Some crazy boomers went crazy. Not sure what that has to do with Trump. There was ample circumstantial evidence at the time that there was some seriously shady shit that went down on election night. Not least of which was all the battleground states shutting down at the same time. Many reports of ballot harvesting, I can go on for weeks with all the anomalies. You can dismiss them whiolesale as I am sure you will, but if you say you wouldn't have cried foul if the tables were turned and all that shit happened to Mr. Potatohead you're a liar. Trump had every right to question the election and he had nothing to do with the idiots who rushed the Capital.
I like to think we can have a reasonable discussion about this. For starters, why did the crazy boomers go crazy? The exit polls for the 2004 election were radically in Kerry's favor. Voting machine integrity underwent a sea change after 2004 because of it. Yet Kerry - and the Democrats - raised barely a peep. The 2000 Gore V. Florida was an extraordinarily narrow supreme court decision that handed the election to Bush out of expediency, not morality, yet Gore - and the Democrats - raised barely a peep. Can you think of any differences in leadership between 2000, 2004 and 2020? This isn't down to you, of course. The office of the Attorney General is investigating, as is the January 6th Committee. Unless you are literally Roger Stone I do not think you can honestly profess to more information about the situation than either of those bodies. Humans often "shut down at the same time" when performing similar processes using similar equipment. If the polls all opened at the same time, closed at the same time, and used the same processes to tabulate, they would come to results at about the same time. But again, this is something that has been investigated at great length and absolutely zero evidence of malfeasance has been produced. You say you "can go on for weeks" but you list only two easily-dismissed logical fallacies. Can you document a single piece of concrete evidence of voter fraud of a magnitude necessary to sway a single state election? William Barr couldn't. I've been here three times, man. Only once did people haul guns to the capital. Yes - some crazy boomers went crazy. But they were driven crazy. And no presidential candidate that I know of has ever done that except Trump. I welcome this discussion. But it needs to be a discussion, not an invective-hurling contest. What can you say that would be convincing to a person who doesn't already agree with you? You're singing the song of your people but if you want to sit down and have a beer in a foreign land, you need to be able to listen, too. I apologize for my compatriots (who are going to resent the shit out of me apologizing for them). They're signalling fealty as well. Reasonable people can disagree, but we gotta start by being reasonable.
Nah man, you'll get no resentment from me. I appreciate what you're doing, and I'm trying to be pretty well-behaved, here, but my sarcasm is inescapable, in all scenarios. Like when I was pretty tipsy and mk hopped on the Jit.si for the 10-year anniversary and someone gave him a grand introduction and I said "...who?". I definitely aim to have a major difference in the way I treat folks like 1mg vs. the people who indisputably know better yet treat lying to their constituents as opportunistic sport. LOL sorry to shoehorn this in, I read the first two paragraphs of a WSJ op-ed today (I don't give them money anymore) about how the author won't be voting for Trump a third time. Paraphrasing: "Reason #2: Trump's J6 behavior gave democrats a cudgel to hammer him with". Not the actual behavior itself, just the fact that it makes Trump weaker, politically. Faschy af. I'm still racking my brains to understand what the secret appeal of fascism is to the libertarian crowd. Part of it's the strongman thing ("rugged individualism"), I think. All three of my Uber drivers in Seattle were differing versions of nonwhite pro-Trump immigrants. It's a global thing (and apparently Latinos in the Rio Grande valley). But I also think MAGA has been successfully packaged as anti-regulation, but that's simply not true. The fact that many libertarians are in no way bothered by the Roe repeal says a lot. Sorry, I think most libertarians are simply conservatives who don't want the stigma they've rightly sensed exists towards the conservative movement. Conversely, I will tell you I'm a socialist, even though I know there's a stigma. I think the stigma is almost completely misplaced, and (seems to be a theme) based on lies and misunderstandings. So if anyone, including 1mg, you, a hypothetical someone named Cruz-Shapiro, or my dad, who is currently veryyyyyy indignant that I am planning to leave America, wants to tear me a new one, that's fine. Personal attacks don't bother me almost at all anymore in the face of ongoing institutional sabotage. I dunno. Bigger fish to fry. edit: not at all saying you're attacking me, to be clear, just that I'm sorry, babybl00, I'll always love you. No /s.
Rhetorical question: are there any editorial boards that aren't shit, that haven't been shit since William Randolph Hearst was giving his mistress' clitoris pet names or before? I would argue that the WSJ editorial board at least has moral clarity: they are evil and make no bones about it. The NYT editorial board, on the other hand, is evil but pretends to be good. They are concern-trolling us into totalitarianism. You have to convince Democrats to vote Democratic. Their default is dudgeon and outrage with the party on their voter registration, with the organization that fundraises off of them, that when they vote, they vote for without fail. On the other hand, you have to convince Republicans not to vote Republican - they'll toe the party line and absolve their guy of any crime and if they have any misgivings they'll secretly not vote. This has had the effect of peeling support away from the Democrats as they've drifted to center, and the effect of peeling the Republicans away from the center as they've become more and more criminal. The reason you're confused is that in your head, "support the candidate" is subordinate to "candidate has earned support." In the Republican mind, "support the candidate" is a fundamental underpinning of the Republican identity. "I'm not voting for the candidate" in Republican-speak is equivalent to "I support fascism" in Democrat-speak. This is why the Jan 6 Committee stuff is so important: They're trying to change the definition of Republican. Nobody has ever accused anyone else of being a "democrat in name only" - Republicans fight all the time about who has the conch, who holds the scepter, who speaks for the tribe. This is why the Republicans became a fascism buffet the minute Trump had the nomination, and why Ted Cruz sat there phone-banking like a lapdog for a man who said his dad shot Kennedy and called his wife ugly. Democrats value the ability to put forth logical, empathetic policies. Republicans value winners. LOL the two most important beliefs of libertarianism are (1) "no one can tell me what to do" (2) "I don't have to care about anyone else." If you're a white male, the fundamental outcome of Republican fascism is to make things a fuckton worse for non-white non-males. nothing wierd about that in the liberal mindset, justifications are the logical underpinnings of the belief. In the conservative mindset, justifications are the backstop that allows you to stop thinking about it. "I like money, Republicans like money, therefore anything a Republican says about money is true." Prior to William F. Buckley the conservative mindset supported a welfare state because it forced the government to deal with the Poors, thereby permitting captains of industry to get their industry on. (1) "no one can tell me what to do" (I demonstrably lack a uterus) (2) "I don't have to care about anyone else" (the uterine class is not my problem) NIH estimates that 6.2% of the population could be clinically diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The PRRI polling above indicates that 7% of the population is libertarian. Is that a false correlation? mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmayyyyyyybe? does it feel truthy thoLOL sorry to shoehorn this in, I read the first two paragraphs of a WSJ op-ed today (I don't give them money anymore)
Paraphrasing: "Reason #2: Trump's J6 behavior gave democrats a cudgel to hammer him with". Not the actual behavior itself, just the fact that it makes Trump weaker, politically. Faschy af.
I'm still racking my brains to understand what the secret appeal of fascism is to the libertarian crowd
All three of my Uber drivers in Seattle were differing versions of nonwhite pro-Trump immigrants. It's a global thing (and apparently Latinos in the Rio Grande valley).
But I also think MAGA has been successfully packaged as anti-regulation, but that's simply not true.
The fact that many libertarians are in no way bothered by the Roe repeal says a lot.
Sorry, I think most libertarians are simply conservatives who don't want the stigma they've rightly sensed exists towards the conservative movement.
The "lesser of two evil" establishment dems seem plenty narcissistic, to be fair. Not really the base, the peeps at the top. Wonder where the new guy went? Hmm
Every court rejected the claims based on lack of evidence, including judges appointed by Trump himself. Trumps's own AG Barr said his claims were bullshit as did Rosen who replaced him. Trump then tried to get Pence to reject the electors, and freaked when he wouldn't block the democratic transfer of power. Trump lost the election, and tried to stay President. You can cruise conservative sites to justify your weak-minded membership to the cult of personality of an undemocratic orange ass clown grifter, but in the world of things as they are, that shit you eat stinks to high heaven. Trump told them to march to the Capitol. Fuck off and welcome back if you manage to break the spell.
Careful bro, these levels of vitriol could finally grow the hubski userbase. E N G A G E M E N T R E T E N T I O N P R O F I T M A R K B U T N O T T H E B A D M A R K, I M E A N