All I'm saying is for calling everyone else deranged Trump cultists for pointing out fairly obvious issues with DeSantis, I'd like to see an apology. He doesn't have to, and I don't expect him to. Most of them never will, despite doing crazier shit than OTP ever did, including slandering Richard Baris as a disgraced junkie.
I think he's acted like a shill because not only has he refused to recognize even very basic issues with DeSantis' campaign, but he's also tried to ingratiate White Nationalists to back DeSantis, despite that being an obviously silly attempt even by their admission (particularly after his antisemitism law stunt).
All I'm saying is for calling everyone else deranged Trump cultists for pointing out fairly obvious issues with DeSantis, I'd like to see an apology.
Every time I've seen him call people 'Trump cultists', it's people who are Trump or bust. So if your recollection is a remotely accurate characterization, then you are justified, but I don't think it is.
I think he's acted like a shill because not only has he refused to recognize even very basic issues with DeSantis' campaign,
If that makes a cultist, then nearly everyone is in big trouble. Because refusing to recognize very basic issues in people you like or their campaigns is fairly universal.
I support Trump, but I was called a Trump cultist even though I wanted Larry Elder to win. Similarly, I don't think JD Vance was carried by Mike DeWine. I said that DeSantis did some good things, but was being terribly mislead by Bushites who were probably going to try and tank both DeSantis' and Trump's political careers. That is why I was called a cultist.
That's not a cultist, and I don't call anyone who is a die-hard DeSantis supporter a Cultist. Dave Rubin is not a cultist. He genuinely supports DeSantis, but he's also a shill for Ron. Meghan Kelly falls in that same boat.
Yes, you are a shill if you are refusing to acknowledge basic issues with people you like. If I were to say, "Larry Elder has no major flaws", that would be a bullshit lie because he lost to Gavin Newsom. That's not only shilling for Larry Elder, but bad shilling at that. I can be an adult about this and not stake my identity on being a propagandist for someone. Even if you are going to be a propagandist, you need to have a counter-argument, not an insult.
Well, he was wrong about that if he called you a cultist for that. But whatever it was, it's water under the bridge now. Words are air.
Yes, you are a shill if you are refusing to acknowledge basic issues with people you like
This guy was critical of DeSantis regarding his Ukraine comments.
If I were to say, "Larry Elder has no major flaws", that would be a bullshit lie because he lost to Gavin Newsom.
While your point is correct, your example does not actually follow. Losing to Gavin Newsom does not demonstrate that you have major flaws (though no doubt he has). Jesus could lose to Newom, and the fact of losing is not what indicates flaws.
I disagree. Losing to Gavin Newsom, who is now facing a second recall, suggests some kind of major organizational or activism deficiency. He might not have many policy deficiencies, but logistical deficiencies still count.
Every time I've seen him call people 'Trump cultists', it's people who are Trump or bust.
Then you haven't been around enough. In fact IIRC he's even one of those NPC-esque commenters that uses the royal "you" to refer to everyone on the forum, as if we're all one blob.
Though I disagree with your definition of cultist as well. The phrase applied to Trump was specifically crafted to invoke the idea of a "cult of personality" around the man, like some dictator. That his core voter base is a pitchfork wielding gaggle of fawning acolytes, rather than a broad coalition of the center-right and people disaffected by politics. By your definition someone could personally despise Trump, yet still be a 'Trump cultist' somehow because they don't think anyone else would be an effective choice in the office and voting for Uniparty Choice A vs Uniparty Choice B doesn't matter.
I've argued with him a lot. And in fact, I did it when his positions were far more popular than they are now. I do remember being downvoted for disagreeing with his claim that "Trump can't win". He didn't change, this place did.
The phrase applied to Trump was specifically crafted to invoke the idea of a "cult of personality" around the man, like some dictator.
I've used the term 'Trump cultist' myself, and that is my no means what I believe.
That his core voter base is a pitchfork wielding gaggle of fawning acolytes, rather than a broad coalition of the center-right and people disaffected by politics. By your definition someone could personally despise Trump, yet still be a 'Trump cultist' somehow because they don't think anyone else would be an effective choice in the office and voting for Uniparty Choice A vs Uniparty Choice B doesn't matter.
I don't think it makes sense to label RDS as a Uniparty Choice. If someone was able to validly argue that case, then yes, he would not be a cultist. But in reality, I think it was mostly people who were upset about the possibility of Trump losing, and sacrificing a whole lot more over that - cult behavior.
All I'm saying is for calling everyone else deranged Trump cultists for pointing out fairly obvious issues with DeSantis, I'd like to see an apology. He doesn't have to, and I don't expect him to. Most of them never will, despite doing crazier shit than OTP ever did, including slandering Richard Baris as a disgraced junkie.
I think he's acted like a shill because not only has he refused to recognize even very basic issues with DeSantis' campaign, but he's also tried to ingratiate White Nationalists to back DeSantis, despite that being an obviously silly attempt even by their admission (particularly after his antisemitism law stunt).
I'm not going to fight with him, I never have.
Every time I've seen him call people 'Trump cultists', it's people who are Trump or bust. So if your recollection is a remotely accurate characterization, then you are justified, but I don't think it is.
If that makes a cultist, then nearly everyone is in big trouble. Because refusing to recognize very basic issues in people you like or their campaigns is fairly universal.
I support Trump, but I was called a Trump cultist even though I wanted Larry Elder to win. Similarly, I don't think JD Vance was carried by Mike DeWine. I said that DeSantis did some good things, but was being terribly mislead by Bushites who were probably going to try and tank both DeSantis' and Trump's political careers. That is why I was called a cultist.
That's not a cultist, and I don't call anyone who is a die-hard DeSantis supporter a Cultist. Dave Rubin is not a cultist. He genuinely supports DeSantis, but he's also a shill for Ron. Meghan Kelly falls in that same boat.
Yes, you are a shill if you are refusing to acknowledge basic issues with people you like. If I were to say, "Larry Elder has no major flaws", that would be a bullshit lie because he lost to Gavin Newsom. That's not only shilling for Larry Elder, but bad shilling at that. I can be an adult about this and not stake my identity on being a propagandist for someone. Even if you are going to be a propagandist, you need to have a counter-argument, not an insult.
Well, he was wrong about that if he called you a cultist for that. But whatever it was, it's water under the bridge now. Words are air.
This guy was critical of DeSantis regarding his Ukraine comments.
While your point is correct, your example does not actually follow. Losing to Gavin Newsom does not demonstrate that you have major flaws (though no doubt he has). Jesus could lose to Newom, and the fact of losing is not what indicates flaws.
I disagree. Losing to Gavin Newsom, who is now facing a second recall, suggests some kind of major organizational or activism deficiency. He might not have many policy deficiencies, but logistical deficiencies still count.
Then you haven't been around enough. In fact IIRC he's even one of those NPC-esque commenters that uses the royal "you" to refer to everyone on the forum, as if we're all one blob.
Though I disagree with your definition of cultist as well. The phrase applied to Trump was specifically crafted to invoke the idea of a "cult of personality" around the man, like some dictator. That his core voter base is a pitchfork wielding gaggle of fawning acolytes, rather than a broad coalition of the center-right and people disaffected by politics. By your definition someone could personally despise Trump, yet still be a 'Trump cultist' somehow because they don't think anyone else would be an effective choice in the office and voting for Uniparty Choice A vs Uniparty Choice B doesn't matter.
I've argued with him a lot. And in fact, I did it when his positions were far more popular than they are now. I do remember being downvoted for disagreeing with his claim that "Trump can't win". He didn't change, this place did.
I've used the term 'Trump cultist' myself, and that is my no means what I believe.
I don't think it makes sense to label RDS as a Uniparty Choice. If someone was able to validly argue that case, then yes, he would not be a cultist. But in reality, I think it was mostly people who were upset about the possibility of Trump losing, and sacrificing a whole lot more over that - cult behavior.