Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Dimity]

Another thing I am sick of is people trying to normalize Trump.  I've heard people going well when the Dems are in the Republicans are mad and when the Republicans are in the Dems are mad.  Ok, sure.  Of course your party is never going to form the govt every single time and only Trump and his supporters disagree with this concept.  But that said Trump is not normal.  This is not just another election and life goes on when the dust settles.  I mean I really hope it is but let's be real, it's not.

[bluegirl147]

The media always normalizes him.  And they have no problem changing the narrative.  The lead up to the election they kept telling us voters cared about the economy.  Then Trump wins and now we hear voters were most concerned about crime.   Could it be the media knows Trump's economic plans will worsen the economy and want to champion his mass deportation plan as a way to curtail all this crime voters were suddenly concerned about?

[Is Everyone Gone]

I swear Trump just channel flips on tv and whoever says nice things about him on Fox and Friends gets a cabinet position.

[Dimity]

10 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

I swear Trump just channel flips on tv and whoever says nice things about him on Fox and Friends gets a cabinet position.

Whatever your opinion of Bush and the aftermath of 9/11 I just hope to god nothing similar happens while Trump and his poker buddies are in power because not one of them, so far, has any real depth to them that would enable them to deal with a real crisis that isn't McDonalds running out of Big Macs.

Edited November 20 by Dimity

[bluegirl147]

8 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Whatever your opinion of Bush and the aftermath of 9/11 I just hope to god nothing similar happens while Trump and his poker buddies are in power because not one of them, so far, has any real depth to them that would enable them to deal with a real crisis that isn't McDonalds running out of Big Macs.

We saw how he dealt with the pandemic.  And that was with some qualified people. 

[Makai]

3 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Dr. Phil may be next.  Another Oprah fiasco.  He was on team Trump.

Dr. Phil ended up taking back his endorsement. After the election, of course. 

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

So far there is at least two men accused of sexual misconduct right?  I'm beginning to think to work for Trump it's a requirement.

Four in total. Gaetz, Hegseth, Musk and Kennedy. 

[annzeepark914]

37 minutes ago, Makai said:

Four in total. Gaetz, Hegseth, Musk and Kennedy. 

The goal is to burn down America's democracy. And these are just the guys to get the satanic ball rolling. Dear God... please help us.

[Yeah No]

11 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I'm sorry, that might be one way, but it should not be only way. If someone is an asshole they should still be called out for it.

And I will call them out for it, even if it offends them.

And of course my favorite counterargument of theirs: "I'm not racist*, but you're racist for pointing out how racist I am!"

*or whatever they are

Who said calling them out for it is not acceptable? Of course it is, but if you want to make real change just calling them out is not enough. We have to reform the system that stacks things in their favor to make real change. And who cares if they get offended? I certainly don't! I don't get your response here. 

11 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

But you want us to be "tolerant" of that attitude.  For too long we let them chip away at Roe and here we are.  And according to Justice Thomas he thinks it's time to revisit some other rulings and rip them apart too.

It also doesn't help there is gerrymandering and voter suppression in a lot of these states. 

There are people no longer in my life because they were assholes about politics.  I am not someone who is going to go along to get along.

No, I'm just saying that you have to allow people their freedoms. How you feel about it is your business. Feeling intolerant and acting with intolerance are two different things. I feel intolerant to them too but I don't think it's right to strip them of their rights because of that any more than I would want them to strip me of mine. There is a difference between what one feels and how one acts based on that feeling. You can decide who your friends are, that's not my point. I'm talking about government allowing people their rights whether or not you agree with them - that kind of tolerance in action. I think a lot of people on the right are happy to see people they feel intolerant to lose some of their rights by changing laws but I don't want to be like them in return. I don't feel that would be right or in accordance with my democratic principles either. I don't want to descend to their level is what I mean. Just because they are acting undemocratically doesn't mean the solution is for me to do the same in return to stop them. I have to find legal and ethically consistent ways to do it.

My point is that the system is broken and is allowing people to take away rights that should not be taken away which should be protected by the constitution. I was talking with a friend today and threw out the crazy idea that we need to bring back the ERA but this time for everyone, including LGBTQ, women, minorities, the handicapped, etc. Obviously we need to specify these things or people with agendas to limit the rights of certain groups will find justifications to do so by interpreting the Constitution to suit their own ends. Unless we make it very clear that certain groups' rights are specifically protected, they will find ways to get around doing so. And I think that was why the ERA was proposed in the first place. I'm sure I'm not the first person to propose something like this, but lots of luck getting something like that passed now....The horse is already out of the barn now.

 

 

[Yeah No]

11 hours ago, Eri said:

I see what you are saying (truly), though I'd counter and ask how did their unbalanced power start to become the "majority rule?" You could argue this minority populace dismantled the checks and balances (via legislative and judiciary branches) of what a democracy *should* entail to do so in a legal, but very undemocratic fashion.

One possible solution to address this is to reintroduce civics courses back into our education system to prevent apathy and replenish civil engagement at the state and local levels so people understand how government works (or doesn't work) for them.

Given how there's already talks about dismantling the Department of Education, what then? There are many independent think tanks like the Heritage Foundation with the means and resources to influence and lobby their "rights" for them in ways that you or I ever could. 

Granted, the government doesn't have to listen to their suggestions but we're seeing checks and balances being eroded before our eyes. I agree that electoral reform does need to change, though look at the growing number of election deniers and conspiracy theorists now entering Congress. And once they dig their heels in, it's difficult to get them out because they prevent us from doing anything legally via voter restriction laws, gerrymandering districts, and other legal but unfair means.

The president now has absolute immunity from prosecution when carrying out "official acts." (since when did we need to give presidents authority like a king?) And as you mentioned, people willingly voted for someone whose campaign promises are based on doing very undemocratic things.

What else is there to conclude but that people are turning away from democracy in favor of something else (autocracy)?

I agree with you 100%. I hate to apply blame here but we the people let them get away with it. I don't really think people are being convinced into autocracy. I think they're being hoodwinked into it with big promises that got them to focus on the shiny object but miss the price they'd have to pay for it. I actually don't think that if they knew what they were really doing they would do it. I have at least that much faith in enough of the public to feel that if they weren't so misled and confused they would have seen the implications of voting for Trump.

I keep talking with friends about the lack of critical thinking today. A lot of people aren't learning this in school or in life somehow. I could blame the internet, social media our lifestyles, not reading enough, the education system, distracted parenting, you name it. I really don't know why it's happening but it is and it's dangerous. People are confused and being fed misinformation but don't know how to wade through the BS. Maybe we do need to bring back civics classes and other things that make people more aware of government and how it works and their parts in it. But you can lead a horse to water....So I don't know what the answer is.

Everyone talks about "low information voters" but it's true. I've already heard some stories of voter remorse among people that voted for Trump in this election. They didn't realize what it was going to mean until afterward. A lot of people didn't take Trump at his word about a lot of things during the campaign. Or they didn't find out about certain things he was saying he was going to do until after the election. And now they are shocked to find out what he's planning and wish they could take their votes back.

[EtheltoTillie]

28 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Who said calling them out for it is not acceptable? Of course it is, but if you want to make real change just calling them out is not enough. We have to reform the system that stacks things in their favor to make real change. And who cares if they get offended? I certainly don't! I don't get your response here. 

No, I'm just saying that you have to allow people their freedoms. How you feel about it is your business. Feeling intolerant and acting with intolerance are two different things. I feel intolerant to them too but I don't think it's right to strip them of their rights because of that any more than I would want them to strip me of mine. There is a difference between what one feels and how one acts based on that feeling. You can decide who your friends are, that's not my point. I'm talking about government allowing people their rights whether or not you agree with them - that kind of tolerance in action. I think a lot of people on the right are happy to see people they feel intolerant to lose some of their rights by changing laws but I don't want to be like them in return. I don't feel that would be right or in accordance with my democratic principles either. I don't want to descend to their level is what I mean. Just because they are acting undemocratically doesn't mean the solution is for me to do the same in return to stop them. I have to find legal and ethically consistent ways to do it.

My point is that the system is broken and is allowing people to take away rights that should not be taken away which should be protected by the constitution. I was talking with a friend today and threw out the crazy idea that we need to bring back the ERA but this time for everyone, including LGBTQ, women, minorities, the handicapped, etc. Obviously we need to specify these things or people with agendas to limit the rights of certain groups will find justifications to do so by interpreting the Constitution to suit their own ends. Unless we make it very clear that certain groups' rights are specifically protected, they will find ways to get around doing so. And I think that was why the ERA was proposed in the first place. I'm sure I'm not the first person to propose something like this, but lots of luck getting something like that passed now....The horse is already out of the barn now.

 

 

When the first ERA was out there, it was defeated by the same crap that worked this time. Bathrooms!  

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, Absolom said:

Simply passing commentary.  I'm weeks behind on TV watching.  As I begin to catch up, I'm catching bits of political ads as I FF through commercials.  I see Trump saying I will fight for you!  I will not cut Medicare!   I see Kamala (who I supported) saying words, words, words not punchy sound bites.  I prefer the words as having some substance.  30 to 50 per cent of the country only hears and retains the sound bites.  That's my simple view on the TV ad portion of the campaign.  They also tended to pound home that Kamala increased medicare premiums.  That's something she couldn't have influenced even if she'd wanted to do so.  

How are they going to feel when Medicare is completely privatized thanks to Oz and they can't find doctors to cover them on Advantage plans and more and more things they need aren't covered? They believe Trump at his word when this is likely the plan and what will happen if he gets his way. Idiots!

7 hours ago, kittykat said:

Oh man yes this needs to happen.  I just don't know how when the people it benefits the most are ones ruling the roost.  And our system was designed so that the minority would have a voice and not get shut down by majority rule but the pendulum has swung too far.

Banish the Electoral College, every state has equal representation through the Senate.  And honestly that is problematic too because the way the populace is allocated over half the senators are casting votes when they represent about 30% of the population.  Of course one just can't give extra votes to NY, CA or Texas.  But when the Senate is a huge roadblock to getting a law passed or a Court Justice confirmed it proves to be iffy on execution.

And yes it sucks that most of our elected officials, particularly Republican, seem to think shoving Abortion bans down our throat is the way. Pro Abortion Republicans could do the simple thing by helping to vote them out but most can't fathom marking down anyone just because there's a D next to their name so here we are. 

There are few exceptions: Kentucky is bright red but have a Democrat governor and both of Arizona's senators are Democrats too.  On the other side Virginia went blue and has a Republican governor.  I just wish there was more nuance in most of our voters instead of just down the party line voting.  

I agree with you 100! I used to be a supporter of the electoral college despite what happened in 2016 but I'm seeing now that the problem is not going away and unless it is changed, this is going to continue to happen and we're going to lose more of every right we have plus other horrors to the economy, the environment, our quality of lives, you name it. There was talk about this after Hillary lost but of course nothing came of it because the South and West keeps complaining that if we get rid of the EC only a few states will have any say in national elections. But it's not about geography, it's about what the majority wants and if that's the case the present system doesn't favor the majority. At the very least some changes should be made to how many electoral votes each state gets. If not abolish it altogether, change it to be fairer to the majority.

4 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

CNN; Tuesday November 19.

Trump transition co-chair Linda McMahon is expected to be named as secretary of the Department of Education, four sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The decision took shape after it became clear that McMahon would be passed over for Commerce secretary. President-elect Donald Trump named his other transition co-chair Howard Lutnick to lead the Commerce Department earlier Tuesday after the Cantor Fitzgerald CEO had thrown his name into the mix for Treasury secretary, sparking a battle with hedge fund manager Scott Bessent.

McMahon served as the administrator of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term. She was appointed in 2017 and resigned in 2019 to become the chair of America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC.

You'd think with all the scandals the McMahons have been in recently, this wouldn't be a consideration.

But here we fucking are

My head is reeling with these wackadoodle appointments. Linda McMahon ran in CT for senate but thankfully lost to Richard Blumenthal. She has scandals in her closet from her wrestling federation days. 

Something I saw coming with Trump is that he is more wacko now than he even was in 2016. He has more bravado and arrogance to do and appoint whatever and whoever he wants even if unqualified and full of scandals. He is definitely more autocratic than even back then. And he's also less rational and full of hatred for his enemies now and wants to get back at them. He's even more full of obvious lies if that can be imagined. But I really listened to him unlike so many other Americans. 🙁

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, partofme said:

The Republicans were already starting to do it with commercials during the campaign, they’re going to say oh we’re so sorry we have no choice but to cut Social Security/Medicare/ACA/etc, the Democrats bankrupted it by giving it all away to illegal aliens.   It will be lies, but the right wing media will repeat it constantly and the morons that vote Republican will believe it.  

And of coures they'll conveniently ignore that the GOP had full control of these programs and could've simply, y'know, fixed the issues that were there instead of cutting them. 

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

Everyone talks about "low information voters" but it's true. I've already heard some stories of voter remorse among people that voted for Trump in this election. They didn't realize what it was going to mean until afterward. A lot of people didn't take Trump at his word about a lot of things during the campaign. Or they didn't find out about certain things he was saying he was going to do until after the election. And now they are shocked to find out what he's planning and wish they could take their votes back.

I mean...*Shrugs* . At this point that's kind of on them. The bottom line is they still looked at a guy that violently tried to overthrow an election and decided he was worth voting for again. They've already seen how he behaved the first time around when he was in office, they saw the mess he left, and they still voted for him anyway. 

So, great if they feel remorse about it, but it's kind of hard for me to cheer them for it, 'cause literally everyone was trying to warn them ahead of time and we have plenty of evidence from his first time in office to show why he shouldn't be allowed back, and they just...ignored it. 

Like I've said before, it's amazing to me how the "do my own research" crowd can't ever seem to be bothered to do the research when it actually matters. If they can find the time to dig around and watch some YouTube conspiracy video, they can take five minutes to look at Harris' website and read up on her policy plans, or find a speech or interview with her. 

I definitely agree that algorithms and social media spreading misinformation is a huge part of the problem, but I also think that lets people off the hook too easily for just blindily believing every single thing they read and see online. When I was a teenager, I remember getting it drilled into my head that you had to be very careful on the internet and that there was a lot of stuff on there that would be sketchy and untrustworthy, and now here people are just believing every single thing they read and see online, no matter how questionable it might sound. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:47 AM by Annber03

[Eri]

5 hours ago, Annber03 said:

THSI. She (and Hilary, back in 2016) had to jump through hoops to be just the "right" kind of candidate, she had to be likeable and couldn't go wrong with what she said about anything and got intense scrutiny over her policy plans and so on and so forth. 

Meanwhile, Trump could insult vast swaths of people and be as racist and sexist and xenophobic as possible, he could get support from freaking neo-Nazis and KKK members, and spout off about "concepts of a plan" when it came to discussing policy...

...and that's okay. That's just Trump. No need to hold his feet to the fire for anything. 

The double standards are just beyond infuriating and I'm sick and tired of people acting like if Kamala just did this or that differently then she would've won. God forbid anyone who sat out the election or voted for Trump and his vile behaivor, or the media who gave Trump a pass on WAY too much shit, ever have to look at their own role in leading us to where we are. 

I feel that. In 25 years no one will remember the timing of when Biden dropped out. The media railed him about his age, him being past his prime and being unable to keep a sentence together, but Trump (another old white guy) gets a pass? Has anyone looked at ANY interviews he has had over the last 2 yrs? Of course not.  No one cares about the specifics. If they did, then Trump would've lost. 

Subbing in so late would've given Harris all the glory, but losing gives her all the blame and it's terribly unfortunate. Now the media wants to sell all these stories of how terrible Trump is for ratings, when they played a role in getting him elected. I will not give them the satisfaction 😒

Edited Wednesday at 05:48 AM by Eri

[Annber03]

4 minutes ago, Eri said:

Subbing in so late would've given Harris all the glory, but losing gives her all the blame and it's terribly unfortunate. Now the media wants to sell all these stories of how terrible Trump is for ratings, when they played a role in getting him elected. I will not give them the satisfaction 😒

The way the media's acting all breathless now like, 'OMG, you'll never guess who Trump's latest cabinet pick is!" Spare me, media. People's actual lives are at stake here, maybe try NOT playing this like a wacky circus and treat it like the actual horror show it genuinely is? 

And yeah, all summer all I heard was, "Biden's too old, Biden needs to get out", and then everyone who complained about that got their way and we got Kamala, and now, "Well, she needed more time to campaign, she didn't have enough time to connect with voters, she got a late start, etc."

Pick a fucking lane already, people, for the love of god. 

[Yeah No]

17 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

And of coures they'll conveniently ignore that the GOP had full control of these programs and could've simply, y'know, fixed the issues that were there instead of cutting them. 

I mean...*Shrugs* . At this point that's kind of on them. The bottom line is they still looked at a guy that violently tried to overthrow an election and decided he was worth voting for again. They've already seen how he behaved the first time around when he was in office, they saw the mess he left, and they still voted for him anyway. 

So, great if they feel remorse about it, but it's kind of hard for me to cheer them for it, 'cause literally everyone was trying to warn them ahead of time and we have plenty of evidence from his first time in office to show why he shouldn't be allowed back, and they just...ignored it. 

The thing is that today people are told that everything is a lie and nothing is real so they doubt facts and don't even know how to tell the difference between fact and BS. So they filter out the facts in favor of surface appearances and misleading appeals to their baser instincts and emotions. And that's dangerous and what I'm talking about with regard to a lack of critical thinking. If they are led to believe that everything is a ploy from "the other side" to smear Trump, they're going to filter out some really bad stuff about him in the process. And that's the way Trump has succeeded in making people ignore the big honking horrible things about him. If people can be hoodwinked into thinking that all those things said about him are lies spread by his opposition and not facts, they can ignore them and think everything is a conspiracy against him engineered by Democrats. But when Trump does something that negatively affects them in their pocketbook or whatever means a lot to them that they thought he was going to "fix" for them, then suddenly they wake up and have remorse about voting for him. Of course, no sympathy for them there. My gut reaction is, "How stupid and gullible can you BE?"

[Lantern7]

Two weeks later, I'm still hating myself for believing that evil could be thwarted. Yes, Kamala has baggage, but she was the sane pick. Most of the people who worked under the other guy supported her; never mind that they knew damn well they wouldn't be effective as the "adults in the room.” Taylor Swift support Kamala. I honestly thought a legion of Swifties would save America from itself. Nope . . . Trump wins, he's opening the Pandora's Box of pure tyranny, and we can do nothing but look on impotently from the sidelines, silently waiting for the other shoe to drop on us . . . either all together, or one at a time.

Why couldn't we get the Biden that delivered the State of the Union at the debate? Sure, he's old and approaching senility (if he's not there already), but so was Trump. Being louder and articulating his verbal diarrhea easier should not have made him an attractive candidate. Now we're stuck seeing that face and listening to that voice. We should recognize and admire Helen Keller, not envy her.

Edited Wednesday at 07:22 AM by Lantern7

[Avaleigh]

59 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

If they can find the time to dig around and watch some YouTube conspiracy video, they can take five minutes to look at Harris' website and read up on her policy plans, or find a speech or interview with her.

I think there are many people who, rightly or wrongly, assume that most politicians are liars and wouldn't necessarily trust the info from a candidate's speech or website. My guess is that there are a lot of people who go by what the people they trust have to say about politicians. There are also, of course, voters who are concerned about a handful of issues (or perhaps even a single issue) and that is enough to sway their vote whether or not they personally like candidate. Then there are the people who just go by a vibe the politician gives them. 

The number of people who are doing genuine research seems to get smaller with each election cycle.

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Something I saw coming with Trump is that he is more wacko now than he even was in 2016. He has more bravado and arrogance to do and appoint whatever and whoever he wants even if unqualified and full of scandals

I knew it would be worse this time around, but he's still managed to shock me with some of these picks. It's like he's trying to make the crowd gasp. He's putting on a show and trying to be as outrageous as possible because he's confident he'll get away with it. He wasn't that far off years ago when he said that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square or wherever and he wouldn't lose any votes. His supporters would just say it was a deep fake or he was set up or acting in self defense or whatever. It's cult like mentality and their leader can do no wrong in their eyes.

I mean, this guy can praise Hitler and still gain support among minority voters. The effect he has on people in terms of their willingness to see the best in him in spite of all proof that he's a despicable person is probably the craziest thing I've ever seen in my life.

When we get to the stage where he starts firing some of these inexplicable choices, his supporters will place the blame entirely on the cabinet members who got fired. He's never taken to task for not hiring "the very best people" even though he's always promising to do exactly that. The only thing he cares about in terms of his picks for his administration is whether or not these people will be loyal and say good things about him.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Lantern7 said:

Yes, Kamala has baggage, but she was the sane pick.

The Daily Show makes up campaign videos, and the one they did for Kamala was so on point I said she should buy the rights, as it boiled this election down to the fundamental:  She's just fucking normal, and he's so very not.

It's that simple, and the failure to act on that en masse is why I don't give a flying fuck about the nuances of why people voted for a bigoted, felonious insurrectionist, voted for a pointless third party candidate when that vote would only aid the bigoted, felonious insurrectionist, or declined to vote when that lack of a vote would only aid the bigoted, felonious insurrectionist.

She was for democracy, he was for autocracy.  Voters chose the latter.  And he's indeed running through the fascist playbook at breakneck speed before he even takes office.  We're all going to live with that, for generations, and some will die from it.

But, sure, let's continue to nitpick strategy and ask how we can understand and reach those dumbfucks among us rather than resisting.

Edited Wednesday at 08:02 AM by Bastet

[Lantern7]

On 11/18/2024 at 8:36 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I don't really remember Sean from his time on The Real World, but I do remember his wife and her season. She was on the San Francisco season with Pedro and Puck as the barely legal ingenue. I disliked her back then.

Nah, I think Cory (the blonde girl) was that season’s ingenue. I’m okay with dragging Rachel on account of her popping up on Fox News from time to time, appearing on the “And Now, This” segment of Last Week Tonight at least twice. She steps out of line, we show footage of her kissing Puck . . . and that might be the one thing grosser than Republicans felching their orange messiah, even if it’s just figuratively. Dude was that gross.

Once again, I hope that I’m not crossing lines.

ETA: That edition of The Real World aired thirty years ago. THIRTY.

Edited Wednesday at 10:19 PM by Lantern7

[PRgal]

14 hours ago, Dimity said:

I just do not understand the mentality of the average person who hears him braying on and on about tariffs and thinks that prices are going to go back to 1998 levels and all will be right with their little world.

And when they realize quite the opposite will happen, they’re going to lash out and complain….or will they?

[Palimelon]

Quote

Who said calling them out for it is not acceptable? Of course it is, but if you want to make real change just calling them out is not enough. We have to reform the system that stacks things in their favor to make real change. And who cares if they get offended? I certainly don't! I don't get your response here.

You can do both. You can reform the system as much as you want but people will still be saying offensive things regardless. And people should still be called out for saying such things. Reform isn’t just about changing laws.

Quote

The only thing he cares about in terms of his picks for his administration is whether or not these people will be loyal and say good things about him.

His cabinet picks seem like the result of a reality game show where the winners are determined by who can suck up to him the most now (nevermind what many of those same choices have said about him in the past).

Quote

And when they realize quite the opposite will happen, they’re going to lash out and complain….or will they?

They will complain, but it will somehow be the fault of immigrants, trans people, pronouns, socialism, the Deep State…take your pic. Any fault but his.

On another note, Happy Holidays y’all!

Edited Wednesday at 12:58 PM by Palimelon

[Yeah No]

5 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

Why couldn't we get the Biden that delivered the State of the Union at the debate? Sure, he's old and approaching senility (if he's not there already), but so was Trump. Being louder and articulating his verbal diarrhea easier should not have made him an attractive candidate. Now we're stuck seeing that face and listening to that voice. We should recognize and admire Helen Keller, not envy her.

I keep asking myself that question and right now I'm blaming whoever was scheduling Biden because they didn't take his age and physical condition into account and were overscheduling him, so he was tired and not at his best for some important appearances. My very-into politics friend told me that someone new was in that role so they don't doubt that maybe they didn't grasp the importance of not pushing him too hard. Of course he could have spoken up about it, but it looks like he was so driven and focused that he didn't want to face that fact. If he just could have slowed down a bit things might have turned out differently.

5 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I think there are many people who, rightly or wrongly, assume that most politicians are liars and wouldn't necessarily trust the info from a candidate's speech or website. My guess is that there are a lot of people who go by what the people they trust have to say about politicians. There are also, of course, voters who are concerned about a handful of issues (or perhaps even a single issue) and that is enough to sway their vote whether or not they personally like candidate. Then there are the people who just go by a vibe the politician gives them. 

The number of people who are doing genuine research seems to get smaller with each election cycle.

I agree. I also think some people think that if Trump is so popular he can't be all that bad or millions of people wouldn't be such ardent supporters. So they're engaging their own form of "sanewashing" with him. And when the media also sanewashes him it only makes some people think he's really not all those things the "angry left" says about him. 

And also to your point, if some people think all politicians are liars they filter out what might be a lie from Trump and just vote based on the biggest issue they think the person will solve for them. And Trump has some kind of reputation in their minds as being good for the economy based on their dim memories of his previous term. Meanwhile they're remembering things wrong or attributing things to him he was never responsible for. Or they're engaging in the fallacy that all the problems with the economy were Biden's and the Democrats' fault when it was really the fault of the pandemic. 

Also, some of those people that think all politicians are liars actually like Trump because he's not a politician and they think that makes him "more honest" by comparison. How they think that is beyond me but for sure they're buying into the propaganda coming from the right that he's the rogue that is going to put "the swamp" in its place and fight for the little guy. Yeah, right. 😏

5 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I knew it would be worse this time around, but he's still managed to shock me with some of these picks. It's like he's trying to make the crowd gasp. He's putting on a show and trying to be as outrageous as possible because he's confident he'll get away with it. He wasn't that far off years ago when he said that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square or wherever and he wouldn't lose any votes. His supporters would just say it was a deep fake or he was set up or acting in self defense or whatever. It's cult like mentality and their leader can do no wrong in their eyes.

I mean, this guy can praise Hitler and still gain support among minority voters. The effect he has on people in terms of their willingness to see the best in him in spite of all proof that he's a despicable person is probably the craziest thing I've ever seen in my life.

When we get to the stage where he starts firing some of these inexplicable choices, his supporters will place the blame entirely on the cabinet members who got fired. He's never taken to task for not hiring "the very best people" even though he's always promising to do exactly that. The only thing he cares about in terms of his picks for his administration is whether or not these people will be loyal and say good things about him.

The very relevant comparisons to Hitler continue to grow in front of our eyes but unfortunately because so many people have compared everything and everyone to Hitler, again, people can filter that out and say it's not fair to apply to Trump and it's all a conspiracy to put him down engineered by Democrats. This whole thing is very dangerous because if these people are that willing to believe this guy despite unbelievably overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our enemies will know that the American people can be brainwashed and that our Democracy can be overthrown as a result. And that is one of THE most dangerous things about Trump of all.

 

[Yeah No]

3 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

You can do both. You can reform the system as much as you want but people will still be saying offensive things regardless. And people should still be called out for saying such things. Reform isn’t just about changing laws.

Of course not, I never said we couldn't do both but what I was against is calling for censuring or penalizing people for speaking their minds in public even if it's offensive to you. That would violate their rights unless in the process they also violated your rights. But just calling them out on it is fine. 

[Palimelon]

How do you feel about hate speech legislation?

One could argue that is people speaking their minds in public.

Edited Wednesday at 01:11 PM by Palimelon

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I think there are many people who, rightly or wrongly, assume that most politicians are liars and wouldn't necessarily trust the info from a candidate's speech or website. My guess is that there are a lot of people who go by what the people they trust have to say about politicians. There are also, of course, voters who are concerned about a handful of issues (or perhaps even a single issue) and that is enough to sway their vote whether or not they personally like candidate. Then there are the people who just go by a vibe the politician gives them. 

The number of people who are doing genuine research seems to get smaller with each election cycle.

I get the whole 'people think politiicans are liars" thing, I'm just going by the people who kept saying "Well, I just don't know enough about Kamala" and using that as an excuse to not vote for her. There were plenty of ways to look up her policies and her history as a candidate and too many people just...refused to take it. Sure , they "knew" Trump in a way they didn't know much about Kamala, but he's also proven himself to be a total disaster...and they still decided to go for the disaster. All while talking about how we "need a change". 

Also, if they're distrustful of politicians, then why doesn't that ever apply to Trump? He's a politician now, too, is he not? 

Quote

He wasn't that far off years ago when he said that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square or wherever and he wouldn't lose any votes. His supporters would just say it was a deep fake or he was set up or acting in self defense or whatever. It's cult like mentality and their leader can do no wrong in their eyes.

He literally does not care that a supporter was shot and killed at one of his rallies. And his supporters still think he actually gives a damn about them. It's stunning. 

And yeah, I'm tired of people trying to brush off his crazy by saying, "Oh, you can't take everything he says and does seriously!" I dunoo, I'm kind of tired of playing "guess which crazy statement or idea Trump supports and what's just bluster." Especially since, y'know, he's also going to be in charge of foreign policy. We can't really afford to have a guy who's just going to make shit up on a whim and we have to guess how serious or not he is about what he's saying and wanting to do. 

[bluegirl147]

37 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

This whole thing is very dangerous because if these people are that willing to believe this guy despite unbelievably overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our enemies will know that the American people can be brainwashed and that our Democracy can be overthrown as a result. And that is one of THE most dangerous things about Trump of all.

 

The other countries already know this. This started in 2016 possibly before.  I grew up knowing Russia (and before that USSR) were not our friends.  I mean how many 80s movies did they that make showing us that? And now there is a whole bunch of Republicans who preferred Putin to Biden/Harris.  And of course we have Trump crushing on not just Putin but Kim and Orban and the guy in Turkey.  NATO countries notice that and listen to him say NATO countries are takers and think the US doesn't have their back anymore.  None of our enemies have to attack us. They are just going to sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[bluegirl147]

7 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

He literally does not care that a supporter was shot and killed at one of his rallies. And his supporters still think he actually gives a damn about them. It's stunning. 

There will be psychiatric textbooks written and college courses devoted to Trump and his supporters.  It is fascinating (in a serial killer kind of way) trying to figure out what makes a Trump supporter so enthralled with him.  If you look at cult leaders like David Koresh and Jim Jones their followers were so devoted they ended up dead even when given the chance to get out.  Sadly that has happened with some of Trump's followers.  Some died during Covid and now others will die because of the policies Trump will enact this time around.  Unfortunately it's not just his base who is going to be hurt.

[Dimity]

26 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Unfortunately it's not just his base who is going to be hurt.

In a horrible kind of way I could sit back and "enjoy" the show if all that was going to happen was that his base finally got their comeuppance. 

But the MAGA crowd will literally give up their social security and their medical care and their children's futures and still feel that Trump is their messiah.  The others, the ones who voted - or claimed to vote - because "it's the economy" are the ones who may, possibly, wake up and realize they've been taken in by a snake oil salesman. 

But these aren't the ones who are going to be really hurt, and we all know that - what makes me so angry is that these people -- every single one who voted for Trump or who pulled a Pontius Pilate and didn't vote at all -- don't give a damn about refugees, migrants, immigrants, women or any of the many marginalized groups that now have targets on their backs thanks to the rise of Fascism in your country.

[Anela]

7 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

Two weeks later, I'm still hating myself for believing that evil could be thwarted. Yes, Kamala has baggage, but she was the sane pick. Most of the people who worked under the other guy supported her; never mind that they knew damn well they wouldn't be effective as the "adults in the room.” Taylor Swift support Kamala. I honestly thought a legion of Swifties would save America from itself. Nope . . . Trump wins, he's opening the Pandora's Box of pure tyranny, and we can do nothing but look on impotently from the sidelines, silently waiting for the other shoe to drop on us . . . either all together, or one at a time.

Why couldn't we get the Biden that delivered the State of the Union at the debate? Sure, he's old and approaching senility (if he's not there already), but so was Trump. Being louder and articulating his verbal diarrhea easier should not have made him an attractive candidate. Now we're stuck seeing that face and listening to that voice. We should recognize and admire Helen Keller, not envy her.

I was hesitant, because of 2016, but I thought that rally in NYC, would do him in.  Stupidly forgetting that every rally was awful.  

18 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

There will be psychiatric textbooks written and college courses devoted to Trump and his supporters.  It is fascinating (in a serial killer kind of way) trying to figure out what makes a Trump supporter so enthralled with him.  If you look at cult leaders like David Koresh and Jim Jones their followers were so devoted they ended up dead even when given the chance to get out.  Sadly that has happened with some of Trump's followers.  Some died during Covid and now others will die because of the policies Trump will enact this time around.  Unfortunately it's not just his base who is going to be hurt.

Someone I really do not like, worships him. He said that he had tears in eyes, watching something, and it was a movie about trump? This is a guy who I am sure is with him for all hateful reasons.  I don’t think he believes in conspiracy theories, but he helps to push them.  But he genuinely adores this man, and I do not get it.  

January 2021, when I had next-door, someone posted a long post asking if we would take care of each other, if the lights went out.  The whole thing was a Qanon conspiracy, that trump would declare a national emergency, send out the national guard, and the power would go out. That he was going to do this for the good of the country. 
 

I was watching a few MAGA post on January 6th. They were excited, they were sure that the election wouldn’t be certified, and as the crowd walked to the Capitol, they were talking about something revolutionary happening.  Until it actually happened, and then there were screeches of, “antifa!” That one bad actor (literally), from Hercules, I think, had his posts put into meme form by someone.  

My iPad was giving me trouble. I can't always post a link, and the link option was messing up the whole page, when I tried to use it.

https://www.movieguide.org/say-what/pray-kevin-sorbo-live-tweets-capitol-riots.html

[bluegirl147]

5 minutes ago, Anela said:

January 2021, when I had next-door, someone posted a long post asking if we would take care of each other, if the lights went out.  The whole thing was a Qanon conspiracy, that trump would declare a national emergency, send out the national guard, and the power would go out. That he was going to do this for the good of the country. 

I had a coworker who had a sister who believed some black out was coming.  She told her brother he better be prepared.  She was in full prepper mode.  The day came and went when it was supposed to happen and didn't happen.  The sister never said another word about it.  I used to look at a crazy woman's  FB who between election day 2020 and inauguration day 2021 proclaim there was no way Biden was going to be inaugurated.  A guy said wanna bet.  She said yes and they bet $50.  Biden was in fact inaugurated and she refused to pay. Said it wasn't Biden. It was a  hologram.  These people will never admit they were wrong.

17 minutes ago, Dimity said:

But the MAGA crowd will literally give up their social security and their medical care and their children's futures and still feel that Trump is their messiah

They will gladly give it up if it means Trump puts all those "others" in their place.   People can claim it was the economy as the reason they voted for Trump. They can say they didn't like his talk and blah blah blah.  But their vote now gives him the power to do whatever the fuck he wants.  And that is not going to be lowering the price of eggs.

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Said it wasn't Biden. It was a  hologram.  These people will never admit they were wrong.

If I have learned nothing else in the last 8 years it is that there are a lot more stupid people out there than I ever realized.   This is not limited to the US - here in Canada the pandemic had the chronically stupid come crawling out of the woodwork. 

[Anela]

29 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I had a coworker who had a sister who believed some black out was coming.  She told her brother he better be prepared.  She was in full prepper mode.  The day came and went when it was supposed to happen and didn't happen.  The sister never said another word about it.  I used to look at a crazy woman's  FB who between election day 2020 and inauguration day 2021 proclaim there was no way Biden was going to be inaugurated.  A guy said wanna bet.  She said yes and they bet $50.  Biden was in fact inaugurated and she refused to pay. Said it wasn't Biden. It was a  hologram.  These people will never admit they were wrong.

They will gladly give it up if it means Trump puts all those "others" in their place.   People can claim it was the economy as the reason they voted for Trump. They can say they didn't like his talk and blah blah blah.  But their vote now gives him the power to do whatever the fuck he wants.  And that is not going to be lowering the price of eggs.

They were jokingly calling Biden, “President-elect” too.  Like it wasn’t real. 

I’ve just read that Texas offered Trump 1400 acres of land, to house some of the immigrants he rounds up. 😣 

I know we don’t get to freeze in place forever, but it’s surreal going onto instagram, seeing posts from Jessica Yellin, videos confirming that trump said he will declare a national emergency, and send the military out to pick up immigrants.  Emily in your phone, talking about what you can do to help with one thing, and then reels about the perfect sides for thanksgiving.  

Edited Wednesday at 03:12 PM by Anela

[PRgal]

29 minutes ago, Dimity said:

If I have learned nothing else in the last 8 years it is that there are a lot more stupid people out there than I ever realized.   This is not limited to the US - here in Canada the pandemic had the chronically stupid come crawling out of the woodwork. 

The chronically stupid come from both ends of the political spectrum. That's why we live in a much more polarized world now than in 2019.

[Dimity]

14 minutes ago, Anela said:

I know we don’t get to freeze in place forever, but it’s surreal going onto instagram, seeing posts from Jessica Yellin, videos confirming that trump said he will declare a national emergency, and send the military out to pick up immigrants.

They are using the term immigrant incorrectly, but quite deliberately.

[Anela]

3 minutes ago, Dimity said:

They are using the term immigrant incorrectly, but quite deliberately.

I know.  They are promising denaturalization, too. People who went through the process of becoming citizens, because they loved this country.  

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, Anela said:

I know.  They are promising denaturalization, too. People who went through the process of becoming citizens, because they loved this country.  

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Ohiopirate02]

16 minutes ago, Anela said:

I know.  They are promising denaturalization, too. People who went through the process of becoming citizens, because they loved this country.  

From what I have gathered so far, the first wave of people to get denaturalized would be those born in the US from "illegal" parents. I really don't know the criteria that will be used to differentiate those born from undocumented immigrants or non-citizen parents.

It's not going to be people born in another country who followed all of the byzantine rules to become citizens that are going to get denaturalized at least at first.

[bluegirl147]

45 minutes ago, Anela said:

I know we don’t get to freeze in place forever, but it’s surreal going onto instagram, seeing posts from Jessica Yellin, videos confirming that trump said he will declare a national emergency,

I think that comes from someone either asking him or posting about it on Truth Social and he answered truth.

46 minutes ago, Anela said:

 Emily in your phone, talking about what you can do to help with one thing, and then reels about the perfect sides for thanksgiving.

This drives me nuts. On my local news they will do a serious story about Trump (well as serious as it can be since it's a Sinclair station) and then in the next breath smile and say so what is your favorite pie for Thanksgiving.

24 minutes ago, Anela said:

I know.  They are promising denaturalization, too. People who went through the process of becoming citizens, because they loved this country.  

And doing away with birthright citizenship. Don't know if that would include people already citizens because of birthright citizenship.

As someone mentioned earlier the deportation process includes notifying the country of origin for the deportee.  They have to agree to have the person returned to their country.  What happens if a country says no?  Trump wants to deport millions of people. There is no way any country is going to agree to that.  And that scares me. Because Trump won't care where they end up. He just wants them no longer here.

[Dimity]

8 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Because Trump won't care where they end up. He just wants them no longer here.

And at the end of the day I don't know how much any of this will stop  migrants crossing the borders illegally.  They are still coming even now.   Many because they are being lied to about what will happen once they arrive but many others our of sheer desperation.

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, Dimity said:

but many others our of sheer desperation.

And that is something Trump and his base don't care about or realize.  It's why we don't have a lot of immigrants from to quote Trump "white countries". He used Norway as an example. He doesn't understand people in Norway and other European countries have good lives in their home countries. They have more opportunities and better safety net.  You could explain it to him like a toddler and he still wouldn't understand.

[Dimity]

Edited Wednesday at 05:18 PM by Dimity

[Anela]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

From what I have gathered so far, the first wave of people to get denaturalized would be those born in the US from "illegal" parents. I really don't know the criteria that will be used to differentiate those born from undocumented immigrants or non-citizen parents.

It's not going to be people born in another country who followed all of the byzantine rules to become citizens that are going to get denaturalized at least at first.

so, birthright citizenship.

[Anela]

A couple of weeks ago, one of the first things I saw was a trump judge striking down a ban that Biden put in place, that kept immigrant spouses and children or step-children, from being deported.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-strikes-down-bidens-program-shielding-immigrant-spouses-from-deportation

Quote

A federal judge on Thursday struck down a Biden administration policy that aimed to ease a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens.

The program, lauded as one of the biggest presidential actions to help immigrant families in years, allowed undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to apply for a green card without first having to leave the country.

The temporary relief from deportation brought a brief sense of security to some 500,000 immigrants estimated to benefit from the program before Texas-based U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker put it on hold in August, days after applicants filed their paperwork.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, Anela said:

so, birthright citizenship.

Yeah, they want to end birthright citizenship and strip it away from those they deem unworthy of it. But how they will figure out who is worthy of citizenship will be the issue. I really do not know how they will figure out who's parents were here "legally" versus who's parents are here "illegally" and if their plan includes provisions for one or both parents. It's also going to be a fun process when each state sets their own rules when it comes to the recording of live births. Of course they could simplify things by making the federal government record and track all of this data instead of the states, but that would go against the small government ideals of the Republican party and Trump's ideas of "draining the swamp" by gutting the federal government.

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, Anela said:

A couple of weeks ago, one of the first things I saw was a trump judge striking down a ban that Biden put in place, that kept immigrant spouses and children or step-children, from being deported.

The cruelty is the point. There are still children that were separated from their parents during Trump's first term that have not been reunited with their parents.  Because they didn't keep sufficient records of who was who.  And they don't care.  We have heard how he and his followers refer to immigrants.  I would say shame on them but they  have no shame.

[Anela]

3 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The cruelty is the point. There are still children that were separated from their parents during Trump's first term that have not been reunited with their parents.  Because they didn't keep sufficient records of who was who.  And they don't care.  We have heard how he and his followers refer to immigrants.  I would say shame on them but they  have no shame.

Yep.

I'm glad they aren't going to undo citizenship for those who went through everything. I can't believe I thought that, but you just never know. 

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Yeah, they want to end birthright citizenship and strip it away from those they deem unworthy of it. But how they will figure out who is worthy of citizenship will be the issue

If they can get away with it being as simple as skin color that is what they will do. People who think Trump wants to do this mass deportation because he wants to improve the job market for "American" workers are deluding themselves.  He wants white people to continue to be the majority in this country. He has told us over and over again how much of a racist he is and whether his base wants to admit or not that is his appeal to millions of people.

[fastiller]

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

If they can get away with it being as simple as skin color that is what they will do. People who think Trump wants to do this mass deportation because he wants to improve the job market for "American" workers are deluding themselves.  He wants white people to continue to be the majority in this country. He has told us over and over again how much of a racist he is and whether his base wants to admit or not that is his appeal to millions of people.

And they'll be astonished by just how expensive a plate of salad becomes.

[Anela]

I'm having nightmares about politics now, and I doubt they're going to end anytime soon.

 

[Dimity]

1 minute ago, fastiller said:

And they'll be astonished by just how expensive a plate of salad becomes.

They will force poorer white kids into a choice between military service or working on farms for a pittance.