[ SECRET POST #3388 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3388 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Pokémon, John Lone]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mass Effect/Dragon Age]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Fire Emblem]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Bleach]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Lord of the Rings]


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Aliens]


__________________________________________________



08.
(Stardew Valley)


__________________________________________________



09.
[Caitlyn Jenner]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Rupaul's Drag Race, Acid Betty]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #484.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yep. It's called "cognitive dissonance".

[(Anonymous)]

No. It's called accepting that the fringe is not representative of the middle. Most Republicans could give a rat's about what you do in your personal life, they just don't want to pay for it.

[(Anonymous)]

But the actually existing Republican Party is actually, really passing laws to (ie) fuck with trans people.

It's one thing to say that the fringe is unrepresentative when they're out there screaming their heads off but don't have anything to do with the actual laws being passed. But the fringe people are clearly the ones who are steering the boat right now. That's the problem of the Republican Party. They're actually passing these laws. They're actually nominating Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

So it is - at the very least - cognitive dissonance in the sense that, if that's what they care about, they're supporting a party that demonstrably does not share those priorities.

[(Anonymous)]

It means to me that we need to take our party back from the nutcases.

[lady_dragoon]

You're about 30 years too late, unfortunately.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you think there's any chance of that? Do you really see any evidence that this is not what the majority of the Republican activist base actively wants? Do you not see any significance to the fact that the Republican Party base has spent the last 6 years primarying any politician who deviates from the most conservative position possible - usually successfully?

This is the party! These are its supporters!

[(Anonymous)]

It's only by the socially liberal but otherwise fiscally conservative members staying in the party that we can attempt to change course. Abandoning it to the radical right and religious crazies is not my personal option.

[(Anonymous)]

I really do understand where you're coming from. But I think there's a point with anything where it crosses a line and really is not salvageable, and has to be abandoned. And I find it hard to see how the Republican Party hasn't crossed that line, when you look at the behavior and views and priorities of its supporters and its base as a whole.

[lady_dragoon]

"Fiscally conservative" is just a nicer way of saying "I got mine so fuck the rest of you." Ergo, still evil.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not. It's really not.

[lady_dragoon]

Yes it is. It really is.

[(Anonymous)]

But, as I see you have a pre-conceived notion of what and who I am that cannot be changed, I'll leave it here as is. Take care.

[lady_dragoon]

Translation: "I know I'm a selfish, greedy piece of goldfish poop, but I enjoy being that way and I don't want to admit it publicly so I'm backing out now before I say something truly stupid."

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes, yes. And sometimes not.

[lady_dragoon]

Show me a fiscally conservative argument that wouldn't fuck over low-income people, and I'll show you an Italian villa for sale on Mars.

[(Anonymous)]

Well since we're on the subject, people on your side of the aisle wouldn't support trans related health care being covered under health plans, if you define "pay for it" as including that, you can go fuck yourself

[lady_dragoon]

+1. It really amazes me how many Republicans "don't want to pay for it" yet have no idea how the fuck insurance even works.

[(Anonymous)]

I do. Support the healthcare, that is.

[(Anonymous)]

One last thing from me. It amazes me how some folks here think they can know what my positions are on all things simply because I label myself Republican. There are a wide variety of opinions within the party, even though lately mostly drowned out by some wild eyed and radical leaders, but they do not speak for all of us. Not by a long shot. Be well.

[lady_dragoon]

When you elect them to lead you, then yes they do speak for you. That's what a representative is. You live with the stigma or divest yourself of a party that no longer represents your position. If you choose to keep the label, you take all the bullshit that comes with it.

And frankly, that so many people assume what you support based on your party registration should tell you just how much of a reputation for hatred, greed, selfishness, and all around douchenuttery your party has created for itself.

[(Anonymous)]

You seem to think it can only be one or the other, but you are incorrect. Believing in, say, poor peoples' right to basic healthcare and supporting a party who's done a great deal to erode those rights are two ideas in direct conflict. That's what cognitive dissonance is.