SafeAsMilk wrote:Did anyone actually read the whole thing? I got a couple lines in before passing out from sheer boredom.

CdesignProponentsist wrote::rofl:

Teague wrote:You can tell a morn wrote this

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Animavore wrote:Why do these Trump-cultists keep using "cuck" wrong? "Cuck" is short for "cuckservative". It's a conservative who apparently "sells out" to liberals by meeting them half way. It's not a term for a liberal.

First of all, they’re not ‘cultists’ they’re supporters.

Until we have to say ‘Sieg Heil’, everyone, and that does include everyone… has the ‘right’ to support the party of their choice without fear of being physically attacked, without riots in the streets, without the destruction of property and being ostracized by others.

And second. Words are fluid and can be used in many ways. Within the last decade (or less) so many new words have come onto the scene that a lexicographer would be hard pressed to keep track of them all. At one time plural possessives had to be written one way and one way only, now both methods have been generally accepted, even by the press. For some words hard and fast rules don't apply.

Nicko wrote:

Animavore wrote:Why do these Trump-cultists keep using "cuck" wrong? "Cuck" is short for "cuckservative". It's a conservative who apparently "sells out" to liberals by meeting them half way. It's not a term for a liberal.

I do realise this is meant as a joke. But I'm going somewhere with this.

"Cuck" is a contraction of "cuckold": a man whose wife fucks other men. "Cuckservative" is a portmanteau of "cuck" and "conservative"; "cuck" is not an abbreviation of "cuckservative".

The recent use of "cuck" appears - AFAICS - to have entered the modern arsenal of Interwebz troll insults following the publication of this article in The Cut. In it, one Michael Sonmore describes how his wife and he "opened" their marriage because ... feminism. He theoretically has the option to screw other people, but doesn't seem interested and gives the impression of having being quite content with the monogamous nature of the relationship that he originally entered into. He claims to be writing the article while his wife is on her second "date" that week, after which she'll come home and tell him all about it.

It ... raised a few eyebrows, let's put it that way. Even Jezebel was like, "We're not judging you here dude, but don't come to us with this, 'I had to agree let my wife fuck other men or I wouldn't be a feminist.' stuff".

One popular interpretation of the article was that Sonmore was not actually in a genuinely polyamorous relationship, but was instead a cuckold (willingly or otherwise). There's a whole genre of porn catering to men for whom being cuckolded is a fetish*. Of course**.

"Cuck" soon took off as the insult du jour, now taking on the meaning of ... it's pretty much the same as calling a man a "bitch" okay? Weak-willed, easily controlled, easy to push around, lesser than "real men".

Although, it does manage to express the sentiment behind without resorting to the sexist strategy of "feminising" the man it is directed towards. Which might be progress, I suppose.



Anyway, the point is ... hang on, I had a point.

Oh yeah.

We don't need to make up an alternative origin for the term in order to use this insult against Trump supporters. By the trollese definition, Trump supporters are being well and truly "cucked" by Trump.

Let the nice Mr. Chomsky explain ...









* Which makes itself really annoying for those innocently browsing teh Interwebz for some good clean spanking. Or so I've heard.

** Rule #34, people.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Animavore wrote:Why do these Trump-cultists keep using "cuck" wrong? "Cuck" is short for "cuckservative". It's a conservative who apparently "sells out" to liberals by meeting them half way. It's not a term for a liberal.

First of all, they’re not ‘cultists’ they’re supporters.

Says the person who repeatedly calls left-leaning people 'libtards, cucks' and other derogatory terms.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Until we have to say ‘Sieg Heil’, everyone, and that does include everyone… has the ‘right’ to support the party of their choice without fear of being physically attacked, without riots in the streets, without the destruction of property and being ostracized by others.

What the fuck's that got to do with the price of fish?

Teague wrote:
Has anybody asked you why you support Trump? Do you have a good reason - just one would do for now.

Teague wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Animavore wrote:Why do these Trump-cultists keep using "cuck" wrong? "Cuck" is short for "cuckservative". It's a conservative who apparently "sells out" to liberals by meeting them half way. It's not a term for a liberal.

First of all, they’re not ‘cultists’ they’re supporters.

Says the person who repeatedly calls left-leaning people 'libtards, cucks' and other derogatory terms.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Until we have to say ‘Sieg Heil’, everyone, and that does include everyone… has the ‘right’ to support the party of their choice without fear of being physically attacked, without riots in the streets, without the destruction of property and being ostracized by others.

What the fuck's that got to do with the price of fish?

How can a libertarian be a cuckold?

purplerat wrote:If Trump Jr went to a meeting expecting to get dirt on Clinton from the Russian government (which is what is now being reported) then he likely committed a felony.

on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.

Yet, no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton backers eagerly hawked to the news media.

Also, the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier – both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the dossier.

But the closest the Times came to that was noting: “Political campaigns collect opposition research from many quarters but rarely from sources linked to foreign governments.” That would have been an opportune point to slide in a paragraph about the Steele dossier, but nothing.

The Times doesn’t seem to have much historical memory either. There actually have been a number of cases in which American presidential campaigns have ventured overseas to seek out “opposition research” about rivals.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/f ... -on-trump/

Teague wrote:Fucks other men in front of the husband lol - that part is important as it shows what a pathetic individual the husband is as he's subserviant to other men having sex with his wife in front of him (i think I got that right)

So as Republicans are always bowing their heads to authority figures, "cuckservative" was born I suppose lol

Nicko wrote:

purplerat wrote:If Trump Jr went to a meeting expecting to get dirt on Clinton from the Russian government (which is what is now being reported) then he likely committed a felony.

What law, specifically, did he break?

Teague wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Animavore wrote:Why do these Trump-cultists keep using "cuck" wrong? "Cuck" is short for "cuckservative". It's a conservative who apparently "sells out" to liberals by meeting them half way. It's not a term for a liberal.

First of all, they’re not ‘cultists’ they’re supporters.

Until we have to say ‘Sieg Heil’, everyone, and that does include everyone… has the ‘right’ to support the party of their choice without fear of being physically attacked, without riots in the streets, without the destruction of property and being ostracized by others.

And second. Words are fluid and can be used in many ways. Within the last decade (or less) so many new words have come onto the scene that a lexicographer would be hard pressed to keep track of them all. At one time plural possessives had to be written one way and one way only, now both methods have been generally accepted, even by the press. For some words hard and fast rules don't apply.

So it seems neither of you know what the meaning is which is from "cuckold" - go look it up

As for being physically attacked, your leadser approved of such action and even offered to pay the legal costs and iirc, hinted that someone should assassinate Clinton.

Has anybody asked you why you support Trump? Do you have a good reason - just one would do for now.

proudfootz wrote:Seeking information that might be useful in an election from foreigners - like those traitors who paid for the sensational Steele dossier on Trump. The US isn't a nation to tolerate treason. Those fuckers will be in Gitmo soon enough.

on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.

Yet, no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton backers eagerly hawked to the news media.

Also, the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier – both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the dossier.

But the closest the Times came to that was noting: “Political campaigns collect opposition research from many quarters but rarely from sources linked to foreign governments.” That would have been an opportune point to slide in a paragraph about the Steele dossier, but nothing.

The Times doesn’t seem to have much historical memory either. There actually have been a number of cases in which American presidential campaigns have ventured overseas to seek out “opposition research” about rivals.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/f ... -on-trump/

proudfootz wrote:Seeking information that might be useful in an election from foreigners - like those traitors who paid for the sensational Steele dossier on Trump. The US isn't a nation to tolerate treason. Those fuckers will be in Gitmo soon enough.

on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.

Yet, no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton backers eagerly hawked to the news media.

Also, the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier – both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the dossier.

But the closest the Times came to that was noting: “Political campaigns collect opposition research from many quarters but rarely from sources linked to foreign governments.” That would have been an opportune point to slide in a paragraph about the Steele dossier, but nothing.

The Times doesn’t seem to have much historical memory either. There actually have been a number of cases in which American presidential campaigns have ventured overseas to seek out “opposition research” about rivals.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/f ... -on-trump/

proudfootz wrote:Seeking information that might be useful in an election from foreigners - like those traitors who paid for the sensational Steele dossier on Trump. The US isn't a nation to tolerate treason. Those fuckers will be in Gitmo soon enough.

on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.

Yet, no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton backers eagerly hawked to the news media.

Also, the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier – both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the dossier.

But the closest the Times came to that was noting: “Political campaigns collect opposition research from many quarters but rarely from sources linked to foreign governments.” That would have been an opportune point to slide in a paragraph about the Steele dossier, but nothing.

The Times doesn’t seem to have much historical memory either. There actually have been a number of cases in which American presidential campaigns have ventured overseas to seek out “opposition research” about rivals.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/f ... -on-trump/

Steele was initially hired by FusionGPS, a Washington, DC-based political research firm, to investigate Trump on behalf of unidentified Republicans who wanted to stop Trump's bid for the GOP nomination. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported that Steele was initially hired by Jeb Bush, one of Trump’s 16 opponents in the 2016 Republican primary. It was not immediately possible to verify the BBC’s report.

He was kept on assignment by FusionGPS after Trump won the nomination and his information was circulated to Democratic Party figures and members of the media.

Steele’s dealings with the FBI on Trump, initially with the senior agent who had started the FIFA probe and then moved to a post in Europe, began in July. However, Steele cut off contact with the FBI about a month before the Nov. 8 election because he was frustrated by the bureau’s slow progress.

The FBI opened preliminary investigations into Trump and his entourage’s dealings with Russians that were based in part on Steele’s reports, according to people familiar with the inquiries.

A former British ambassador to Russia played a key role in American intelligence agencies receiving explosive allegations about Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

The Independent has learned that US Senator John McCain spoke to Sir Andrew Wood, who served in Moscow as the UK’s head of mission for five years, about claims that the US President-elect was susceptible to blackmail over alleged sexual activity and that his team had colluded with Moscow during the presidential election campaign.

The meeting took place at an international security conference in Halifax, Canada, last November, after Mr Trump’s victory. There, Mr McCain sought the advice of Sir Andrew, a highly respected retired diplomat, on a dossier that was put together by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, about Mr Trump and the Moscow connection.

Mr McCain, the chair of the Senate armed forces committee, was so concerned by what he had heard that he personally met James Comey, the director of the FBI, after returning from the Canadian conference, and passed on the information. It formed part of a report about Russian interference in the US presidential election process that was presented to Barack Obama and Mr Trump by the intelligence agencies last week.

aban57 wrote:

Teague wrote:
Has anybody asked you why you support Trump? Do you have a good reason - just one would do for now.

He still hasn't told us what good did Trump so far, despite being asked several times. Looks like even according to a fan, the answer is "nothing".

purplerat wrote:

Nicko wrote:

purplerat wrote:If Trump Jr went to a meeting expecting to get dirt on Clinton from the Russian government (which is what is now being reported) then he likely committed a felony.

What law, specifically, did he break?

Reportedly 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510.

Nicko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Seeking information that might be useful in an election from foreigners - like those traitors who paid for the sensational Steele dossier on Trump. The US isn't a nation to tolerate treason. Those fuckers will be in Gitmo soon enough.

on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.

Yet, no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton backers eagerly hawked to the news media.

Also, the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier – both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the dossier.

But the closest the Times came to that was noting: “Political campaigns collect opposition research from many quarters but rarely from sources linked to foreign governments.” That would have been an opportune point to slide in a paragraph about the Steele dossier, but nothing.

The Times doesn’t seem to have much historical memory either. There actually have been a number of cases in which American presidential campaigns have ventured overseas to seek out “opposition research” about rivals.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/f ... -on-trump/

Imagine the reverse scenario: a Russian lawyer approaching the Clinton campaign promising slam-dunk evidence of Russian support for the Trump campaign.

Are people here seriously saying that someone from the Clinton campaign wouldn't have checked that shit out?

Nicko wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Nicko wrote:

purplerat wrote:If Trump Jr went to a meeting expecting to get dirt on Clinton from the Russian government (which is what is now being reported) then he likely committed a felony.

What law, specifically, did he break?

Reportedly 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510.

I note that you didn't link to the relevant pages of Cornell there. Which I assume you would have, if there was some obvious breach of a statute. Which suggests to me that there isn't.

Regardless, I did a simple Google search of both sections. They seem to refer to financial donations. Your (deliberately?) vague citation therefore sheds no light whatsoever on the matter.

Again, what law SPECIFICALLY, did little Trump Jr. break by meeting with a person who claimed to have dirt on his daddy's political opponent?