I honestly don't know what to think or how optimistic/pessimistic I should be. What scares me, in addition to concerns of Trump stealing the election via untraceable voting machines, dismissing mail-in ballots, more disenfranchisement shenanigans such as we've seen in Georgia, etc., is that the Trump supporters I know -- not just internet-only friends, but various IRL friends and acquaintances, some dating back to elementary school (and thus "grandfathered in," friendshipwise; it's unlikely the adults we are today would've hit it off, if not for that old connection) -- is that where Trump vs. the Democrats are concerned, the Trump supporters I know have almost the mindset of Internet trolls, only without the malice (or at least, if there is malice it's buried so deep, the Trumpster in question honestly doesn't know it's there, and even I can't detect signs of it beyond "WTF, after all this you're still going to vote for Trump?").
By "mindset of Internet trolls" I mean: without dragging up old forum drama, I will say that the "old timers" on this forum may remember back in the day we had a few trolls with a definite dislike for either me personally, or "libertarians" in general. And one thing these trolls all had in common was, when I or any "libertarian" was concerned, anything we could possibly say or do was interpreted in the absolute worst possible light -- sometimes lights so bizarre, ordinary human vision cannot actually see them -- and of course, since they're trolls (or perhaps sincere people only with confirmation bias to or beyond the point of outright delusion), they are either deliberately obtuse, or impervious to reason, and nothing you or anyone else says to try changing their minds will make ANY bit of difference at ALL.
I have a friend I've known at least since high school -- I attended her 16th birthday party -- genuinely nice person, helped me a lot when my mom was at her psycho-est, we reconnected on Facebook a few years ago -- she seems to still be a very nice person, though a bit more "openly noticeably Christian" than anyone at the Gryll or my overall circle of friends and acquaintances tends to be (she'll share Jesus memes or Christianity Today articles on Facebook, for example) -- few days ago, she posted a USA Today article "I'm Billy Graham's granddaughter. Evangelical support of Donald Trump spits on his legacy."
One of her MAGA friends immediately responded with "She sounds soooo misguided and ill-informed. I think Franklin Graham, Billy son, has a much greater perspective. Does she really support the pro-abortion candidate? I'm sorry I took the time." My friend responded "It is really hard to figure out, once again, who the right candidate would be? I can't say I am excited about either for the reason you mentioned and the reasons she mentioned."
So another guy (whose name sounds super-familiar; I wouldn't be surprised if he's another old schoolmate I don't consciously remember) responded with various complaints about things Trump has said and done -- the open support of bigotry and violence, the concentration camps, the covid bungling, etc. Her own sister chimed in with other bad things Trump did. This went on for a bit, ten my friend responded "[Guy whose name sounds familiar to me], "I am glad it is clear cut for you. I will be looking hard at the candidates, their histories, their pledges, and will choose accordingly. Trump does better with his actions than he does with his words. I won't say he has done a bad job with this presidency."
Which inspired more comments from that guy and her sister, all bringing up still MORE bad things Trump has said or done, and a few comments later I joined the fray, quoted her statement "Trump does better with his actions than he does with his words. I won't say he has done a bad job with this presidency." and then said: "I ask this in all sincerity: which "actions" would these be? The only decent thing I can think of him doing off the top of my head was pardoning Alice Johnson, and even that was done not due to Trump having some principled complaint about the cruelties of our criminal "justice" system, but because Kim Kardashian (who was already attempting to call attention to Johnson's plight) sufficiently stoked Trump's ego via posing for photos with him and so forth. But otherwise, what good things has Trump done for this country or the people in it?"
She did not answer my question or address any other points brought up by her sister or the familiar guy, but a few comments later she eventually said: "I did not say I was voting for Trump at any point, but I do feel attacked. I said I would study the candidates and choose carefully. I said I didn't like my choices. I am glad every one is so passionate. Yes, there are bad and good things done by Trump. I am not going to defend or attack anyone to support my right to evaluate all of the candidates (yes, there are more than 2) before I make my choice. Thank you for your insight."
Bear in mind: at NO POINT did anybody say anything bad about Trump voters or her personally (other than to ask "How could horrid things X, Y and Z not be deal-breakers for you?"), and every anti-Trump comment was "Here's an actual bad thing he said, did or is doing," not "He's a stupid cheeto with a bad toupee, ha ha." And the anti-Trump criticisms were coming from her own dear sister, plus two people whom (I suspect) she's known since at LEAST the late 1980s if not earlier. She's even reading and sharing anti-Trump articles herself (written from an evangelical Christian perspective). But still -- she's not sure who to vote for, and feels "attacked" when people criticize Trump.
And she's one of the nicer pro-Trump or "maybe Trump, despite qualms" people I know. As for the others -- every time a cop shoots someone they always find a reason why it's okay, they definitely think the protesters are a far bigger problem than what they're protesting, they'll talk about Biden's handsy behavior whilst completely ignoring the far worse allegations against (and boasts from) Trump himself; anyone who criticizes Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" remark is far more offensive than Trump himself was for making it; Hillary absolutely would've been worse in every aspect; when Trump says something so bad even they can't excuse it they just handwave it away or bring up either A) something bad done by a Democrat or B) a personal attack against whoever brought it up, maybe they have a problem with how you worded it so let's focus on THAT rather than the actual substance of your remark, etc. There is absolutely no reasoning with these people. They're the ones Trump was talking about when he said he could shoot someone and get away with it. And they are frighteningly more common than I thought they were.
Confession time: While I think the cops handled the Jacob Blake situation poorly (they need to figure out how to de-escalate, or at least keep themselves between the suspect and the car filled with kids), I think he's a bad poster child for police excesses. The cops were there because he violated a restraining order and had an arrest warrant for sexual assault against the woman with the restraining order. If police reform movements hang too much of their case on this guy, it will work out poorly for them.
What I wonder is how this will affect the people who will decide Wisconsin's electoral votes: White women in Waukesha (Milwaukee suburb) who aren't entirely comfortable when "urban" types show up in the Brookfield Square mall, but also don't like a Twitter troll who grabs women by the pussy.
If Blake's criminal allegations get traction in WI, Kamala Harris should go to a socially-distanced gathering of Oconomowoc Karens and say that she's locked up plenty of men for grabbing women by the pussy (which is literally what Jacob Blake is accused of) and she'd like to put away a few more, regardless of whether they reside by Lake Michigan or Mar Lago. Have Culver's cater the event.
Trump would be finished right then and there.
thoreau wrote: ↑31 Aug 2020, 15:21 Confession time: While I think the cops handled the Jacob Blake situation poorly (they need to figure out how to de-escalate, or at least keep themselves between the suspect and the car filled with kids), I think he's a bad poster child for police excesses. The cops were there because he violated a restraining order and had an arrest warrant for sexual assault against the woman with the restraining order. If police reform movements hang too much of their case on this guy, it will work out poorly for them.
Badgelickers drag out the "he's no angel" argument for every black person who gets gunned down by the cops, regardless of the relevance to the situation. It's a dog whistle used to make it look like he had it coming.
It's not clear whether Blake was armed during the incident. What is clear is that there were multiple officers on the scene who could have teamed up to subdue him. Instead they shot him seven times in the back.
The cops were wrong. No doubt about it. As long as the questions are about them, I'm on the police reform side.
And, yes, they trot out "he's no angel" every time, which is why reformers need to pick poster children for whom the charge won't have much traction. Jacob Blake doesn't seem like the guy.
Mind you, I'm not convinced he's guilty of sexual assault. It could very well be that his accuser is a liar, or that there's something else going on here. But I also think it's pretty risky to make him a poster child. Breonna Taylor is a much better example. And, frankly, George Floyd, because regardless of his background, his case wasn't about any split-second decisions, but an 8-minute decision to keep the knee on the gasping man's neck.
thoreau wrote: ↑31 Aug 2020, 15:37 The cops were wrong. No doubt about it. As long as the questions are about them, I'm on the police reform side.
Well it was only a four-minute decision to knee a gasping man's neck. After that it was three-and-change minutes of keeping a knee on a dead man's neck.
Post by D.A. Ridgely » 31 Aug 2020, 16:16
lunchstealer wrote: ↑31 Aug 2020, 16:06
And if I were defending the cop, I'd argue that in mitigation. "There's no law, after all, against kneeing the neck of a corpse unless it reaches the level of desecration and we respectfully request a jury instruction to that effect, your honor."
The merit of the allegations doesn't matter at all. He's not going to rape the cops who are trying to arrest him. All that matters at the moment of of the stop is whether he is armed and presents a clear danger at that moment. Even if he's drunk and waving a knife around, the responsibility of the cops is to de-escalate the situation or subdue him non-lethally. That's the message we need to send the cops and copsuckers alike.
That being said, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of ideal victims over the years, and we're still not seeing reforms. If Tamir Rice isn't enough to convince people that cops are out of control, I'm not sure what would be.
Hugh Akston wrote: ↑31 Aug 2020, 16:20 That being said, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of ideal victims over the years, and we're still not seeing reforms. If Tamir Rice isn't enough to convince people that cops are out of control, I'm not sure what would be.
Hell, Daniel Shaver wasn't enough, and he was a white guy and there's security footage showing the degrading "crawl on all fours like a dog" ritual the cop made him perform before shooting him.
Yeah it would be nice to push back on the look-at-the-monkey distraction that is the no-angel defense rather than just give in and say no protesting unless they are a poster child. Keep the focus on the actions not the ad hominems.
Last edited by dead_elvis on 01 Sep 2020, 14:05, edited 1 time in total.
Post by JD » 01 Sep 2020, 12:35
Not sure if this was posted here, but it's a pretty interesting examination of why there seem to be so few moderate Republicans: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... cans-left/
It's not perfect: it suffers a bit from the booga-booga-libertarians! thing without ever bothering to resolve how libertarians can simultaneously be the hidden masters behind the scenes and still not seem to be able to affect any actual policy.
Post by Hugh Akston » 09 Sep 2020, 17:23
The weather was calm, the atmosphere festive. Which made it all the more surprising when several boats sank Saturday at an event put on by Trump supporters near Austin, Texas.
"Decorate your boats in patriotic colors and fly as many Trump flags as she can handle!" the Facebook page for the Lake Travis Trump Boat Parade encouraged. "Let's really make a statement!"
The statement wasn't what they intended. When the hundreds of boats started moving together, their wakes created unexpected turbulence. Before long, the Travis County Sheriff's Office had received 15 distress calls. It received three more reports of boats taking on water from a local towing company.
Most of the boats taking on water were able to be towed before they sank to the bottom of the lake, the sheriff's office said. Ultimately, five boats did sink during the event. Three of those were recovered, but two remained submerged Sunday.
I sure wish I could derive some symbolism from this incident, but I got nothing.
Post by lunchstealer » 09 Sep 2020, 19:43
Hugh Akston wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 17:23
Post by Pham Nuwen » 10 Sep 2020, 00:21
USS Cofveve sunk by God (Battle of Dumbkirk 2020)
Post by D.A. Ridgely » 18 Nov 2020, 00:52
I'm probably not going to post this elsewhere, but the idea occurred to me, so...
hc4.jpg (246.01 KiB) Viewed 1694 times
Pretty good Economist Q&A about the shadow Trump has cast on the party, and where it goes from here.
Post by Warren » 07 Dec 2020, 13:55
Hugh Akston wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 11:57 Pretty good Economist Q&A about the shadow Trump has cast on the party, and where it goes from here.
t=15 "plain speaking leadership style" Not the term I'd use
tl;dw Trump has successfully captured the GOP. No matter how toxic he is the the Party as a whole, the rubes still overwhelmingly support him.
Warren wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 13:55
Judging from the fact he got the biggest GOP turnout in history in 2020, I'm not even sure he's toxic to the party.
Aresen wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 14:11
He's completed the process of turning the party into something toxic, but alas, that's not the same thing.
Post by Shem » 07 Dec 2020, 15:35
Going to depend. Did they show up because they like Trump, or because they like what he did with the party? One is lasting, the other isn't.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
Shem wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 15:35
Jennifer wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 15:21
I think the turnout in 2020 was pure sportsbar. Even Republicans who hated Trump turned out for him because he wasn't on Team Blue. I think the system itself is toxic and Trump has simply proved that nothing can overcome partisanship.
Yes, there are a few Lincoln Project types who will defect, but they are every bit as marginal as the Bernie bros who wouldn't turn out for Biden. Which is why I think if AOC were ever nominated, the Blues, with very few exceptions, would close ranks and vote for her.
IOW: We're f**ked.
But there are hundreds of thousands of Trump partisans who didn't bother to show up in 2018. Was that because they just never show up unless he's on the ballot, or because they don't show up for midterms in general but will be turning out for presidential elections from now on, or some other reason? The answer to that question is going to be what determines the impact this has on the GOP. If Trump can only bring them out when they're voting for him, that weakens him considerably, especially since I think he's going to get out, remember why he hated being president in the first place, and try to be a kingmaker instead. If the only things you enjoy doing are golfing and listening to yourself talk, it's much more fun to be the éminence grise.
Shem wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 16:51 ...
he hated being president in the first place, and try to be a kingmaker instead. If the only things you enjoy doing are golfing and listening to yourself talk, it's much more fun to be the éminence grise.
He doesn't like the JOB of being President, but he loves being the center of attention and being able to make people dance to his tune. He can't do that nearly as much with just a twitter account and no Rose Garden.
To be a genewine éminence grise orange, you have to write something longer than 288 characters. I don't think he has the attention span for that.
Not really. All you need is everyone else bowing and scraping, and you can make sure they never write anything you don't like, so you just take credit for it. Which will work if he can deliver the votes. If not, the changes things.
This should be in OFFS, but since it is specific to the GOP:
Did the Arizona Republican Party just suggest a bloody overthrow of Joe Biden's election?
The Arizona Republican Party has asked supporters if they're ready to fight to the death in support of President Donald Trump's doomed attempts to cling on to the presidency despite last month's election loss. The state Republican Party made the apparent call to arms on its official Twitter account late Monday while quote-tweeting an account with #StopTheSteal in its name—the latest rallying cry of Trump's supporters. That account wrote: "I am willing to give my life for this fight." In its quote-tweet, the Arizona Republican Party wrote: "He is. Are you?" The party then tweeted a clip from Rambo with the quote: "This is what we do, who we are. Live for nothing, or die for something." Arizona certified its election results last Monday, awarding the state's 11 electoral votes to President-elect Joe Biden, who beat Trump by 10,457 votes.
(This headline seems to be an exception to Betteridge's law.)
I like how now NR is behaving like a Captain Planet villain*. Sure oil prices are low, there are no oil supply constraints and demand is in the toilets, but let's sell at the bottom of the market when the bidders know that we have to close the sale soon to punch hippies and so we can drill the ANWR. I guess the real lesson is don't go to Texas Tech for business school.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/ ... han-never/
* Where the goal of industry is to pollute rather than pollution being an unfortunate side effect of productive acts.