I'll be interested to see how mid terms go. Trump voters are mad at the GOP leadership, rightly intuiting that they despise their "God Emperor." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh yes, their God Emperor.




I actually remember one true Trump believer using that name in 2016. Now he was a genuine racist (worried about the white race dying in the US) and living in a trailer (and not on this site, not even as a banned member). Yes, stereotypes have their actual living examples.

It's a religion for them. Or a cult (would be more proper). That people here are outraged at Trump and hate him gives them pride that their God Emperor did win the 2016 elections. They will happily jump in the "stop the steal" bandwagon for what it's worth. It annoys others, so they like it.

So it's a hijack.

The GOP doesn't need the Electoral College. They win majorities of House votes. The Democratic dream of minority votes surging against the GOP has never materialized, and by the third generation, new immigrants are far more attracted to the party. Their problem is that their loonies keep winning primaries, and their variously insane and racist messaging is killing them in national elections. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's actually quite typical. The most hardcore supporters dominate the primaries, which isn't in the favor of mainstream voters, especially those who can change the party they are voting.

And as we saw in Georgia, railing about fraud that hasn't occured kills your turn out. So a big upset could be on the way. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is the likely outcome, actually. People will just stay away from this loonie crowd. It's not like an angry movement will emerge from somewhere demanding "their party back"! Change will come in the way of people just forgetting past stuff.

Like Trumpism though, this can all be explained by the oppression of their base, the evil media, and voter suppression, clearly it couldn't be that they just aren't that popular and need to compromise... — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's a religion. And religions are a faith based issue. Not a fact based issue.

A good comment, @Count Timothy von Icarus! :up:

I find this doubtful based on the evidence from Landslide, and various other interviews. Trump's Jan 6th involvement with the crowd was quite limited. He wasn't particularly interested in the protest beforehand, seeing brow beating Mike Pence as his route to staying in power. His speech, filled with ridiculous lies and grievance, was basically the same speech he had given in the preceding weeks, given with less energy than usual.

There isn't anything showing intent for Trump. He treated Jan 6th as another rally, and wasn't particularly pleased that he didn't get to plan it. With no planning to incite the riot, or use it to his advantage, and indeed, only a minority of the crowd originally planning to enter the capital, there just isn't much there.

Trump doesn't scheme or lead. He riffs at members of his court in an angrier version of his public speeches and people act based on his rants to please him. It makes intent very hard to prove. It also makes me doubt he can be tied to his organization's financial crimes because he lacks the patience for tax fraud. Maybe his call to Georgia will go somewhere, but proving intent will also be difficult.

The bar for white collar crime is probably too high, but it's also Trump's management style (not managing and just ranting emotionally) that keeps him safe.

Democrats have an easy way to raise the debt ceiling alone. The entire "crisis" is fabricated bullshit, the type Dems are supposedly "above." Mitch looks hypocritical, ok, but that doesn't matter, he had already maxed that out filling RGB's spot.

The problem lies solely in the Democratic Party, which seems likely as not to shut the government down on its own President, and not pass any infrastructure bill, giving the people nothing, because a minority of the party seems to think their party's razor thin majority gives it's most progressive members the ability to dictate terms. It doesn't.

To be sure, the fact that reconciliation only comes around once a year, combined with the filibuster is part of the problem. A Congress gets one and only one chance to pass new laws with less than 60 Senate votes before the next election, forcing any hope of reform into this one bill, but they knew that back in January. They didn't need a crystal ball to know Mitch would lead a vote for default to keep the pressure on. They needed to hammer out what they wanted back in the summer, not spend all the time grandstanding. Biden can't be the new FDR because Democrats aren't popular enough to win big, they need to realize that. Democrats aren't popular because they keep embracing suicidally unpopular positions like getting rid of gifted programs in local schools, and seem wedded to a race based advocacy of their programs that, when tested, makes voters of all demographics less likely to support them.

There isn't anything showing intent for Trump — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's my understanding, although Woodward's new book apparently reveals that he thought he could get the SCOTUS to overturn the election. Plus he was altering military command thinking he might have them intervene on his behalf.

I do see your point, regrettably. As always with Trump, malfeasance insulated by incompetence.

Are you anti-discrimination? — tim wood

I am against discrimination on the basis of education. One's capacity to be educated is somewhat dependent on socioeconomic conditions so an individual's level of education is not completely a matter of choice.

I am against discrimination on the basis of education. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course you are in favor. Think about it.

I have thought about it, that's why it took me three days to reply. The thing is that I am not a strong proponent of democracy, for the reasons outlined by Plato in The Republic. The vast majority of the citizens in any society, do not have the education required to choose a good leader. So the politicians of a democracy behave like they are offering candies to children, for the sake of getting elected. Allowing the general population to vote produces a bad government. Therefore Plato thought that democracy was a corrupted form of government. My opinion is that we cannot fix the problems inherent within democracy by applying some standards of education by which we can distinguish a class of eligible voters from a class of non-eligible.

And regardless of what you think, I am not in favour of discrimination on the basis of education. This is because a person can only truly prove one's level of education in any particular respect, through one's actions. And to deny a person the ability to act, thereby prove one's education in that respect, because you believe that the person does not have the education required to carry out the act, is a form of prejudice. So if you want an educational test as to who can and cannot vote, you might as well just ask who the person would vote for, and if they make what you consider a stupid decision, deny them the right to vote, based on their education level.

May we say for the sake of accuracy if not sense itself that you are opposed to prejudicial discrimination? Or do you take your car for service to the tea shoppe, have your legal problems resolved by your house-cleaner, and your medical care handled by the boys loitering on your street-corner? Of course you discriminate. We all have to. And when the focus is properly turned to the prejudicial, then we have a different discussion.

I don't know how to keep Trumpsters and their ilk from voting. But if I could, I would. Just as I would block most people from owning most guns under most circumstances, as do many jurisdictions in the US, and opposed to those, like Texas, which appears to allow anyone who wants to carry a gun to do so. What I am against is craziness, and I am willing to discriminate non-prejudicially against that all day and all night long.

May we say for the sake of accuracy if not sense itself that you are opposed to prejudicial discrimination? Or do you take your car for service to the tea shoppe, have your legal problems resolved by your house-cleaner, and your medical care handled by the boys loitering on your street-corner? Of course you discriminate. We all have to. And when the focus is properly turned to the prejudicial, then we have a different discussion. — tim wood

Those are examples of getting service from the place where that service is made available. They are not examples of discrimination based on education.

*sigh* And what door do you go through to get those services and how do you figure that out? This goes to the simple meaning of a word, being able to tell the difference between one and another thing, and having a reason to do so. Can we get past this?

I love that people like Tim, who is living through a political moment in which an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, thinks the solution is to deprive people of voices even more.

One can only conclude that Tim is a Trump supporter.

an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, — StreetlightX

:up:

I love that people like Tim, who is living through a political moment in which an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, thinks the solution is to deprive people of voices even more.

One can only conclude that Tim is a Trump supporter. — StreetlightX

Im curious, do you think Trump should have been banned on twitter like he was?

I think worse things should happen to Trump.

Sure, but specifically to your comment about depriving Trump voters a voice I wondered whether you thought Trump should be deprived of his voice? Or were you doing a sarcastic impression of a Trump voter? (It can be hard to tell via text)

Mixed feelings. I think on the whole it was better that Trump got STFU'd. But I despise that a spineless corporation like Twitter has that kind of power. They will inevitably reinstate his account once Trump gets his second term anyway.

It seems to me that Trump and his supporters say whatever people want to hear and whatever they believe gains them some kind of advantage, regardless of what's said is true, so the basic strategy is not to silence opposition but to control the truth or reality. I doubt Mr. Wood is onboard with that.

I go back and forth on it. Its clear that there are significant portions of people who make people like Trump dangerous by listening and accepting what he is saying but its also clear to me that its extremely dangerous to make rules (twitter bans etc) that restrict people in that way because then that tool is there for anyone to pick up and use. I can’t think of too many institutions I trust with that tool.
Who is more dangerous, a guy like Trump or the people who voted for him? Is it better to restrict Trump (easier, for sure) or to educate people?
Also, I was under the impression mores soon he was banned while president?

It seems to me that Trump and his supporters say whatever people want to hear and whatever they believe gains them some kind of advantage, regardless of what's said is true, so the basic strategy is not to silence opposition but to control the truth or reality. — praxis

This is the reality. What suits them best are the facts. It's all just political rhetoric, everything. Talk about making your own reality.

A bit postmodern, don't you think?

Why, oh why, could anyone, ever, have a Christian name of 'Trashelle'? I mean, is that a sick joke? That some poor girl was named after, I don't know, ornamental garbage, or something? And it goes great with the surname, Odom (rhymes with....never mind....) - so, Trashelle Odom. A real person, apparently, in Trumpworld's orbit, like one of those pieces of space junk sorrounding the planet; all part of the ongoing sordid misbehaviour of various Trump barnacles, as detailed in this story.

I don’t know what you mean.

I love that people like Tim, who is living through a political moment in which an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, thinks the solution is to deprive people of voices even more. — StreetlightX

What I am against is craziness, and I am willing to discriminate non-prejudicially against that all day and all night long. — tim wood

May you, on the other hand, have always kakaphonous in your ear and be subject to the authority of the ignorant, stupid, crazy, and evil. - Or are you already?

And had you thought through the illogic of voting for Donald Trump, you'd know your own foolishness.

May you, on the other hand, have always kakaphonous in your ear and be subject to the authority of the ignorant, stupid, crazy, and evil. - Or are you already? — tim wood

Ok fascist.

"I'm against craziness - I just want to institute fascist measures and accelerate support for Trump across the board, I'm so bog standard".

How did Trump win, and why will Trump win again? Exhibit A,Tim Wood.

As long as your faith is in our lord and savior Joseph Biden, you're one of the good guys.

:up:

Imo, Biden may become an historian's great president. Perhaps in a hundred years not as well remembered as some, but by those who study this time reckoned and credited with being the man with much to do who got (we hope) a lot of it done. They, the historians, appreciating better than we need and necessity we can only guess at, and how it got done. Biden is not about the movement of armies in the clash of battle, but the subtler give and take - battle - of negotiation and compromise while preserving the ground on which it all is supposed to take place, and achieving what should be achieved. If war is politics by other means, then perhaps politics is war by other means, and that Biden appears to be pretty good at. We hope, and we'll see. I'd like to think Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson are advising him from the great beyond.

In the Cultural Revolution struggle sessions, where Chinese intellectuals were publicly tortured until beaten to death, there were three stages:

1. The victim remained proud and defiant.

2. The victim became numb and sleepy.

3. The victim came to believe in his own guilt, weeping uncontrollably before the crowd, begging for forgiveness for interfering with the great revolution through reactionary rhetoric.

If an American is grateful for crumbs that fall off the table, which stage is this?

I don't know how to keep Trumpsters and their ilk from voting. But if I could, I would. Just as I would block most people from owning most guns under most circumstances, as do many jurisdictions in the US, and opposed to those, like Texas, which appears to allow anyone who wants to carry a gun to do so. What I am against is craziness, and I am willing to discriminate non-prejudicially against that all day and all night long. — tim wood

Maybe earning the right to vote by passing an examination like the bar exam. Though even if preparation for the examination was made freely available to all the poor would most likely tend to be under represented, but that wouldn’t be anything new.

But I despise — StreetlightX

We have to face the fact that @StreetlightX is a man - presumably a man - hostage to his feelings, his life one long groan and cry with compensation only in invective and what he, an otherwise not stupid man, can do with it. Twitter a spineless corporation? Because it shut down Trump? Maybe, just maybe, Twitter has some standards, like TPF has standards. Would you have them be standardless?

My private fantasy that any and every published lie be subject to civil suit by anyone for at least costs and a meaningful penalty just on proof of the lie, with further damages and additional punitive penalties as appropriate. A bounty system, if you will, on lies and liars, with the liars paying all costs if they lied.

voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, — StreetlightX

I missed this first time through. What a great way to get your voice heard - vote for Donald Trump!