|
The Latest
Aug 16, 2024 20:15:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Aug 16, 2024 20:15:52 GMT -5
That is about the least reasonable reading of my post that I can imagine. Well, maybe third-least in the Soundhole context. My point is that the margins required for a Harris "landslide" are not in evidence based on Trump's past popular-vote performance--or, that matter, on what most polls are currently showing. And winning will happen in the electoral college, not in the popularity contest of the general election. As for the "nation of bigots, racists, and stupid people who lack the brains required to have principles"--well, that's not even a cartoon of what I wrote. Most of the polling I've seen put stable pro-Trump numbers at around 37% of the electorate. And by "stable," I mean "people whose support is not swayed by, say, guilty verdicts or sustained accusations of sexual assault." People who are not bothered by Trump's easily-contradicted claims (Harris's crowd is AI-generated) or by the childish vulgarity of his name-calling. Does this base include "bigots, racists, and stupid people"? It certainly does, as a read-through of any number of comment threads will confirm. But it also includes those who see in Trump someone who will serve their material (as distinct from cultural) interests. I think they're deeply mistaken, but then, they're the ones facing their actual material conditions, so what do I know. But I do wonder what exactly are the sources of information on which they base their analyses of who will serve those interests. The guy whose tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the very rich? The guy who claims that the job market they inhabit is somehow the result of immigrant labor? Right. That's what you said.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 16, 2024 20:23:53 GMT -5
That is about the least reasonable reading of my post that I can imagine. Well, maybe third-least in the Soundhole context. My point is that the margins required for a Harris "landslide" are not in evidence based on Trump's past popular-vote performance--or, that matter, on what most polls are currently showing. And winning will happen in the electoral college, not in the popularity contest of the general election. As for the "nation of bigots, racists, and stupid people who lack the brains required to have principles"--well, that's not even a cartoon of what I wrote. Most of the polling I've seen put stable pro-Trump numbers at around 37% of the electorate. And by "stable," I mean "people whose support is not swayed by, say, guilty verdicts or sustained accusations of sexual assault." People who are not bothered by Trump's easily-contradicted claims (Harris's crowd is AI-generated) or by the childish vulgarity of his name-calling. Does this base include "bigots, racists, and stupid people"? It certainly does, as a read-through of any number of comment threads will confirm. But it also includes those who see in Trump someone who will serve their material (as distinct from cultural) interests. I think they're deeply mistaken, but then, they're the ones facing their actual material conditions, so what do I know. But I do wonder what exactly are the sources of information on which they base their analyses of who will serve those interests. The guy whose tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the very rich? The guy who claims that the job market they inhabit is somehow the result of immigrant labor? To answer your question, his Supreme Court has overturned Chevron v. NRDC to all your progressive political buddies. Next up is Massachusetts v. EPA and its fascist leanings. No matter what BS you want to conjure about the class warfare you espouse.
|
|
|
The Latest
Aug 16, 2024 21:26:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by factorychef on Aug 16, 2024 21:26:14 GMT -5
Russell, I think they are trying to pick on you!
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 16, 2024 21:31:12 GMT -5
One of the early chapters of my freshman logic textbook included the distinctions among and between "all X is Y," "no X is Y," and "some X is Y," along with a bunch of variations and extensions about Z and maybe some other letters of the alphabet. There were also some Venn diagrams in there that dealt with category distinctions and overlaps.
Apply that to my take on the body of Trump supporters and you get "some Trump supporters are bigots," which carries the logical implication that "some Trump supporters are not bigots." Then there are other propositions: "some bigots are not racists"*; "some bigots are stupid"; "some stupid people are not bigots." Or "some Trump supporters are opportunists" and "some Trump supporters are sincerely convinced that he will act in their best interest despite what they can see of his public behavior and his record of policy decisions."
I don't think that I could construct a flat Venn diagram that reflects the distribution and overlaps of the motivational/belief-sets of all Trump supporters. I do know that among his core supporters are people who do not believe that he has done what he has done**, or who accept his claims of politcal persecution, or who acknowledge his moral and personal flaws but think that he is literally doing God's work***. (There is also a secular version of this vision of Trump, reminiscent of Randy Newman's line: "Well he may be a fool but he's our fool,/ if they think they're better than him, they're wrong.")
One can read the last half of the last paragraph of my earlier post to see these principles applied. So, no, that's not what I said.
* That one's tricky, but "bigot" is a higher-order term than "racist."
** As established by public records, court proceedings, and contemporary reporting of his actions, and some of his own public utterances.
*** Google "trump isaiah 45" or "trump flawed vessel."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 17, 2024 6:13:01 GMT -5
I suspect that the reason Trump's numbers remain pretty steadfast regardless of what he does or what he says is that for most Trump voters it's never been about Trump. It's always been that voting Republican in a two party political reality is the only way left to save the United States as a constitutional republic from a party that wants to transform it into a democratic socialist State.
It's never been about Trump. It's really never even been about Republican vs Democrat other than the fact that those two parties are all we have to voice our desire for either a Constitutional Republic or a Democratic Socialist State.
It is also that those two parties represent the only way we can express our wishes about social (abortion) policy.
It's also the only way we express our international will.
It's never been about Trump. It's never been about Republican vs. Democrat. Institutional Republicans hate Trump at least as much as Democrats do, and have always tried to undermine his rise.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 17, 2024 6:22:09 GMT -5
I wrote this back in 2016 in a private message to a friend. I don't think anything has changed. Well, maybe it's gotten worse, so I guess it's changed.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Aug 17, 2024 8:28:46 GMT -5
If that is true John they could have impeached him when they had a chance after January 6 and that would have ended his chances of ever running again. They would most likely have a current candidate that would be a slam dunk to win.
Lots of drama ahead that could have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 17, 2024 8:34:59 GMT -5
If that is true John they could have impeached him when they had a chance after January 6 and that would have ended his chances of ever running again. They would most likely have a current candidate that would be a slam dunk to win. Lots of drama ahead that could have been avoided. ??
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Aug 17, 2024 8:55:33 GMT -5
The Republicans legislators all knew Trump’s persona, and that they had some really good candidates for 2024. If the idea was to achieve victory and try to make progress in the areas you mentioned in your post wouldn’t you think they’d of wanted Trump out of the picture?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 17, 2024 9:05:38 GMT -5
If that is true John they could have impeached him when they had a chance after January 6 and that would have ended his chances of ever running again. They would most likely have a current candidate that would be a slam dunk to win. Lots of drama ahead that could have been avoided. They couldn't impeach someone who was already out of office and certainly not with that one-sided made for TV shit show they tried to push as a legitimate venue for prosecution (much like New York's recent "rape" trial that proved nothing). John's absolutely right. Trump's a ridiculous candidate. I didn't even vote for his circus act the first time. But then he got up and overrode Obama's CO2 regulations and I knew that, despite the circus veneer, he actually knew how things were supposed to work. Like when he didn't force the National Guard on Tim Walz' BLM riots. Because Walz refused to Constitutionally ask for it and preferred to see Minneapolis burn. And he continues to be the only hope against the destruction of this country from the inside. Go Trump!
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Aug 17, 2024 9:20:30 GMT -5
Problem is he has to win first. My understanding was that he could have been impeached after January 6 primarily to prevent him from ever running again. I would think the agenda you favor would be better implemented by a more electable candidate.
Perhaps I have been misinformed.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Aug 17, 2024 9:40:10 GMT -5
Problem is he has to win first. My understanding was that he could have been impeached after January 6 primarily to prevent him from ever running again. I would think the agenda you favor would be better implemented by a more electable candidate. Perhaps I have been misinformed. Nah. Just misconcluded.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 17, 2024 9:55:29 GMT -5
Problem is he has to win first. My understanding was that he could have been impeached after January 6 primarily to prevent him from ever running again. I would think the agenda you favor would be better implemented by a more electable candidate. Perhaps I have been misinformed. Trump is an outlier. Not a real part of either branch of the DC uniparty. It's what allowed him to focus on blowing the whole thing up. And it's why DC writ large hates him. He's messing with the very cushy life that doesn't actually give a shit about either you or I. Or John.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 17, 2024 12:41:10 GMT -5
... Like when he [Trump] didn't force the National Guard on Tim Walz' BLM riots. Because Walz refused to Constitutionally ask for it and preferred to see Minneapolis burn. Opinions are fine. But circulating falsehoods is another. I'm not entirely sure what Aqua said above or what his intent was (was he sarcastically ridiculing MAGA falsehoods or was he spreading them (Trump had nothing to do with the NG deployment; Walz did not refuse to deploy the Guard; Walz did not "prefer" to see Mpls burn). Below you will find a timeline of the Mpls. riots and Walz's deployment of the National Guard. It can be verified by actual sources. First, a few things to note: 1. How quickly events moved. Walz could have, and should have, started the deployment of the National Guard a day earlier, on the 27th, instead of waiting until the 28th. Full deployment then would then have occurred on the 29th (as Guardsmen were at their homes and scattered all over the state). If you believe the Guard should have been activated on the very first day the protests began, peaceful though they were at time, fine, then Walz was two days late. But, ordering the deployment of the National Guard every time a protest starts is unusual behavior. 2. Note when Trump shows up. His first tweet calling for a deployment of the National Guard shows up well after the news reports the actual deployment. His first tweets are those of support for Walz's actions (as was his public congratulations of Walz's actions during a teleconference with the nation's governors on June 30.) Trump had absolutely nothing to do Mpls, Walz, the National Guard, any of it. Nothing. Somehow, he is now claiming what? That he sent in the National Guard or forced Walz to send in the Guard? 3. What on earth is Aqua saying and how is it connected to anything real? That Walz refused to send in the Guard and Trump made him? That Gov. Walz wanted to see Mpls. burn? Is Aqua sarcastically dissing MAGA twists of the events or does he actually, sadly, believe what he said? Or was he just Trolling. The Timeline: There is some confusion about the Mpls riots, Walz, and the role of National Guard. The timeline is straight forward, factual, and easily checked (if you avoid MAGA sites). - May 25, 2020. Floyd was killed during an arrest gone bad. - May 26, The video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck was released - Late afternoon of May 26 protests began - May 27, incidents of looting, vandalism, and some arson begin and grow. - Evening of May 27, Mayor Frey asks Gov. Walz for National Guard help. - Afternoon of May 28 , Gov. Walz activates a unit of Guard MPs. - 10:41 PM, May 28, 500 National Guard MPs are reported as present and posted on Mpls. Streets. - 11:53 PM, May 28 Trump posts on X that he would “send in the National Guard”. In a follow up post minutes later, Trump posted that he had spoken with Walz and let him know he had his full support. - May 30. Full deployment of MN National Guard on the streets of Mpls. One of many factual timelines of the Mpls riots and National Guard deployment: www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/walzs-response-2020-minnesota-riots-microscope-joins-ticket-rcna165302
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 17, 2024 13:04:12 GMT -5
John, you live in a different universe from the one I've inhabited all my life--not just the last few decades, but going right back to my growing up in Republican-dominated central New York. But to skip to my nearly 60 years in the midwest: There is indeed a specifically-Trumpist faction in the MAGA movement, whether or not you encounter members of it. Some of them, to be sure, are fringe characters, like one of our local loonies who drives around town in a flag-festooned vehicle, making himself as annoying as possible with his "Land of cotton" truck horn-- But there are also ordinary guys like the bunch that my old playing partner meets for lunch every Tuesday at Brigette's Cafe. Four of the six are diehard, Trump-specific fans as well as old-fashioned reactionaries. Nor are these yahoos--they're educated retirees with big chips on their ideological shoulders. Beyond what I can find right in St. Cloud, there are plenty of interviews conducted at Trump rallies or at local equivalents of Brigette's in which people of various ages express specific admiration of and loyalty to Trump. I suppose one could see these as somehow cherry-picked by a hostile MSM, but that would not account for what I see in, say, on-line comment threads--or in Peter's posts over the years. The fact that Trump-specific support is threaded through with strands of general political-cultural discontent does not erase the cult-of-personality part. A FWIW, the "Short cuts to debate" section of that 2016 message does what you accuse the Democrats of doing: flattens the terms of debate into a cartoonish binary. I've watched how moral binaries and no-compromise politics have worked in Minnesota over the last couple decades, with the result that large parts of the state have become dominated by single-issue politics, specifically over abortion. It's worse in other states (Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, and Arkansas come to mind), but the coalition that has formed around "pro-life" absolutists has profoundly affected statewide politics.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 17, 2024 13:07:10 GMT -5
"[R]eturning a caricature for a caricature just makes the whole world blind." Ross Douthat, today.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 17, 2024 13:40:28 GMT -5
Another note: The folks most affected by the Mpls riots, and most familiar with the events and details of the Mpls riots, are the people of Mpls. In in his 2022 reelection, Gov. Walz received over 70% of the Mpls vote.
No doubt some will take that as evidence that the people that live in Mpls. are fools and idiots. Others will think, hmm, maybe the people that live in Mpls. have a better grasp of what went on, when and why, than Republican propagandists and Youtubers in Putin Pay that live somewhere far away from Mpls.
But, yes, Walz was a day late in deploying the Guard. And he deserves criticism for it. And, yes, at first he tried to shed and spread that criticism before accepting it. He isn't a farmer, he's a politician. Voters deal with what they get, and clearly, the people of Minnesota, who are like the people in any other state, have decided he has been their best option. And most do like him.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 17, 2024 13:55:02 GMT -5
"[R]eturning a caricature for a caricature just makes the whole world blind." Ross Douthat, today. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 17, 2024 14:20:16 GMT -5
John, you live in a different universe from the one I've inhabited all my life--not just the last few decades, but going right back to my growing up in Republican-dominated central New York. But to skip to my nearly 60 years in the midwest: There is indeed a specifically-Trumpist faction in the MAGA movement, whether or not you encounter members of it. Some of them, to be sure, are fringe characters, like one of our local loonies who drives around town in a flag-festooned vehicle, making himself as annoying as possible with his "Land of cotton" truck horn-- But there are also ordinary guys like the bunch that my old playing partner meets for lunch every Tuesday at Brigette's Cafe. Four of the six are diehard, Trump-specific fans as well as old-fashioned reactionaries. Nor are these yahoos--they're educated retirees with big chips on their ideological shoulders. Beyond what I can find right in St. Cloud, there are plenty of interviews conducted at Trump rallies or at local equivalents of Brigette's in which people of various ages express specific admiration of and loyalty to Trump. I suppose one could see these as somehow cherry-picked by a hostile MSM, but that would not account for what I see in, say, on-line comment threads--or in Peter's posts over the years. The fact that Trump-specific support is threaded through with strands of general political-cultural discontent does not erase the cult-of-personality part. A FWIW, the "Short cuts to debate" section of that 2016 message does what you accuse the Democrats of doing: flattens the terms of debate into a cartoonish binary. I've watched how moral binaries and no-compromise politics have worked in Minnesota over the last couple decades, with the result that large parts of the state have become dominated by single-issue politics, specifically over abortion. It's worse in other states (Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, and Arkansas come to mind), but the coalition that has formed around "pro-life" absolutists has profoundly affected statewide politics. You came away with the impression that I said there are no Trump fans. If that's what I said I need to re edit because that's not what I said. What I'm getting at is that those loyalists aren't why his numbers stay somewhat consistently high. There aren't enough of those loyalists for that to be the case. As I said, the driving force continues to be against progressively altering our country. Trump just happens to be the only way to express that at the ballot box. Additionally, Trump is the only way to express an anti-Hamas vote, a pro-life vote, a constitutionally limited government vote, a vote expressing outrage at a press that lied about Biden s condition, about covid, about riots in the streets. You don't have to like Trump to realize he's the only game in town. He's not much of a Republican, but he's the first to ever make good on supreme court appointments, on trying to confront the unelected government, and catching on that as long as there is an "R" in front of your name the press is going to treat you like an enemy of the State.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 17, 2024 14:23:19 GMT -5
And, John, I have seen enough of Oliver to last me for however long I last on this earth. I can't say I have stopped watching the Late Night shows as I have never started watching them. (from Youtube exposure, I do like Jimmy Fallon. He is a talented and very funny fellow!).
But, I'll agree with you on Oliver. Irritating.
I'm just saying, I see your perspective. And at times I share it. "Republicans are dumb" shouldn't be the cheap late night applause line it has become. But, there is a fix, STOP BEING DUMB!...
Sorry, that Bob Newhart bit, "JUST STOP IT", popped into my head and it was too good to pass up. So I will retreat to my original point. I agree with you on Oliver. And not favoring affirmative action does not equate to racism, and opposing abortion does not equal anti-woman, and we do mischaracterize each other.
|
|