for nearly 8 years, and a continual march to the RIGHT on virtually all economic issues. The only place liberals have made gains is in social issues, and they've been made significantly slower than the populace has been willing to move. Notice that we had 8 years of Obama and not once did they ever make a real attempt to legalize gay marriage, despite having majority support as early as 2012. Clinton actively tried to move the country to the right by working with Republican governors. Reagan wanting government out of as many places as possible, even the places where it was unambiguously effective. Trump is a logical conclusion to a long-boiling anti-governance wing of Republicans.

So, far from establishment Republicans being ineffective and Trump being a backlash to that, he was actually a result of an increasingly effective body of conservatives with consistent success going back at least 35 years. Trump is the result of Republicans distilling the formula for how to instill incompetent government while maintaining public support. First it was deregulation Republicans, which became Bill Clinton's push to the right, which then became Bush's neoconservatism, which became the tea party, which became Trump. It's just a continual line from "We want less government, but competent government (Reagan/Bush)" to "Nobody who doesn't want less government can even work with us (Clinton years)" to "We don't even want the government that we do have to work properly (Tea Party)" to "let's elect an imbecile so literally nothing works properly (Trump)".

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 19 2022 01:49am

In the recent history of the right, there's never been much of a market for serious, intellectual conservative writers, even before Trump. The popular right-wing media figures are the ones who put out "boob bait for Bubba", like Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. It's not even related to policy issues, like free trade or the Iraq war, because the people I listed all supported free trade and the Iraq war. But those "boob bait for Bubba" guys all changed what they believed to fit the whims of their audience.

I disagree with your characterization of French. He's often a critic of the modern right, sure, any conservative with a triple digit IQ should be. But he's always maintained his traditional conservative beliefs. There's nothing inherently establishment-left about acknowledging racism exists, or opposing qualified immunity.

There will always be room at many mainstream political outlets for conservative voices. It's not like this is a phenomenon that only began once Trump came down the escalator. Important caveat though, Time and The Atlantic won't hire the sort of contrarian propagandists that French talks about.



That's a lot of work to defend people who think irrationally.

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 19 2022 06:08am

So Nato developed COVID-19 and sent it to China? Very interesting. So Joe Bidens family is responsible for the Ukraine war because of his sons business ? Interesting. Nah all fake news. We need American World order not Russian! Ahueahueahue

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/us/politics/project-veritas-ashley-biden-diary.html

The New York Times publishes its big followup on their "involved with the story they are reporting on" Project Veritas - Ashley Biden diary angle.
Naturally its only a handful of new details spliced within dozens of pages of insinuation, bias, misrepresentation, etc. In the end, their main damning new complaint against Project Veritas is that they verified the diary, before they chose not to publish it. Imagine that, journalists reporting on an inflammatory story first take measures to see if its legitimate, then decide whether its in the public interest to publish it at all. As opposed to the NYT model, where you find an inflammatory rumor, report it, find out it was false, don't retract it, spend the new few years insisting the lie is true. The whole article is a case study on yellow journalism and propaganda tactics, refusing to ever acknowledge PV as "journalists" and take every opportunity to call them "operatives", introducing random private citizens to the story by listing some random unrelated conviction from the 1990s on a misdemeanor charge next to their name, writing the actual facts of the case in confusing sentences bracketed between unsupported insinuations, putting basic journalistic terms like 'sources' into spooky double quotations, only quoting the prosecution and never the defense, etc etc. Its a true shitbag article, but thats the NYT for you

Anyway their new details are;

• Project Veritas journalists called Ashley Biden and told her they had recovered her diary and offered to return it, and she confirmed it was hers- but they didn't identify themselves as Project Veritas while on the call.
  
• The original source of the diary is confirmed as some random woman who was staying at a home that Ashley Biden had previously stayed at and left several bags of her stuff, neither supporting accusations of theft nor of PV's involvement.
  
• That woman attended a fundraiser and tried to tell Donald Trump Jr. about it, and he told them he wasn't interested in it and they should turn it into the FBI
  
• Someone from PV flew to the home and saw the bags of her stuff to confirm it was real
  
• O'Keefe emailed the entire PV team and told them that they had confirmed it was real, but chose not to publish because it would be seen as a 'cheap shot', formally buying the rights to the story and burying it

And all this leads to Merrick Garland sending storm troopers to raid the homes of PV journalists in the middle of the night with battering rams and automatic weapons, steal all their personal documents and private sources, and then that same night leaked everything directly to the NYT including privileged attorney-client communications about their lawsuit against the NYT. Which the NYT then published, without any ethical qualms, before a judge ordered an injunction against them, and of course, without actually verifying those documents by contacting PV.
Its amazing what a juxtaposition of ethical journalism against unethical journalism is in this story, all against the backdrop of the single most flagrant infringement on the first amendment in living memory

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 20 2022 08:48pm

and the part where the stormtrooper raid also verifies the diary