Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[laughing dog]

Number of hours worked for one week’s groceries. Lower today than a year or two years ago.
View attachment 48253

Can you afford more groceries, supplies, and utilities now than you could before covid?

As a matter of fact, I can.

 

[Elixir]

Number of hours worked for one week’s groceries. Lower today than a year or two years ago.
View attachment 48253

Can you afford more groceries, supplies, and utilities now than you could before covid?

As a matter of fact, I can.

Yeah me too.
The very plain graph illustrates that that is the case for most Americans.
My financial condition has actually improved more since Trump lost than it ever did during his administration. Thanks for asking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

Just because they can't prove they actually cooperated doesn't really change things. Russia acted to aid The Felon even if they didn't sit down and work out a plan with his campaign people. How can you sit back and not have a problem with this?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed

I think Trump is a very sick and damaged human being, whose “beliefs” follow the track of whatever it would be best for him to “believe”. Reality plays little if any part of it.

You're assuming he has beliefs at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a problem with it because it's not something happening in isolation.

We currently have a fairly significant problem with homelessness in many parts of the US

And he's going to help? He has no answer other than locking them up.

We have increased inflationary pressures with 20% to 25% increases in food and utilities over the last five years

We should have had about 10% over that time. Expected inflation is a lot less harmful than deflation and thus the Fed aims to keep out of deflationary territory when there's a downturn. 2% is the margin they need to do this under normal conditions. So we got 10-15% from the supply chain shocks of Covid and the Ukraine war. And note that the utilities are because Putin decided to stick it in the meat grinder.

And, locally, we have the electric company warning that approving the solar initiative on the ballot would cause rates to rise--the measure passed, the rates rose, people are screaming about it. (Fundamentally, the value of renewables to the grid is only the fuel cost, not the end-to-end cost. But the electric market is priced on an end cost and thus a huge subsidy to rooftop solar.)

We have skyrocketing rents and a serious lack of affordable housing

And you think The Felon is going to do anything about it? It looks like it was price fixing by a third party, I haven't heard of a resolution to the situation. You think The Felon would do anything about landlords listening to the recommendation of an advisor???

We have steadily increasing costs for health care

Healthcare is going up in every developed nation. That's not a matter of government policy. The Felon's messing with the ACA did cause my premiums to jump one year, though.

Allowing a large influx of people who will be directly competing with our own citizens for those jobs and those homes amplifies the negative effects on americans - and in my opinion, americans should take precedence.

You realize population decline causes far more harm than some immigrants?

As far as what should happen? Deny them entry while they await their case. The vast majority of them are not going to win their asylum pleas because they are not being persecuted. They're coming from areas with high poverty and high crime, and none of that qualifies them for asylum. But by the time their cases actually get heard, they'll be established, and the argument is going to shift gears to "oh, it's not nice to deport them, they've been here for a decade! We need to give them amnesty!" When in truth, they should never have been granted entry in the first place.

You realize that "high crime" often means gangs that won't take no for an answer? And note that we have such a backlog because the Republicans have been underfunding the immigration system for a long time?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe both the Bush and Obama administrations indirectly contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and the destabilization that followed created fertile ground for extremist groups, while the Obama administration's handling of the Syrian conflict and limited intervention contributed to the chaos ISIS exploited.

As for Trump, he's using his typical rhetoric, where he blames Democrats for any negative outcome. I don’t think he genuinely believes Obama literally started ISIS, but he likely believes Obama's handling of the Middle East contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to emerge. While that’s only part of the story, since factors from both the Bush and Obama administrations played a role, Trump simplifies it to blame the Democrats. Do you have any evidence that shows he doesn’t think it was solely the Democrats’ fault? Even if you have proof, isn’t it still fair to call the argument that Obama is solely responsible for ISIS complete bullshit?

ISIS arose because Iran funded it.

 

[Emily Lake]

You’re fixated on the word “unhinged,” as if it only means mental instability, when I’m using it to describe Trump as clearly agitated and upset. His rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading, even if it’s just hyperbole. So no, calling him unhinged is not a mischaracterization. Do you honestly think Trump is calm and composed?

When I said he doesn’t literally believe Obama started ISIS, I was clarifying my stance—distancing it from the way you framed it. That wasn’t part of my original point; I corrected your interpretation to align with the argument I’m making. Trump said Obama “founded” ISIS, which is clearly false, and even when you try to dig deeper for a metaphorical meaning as you put it, it’s still utter nonsense. You even agreed his metaphorical statement is not true. The issue isn’t whether his statement was metaphorical; it’s that what he says is complete nonsense, and he genuinely believes it (metaphorically maybe).

You're right - I am fixated on the rhetoric being used, and the impact that rhetoric has. That's my entire point.

You point out that Trump's rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading - I don't disagree. But the rhetoric coming from the left is also purposefully harmful and misleading. It's easy for you (and others here) to recognize the potential consequences of Trump's language choices and his characterization of Harris and democrats in general. But almost nobody here seems capable of recognizing the potential consequences of things like "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" and "Trump has declared he'll be a dictator starting on day one" and "Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation" and similar sentiments.

Look, the majority of people on IIDB who post in politics are staunch progressives. Some are merely liberals, but they're overwhelmingly democrats. That's fine. But give that we're all supposedly intelligent people who value reason, we ought to be able to identify and recognize the bullshit coming from inside the house too.

 

[laughing dog]

You’re fixated on the word “unhinged,” as if it only means mental instability, when I’m using it to describe Trump as clearly agitated and upset. His rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading, even if it’s just hyperbole. So no, calling him unhinged is not a mischaracterization. Do you honestly think Trump is calm and composed?

When I said he doesn’t literally believe Obama started ISIS, I was clarifying my stance—distancing it from the way you framed it. That wasn’t part of my original point; I corrected your interpretation to align with the argument I’m making. Trump said Obama “founded” ISIS, which is clearly false, and even when you try to dig deeper for a metaphorical meaning as you put it, it’s still utter nonsense. You even agreed his metaphorical statement is not true. The issue isn’t whether his statement was metaphorical; it’s that what he says is complete nonsense, and he genuinely believes it (metaphorically maybe).

You're right - I am fixated on the rhetoric being used, and the impact that rhetoric has. That's my entire point.

You point out that Trump's rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading - I don't disagree. But the rhetoric coming from the left is also purposefully harmful and misleading. It's easy for you (and others here) to recognize the potential consequences of Trump's language choices and his characterization of Harris and democrats in general. But almost nobody here seems capable of recognizing the potential consequences of things like "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" and "Trump has declared he'll be a dictator starting on day one" and "Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation" and similar sentiments.

Look, the majority of people on IIDB who post in politics are staunch progressives. Some are merely liberals, but they're overwhelmingly democrats. That's fine. But give that we're all supposedly intelligent people who value reason, we ought to be able to identify and recognize the bullshit coming from inside the house too.

What you seem to miss is that bullshit from Trump outweighs and out stinks the bullshit from the left both in quantity and quality. You sound like McConnell and Johnson whining about Harris calling Trump a fascist while keeping silent about Trump's pumping up of the violent right.

 

[Emily Lake]

Claim: Calling for the Termination of the U.S. Constitution
Statement: In December 2022, Trump posted on Truth Social: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."
Reality: Legal experts and politicians from both parties condemned this statement. The U.S. Constitution provides the foundational legal framework of the nation, and there's no provision for its termination due to claims of fraud.
Explanation: Advocating for the suspension of the Constitution is unprecedented and poses a direct challenge to the rule of law.

Trump meant that metaphorically right Emily?

Source in case Trumpologist's ask for one.
View attachment 48259

No, not metaphorically. But I do think there is an alternative way to read it.

You (and others) are reading it as: Because we had a massive fraud of this type and magnitude, we should throw out all rules, regulations, and articles including the constitution.

An alternative reading is: If we allow a massive fraud of this type and magnitude to stand, it will allow the fraudsters to throw out all rules, regulations, and articles including the constitution.

Please note that neither of these readings implies that I think there was any fraud at all - I don't. The point is that people read into it what they want it to say. Those who oppose Trump will read it the first way - as him trying to justify tossing the constitution out the window. Those who support him will read it the second way - as him warning of the threat to the constitution from democrats.

Those few of us who don't have a hyper-partisan perspective are likely to acknowledge that it could be interpreted in various different ways, heavily biased by the beliefs of the reader. I think he probably intended it more like the second reading - it makes more sense within the context of the post, particularly in light of the reference to our founders in the last line. That doesn't mean I agree with the statement, it's nothing more than sifting through the plethora of potential interpretations, comparing them to the rest of the context, and making a guess as to what an average person would have meant had they said the same words.

It's a matter of trying to avoid assuming the worst possible intentions, as well as the best possible intentions. Unlike most of you here, I don't assume that Trump is the atheistic version of the antichrist, hellbent on destroying the planet and enslaving humanity so he can cackle on a throne made of human skulls. I am capable of acknowledging that he's a businessman - complete with all of the tactics that come along with that. He's been a successful businessman for a long time, so he's not a complete moron. And what so many of you have forgotten is that throughout the majority of his life he was a registered Democrat and supported democratic policies. He's also a bullshit artist and a braggart. I think he's horribly embarrassing, and would rather not have THAT be the person in charge of the US.

 

[Elixir]

the rhetoric coming from the left is also purposefully harmful and misleading. It's easy for you (and others here) to recognize the potential consequences of Trump's language choices and his characterization of Harris and democrats in general. But almost nobody here seems capable of recognizing the potential consequences of things like "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" and "Trump has declared he'll be a dictator starting on day one" and "Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation"

The problem with your problem is that denying or ignoring the facts that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and has declared he'll be a dictator on day one, and that Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation, doesn’t help us avoid the fact that Trump US an existential threat to democracy or keep Republicans from setting up a fascist nation (see Project 2025) or letting Trump be a dictator on day one…
The BIG difference that Emily wants to sweep under the rug, is that those accusations are spot-on and Trump’s counter accusations of all those same about things are lies.
It’s all more of the same “No puppet no puppet YOU’RE the puppet!!
And yes, he’s still Pootey’s puppet.

 

[Gospel]

You’re fixated on the word “unhinged,” as if it only means mental instability, when I’m using it to describe Trump as clearly agitated and upset. His rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading, even if it’s just hyperbole. So no, calling him unhinged is not a mischaracterization. Do you honestly think Trump is calm and composed?

When I said he doesn’t literally believe Obama started ISIS, I was clarifying my stance—distancing it from the way you framed it. That wasn’t part of my original point; I corrected your interpretation to align with the argument I’m making. Trump said Obama “founded” ISIS, which is clearly false, and even when you try to dig deeper for a metaphorical meaning as you put it, it’s still utter nonsense. You even agreed his metaphorical statement is not true. The issue isn’t whether his statement was metaphorical; it’s that what he says is complete nonsense, and he genuinely believes it (metaphorically maybe).

You're right - I am fixated on the rhetoric being used, and the impact that rhetoric has. That's my entire point.

You point out that Trump's rhetoric is purposefully harmful and misleading - I don't disagree. But the rhetoric coming from the left is also purposefully harmful and misleading. It's easy for you (and others here) to recognize the potential consequences of Trump's language choices and his characterization of Harris and democrats in general. But almost nobody here seems capable of recognizing the potential consequences of things like "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" and "Trump has declared he'll be a dictator starting on day one" and "Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation" and similar sentiments.

Look, the majority of people on IIDB who post in politics are staunch progressives. Some are merely liberals, but they're overwhelmingly democrats. That's fine. But give that we're all supposedly intelligent people who value reason, we ought to be able to identify and recognize the bullshit coming from inside the house too.

I understand your concerns about the rhetoric and I share those concerns, however it's unfair to assume I'm contributing to that without basis. My goal isn’t to reinforce extreme statements but to discuss specific points. The political makeup of the forum has nothing to do with my arguments.

Here are a few examples I could find within a reasonable time frame that come fairly close to reflecting your perspective on the rhetoric.
https://iidb.org/threads/trump-falls-hurt-too.28530/post-1199688
https://iidb.org/threads/trump-falls-hurt-too.28530/post-1217729
https://iidb.org/threads/trump-falls-hurt-too.28530/post-1217734

Post in thread 'Trump falls!! Hurt too'

Sep 17, 2024

In my opinion, this isn't like Kennedy's assassination, where there was still room for bipartisan unity after a leader’s death. It’s more comparable to Lincoln’s, which had severe consequences by intensifying the already existing instability. What Democrats should focus on is Trump himself. Say what you will about him— I may not like it, but it’s far better than lumping in his supporters. Broad statements about his base, true or not, should be avoided to not participate in the division.

• Gospel

• 

I try to avoid the groupthink that often surrounds political debates of late—'the Dems,' 'the Repubs,' and so on—unless I’m deliberately trying to be humorous.

 

[Emily Lake]

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.

Just because they can't prove they actually cooperated doesn't really change things. Russia acted to aid The Felon even if they didn't sit down and work out a plan with his campaign people. How can you sit back and not have a problem with this?!

Who said I don't have a problem with it? I have a very big problem with Russia, and with their interference and meddling. I have a very big problem with China for the same reason.

Benefiting from a third party's actions is not the same as being complicit with those actions. If they were synonymous, then you'd have to accept that all white people in the US are racists no matter what because we have benefited from historical policies that disadvantaged black people. And you'd have to accept that all men in the US are sexists no matter what, because you have benefited from historical policies that disadvantage women.

I don't hold all white people accountable for things done by our distant ancestors. I don't hold all men accountable for discriminatory policies and laws of the past.

 

[Gospel]

Please note that neither of these readings implies that I think there was any fraud at all - I don't. The point is that people read into it what they want it to say. Those who oppose Trump will read it the first way - as him trying to justify tossing the constitution out the window. Those who support him will read it the second way - as him warning of the threat to the constitution from democrats.

My point is that, no matter how it's interpreted, both interpretations are nonsense—and there is no evidence that Trump doesn't buy into it.

 

[Emily Lake]

What you seem to miss is that bullshit from Trump outweighs and out stinks the bullshit from the left both in quantity and quality. You sound like McConnell and Johnson whining about Harris calling Trump a fascist while keeping silent about Trump's pumping up of the violent right.

I don't miss that fact, LD. I simply don't see any rational need to take out of context and/or hyperbolize Trump's statements and actions to try to make them seem even worse. They're already bad.

If the left has to trump up Trump's badness so egregiously, it makes it seem like it's crying wolf. He's already bad enough that nobody should have to exaggerate it.

Once again: For all of the die-hard republicans who don't past here, the same goes for you twats - you don't have to exaggerate and take out of context what Harris says in order to make your point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They can hunt down us liberals and get a pardon from the orange Jesus. They could be very dangerous.

I'm sure that statements like this couldn't possibly antagonize anything, nor could it ever be a concern that it might incite violence.

Gee, let’s not talk about the guy who antagonizes everyone, with the actual apparent and demonstrated outcome and stated intent to incite violence, hunt down and execute his political enemies, silence his critics … AND IS SEEKING THE ABILITY TO DO SO WITH IMPUNITY …
Yeah sure Emily. Talking about THAT might be inflammatory!!

Here's the deal - Trump says inflammatory things, absolutely.

He incited a riot to try and overthrow an election.

Much more recently, Trump boastfully lied on nationalized television during a Presidential debate about legal immigrants in Ohio that led to harassment in that city. Trump boastfully lied about FEMA aid and statements made by the Georgia Governor to him (with complicity of Elon Musk), that helped lead to militants trying to hijack relief efforts in North Carolina and awashed the area in ridiculously outrageous conspiracy theories.

"Say inflammatory things" doesn't quite capture the issue with Trump here.

Harris and Democratic politicians don't need to say inflammatory things - they've got all of their slavering lapdogs ready and willing to say inflammatory things on their behalf. At best, it provides some degree of plausible deniability to them.

Their statements aren't a call to arms. They are a call to the polls. The risk is real.

 

[Elixir]

I simply don't see any rational need to take out of context and/or hyperbolize Trump's statements and actions to try to make them seem even worse.

What you really “don’t see” is that the facts are, that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and has declared he'll be a dictator on day one, and that Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation, and that is NOT HYPERBOLIC.
Those are the facts and there’s no other way of stating them without soft pedaling, prevaricating, denying or outright lying about them.
So you should stop it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you seem to miss is that bullshit from Trump outweighs and out stinks the bullshit from the left both in quantity and quality. You sound like McConnell and Johnson whining about Harris calling Trump a fascist while keeping silent about Trump's pumping up of the violent right.

I don't miss that fact, LD. I simply don't see any rational need to take out of context and/or hyperbolize Trump's statements and actions to try to make them seem even worse. They're already bad.

If the left has to trump up Trump's badness so egregiously, it makes it seem like it's crying wolf. He's already bad enough that nobody should have to exaggerate it.

Once again: For all of the die-hard republicans who don't past here, the same goes for you twats - you don't have to exaggerate and take out of context what Harris says in order to make your point.

This is a frightening hybrid of Moore-Coulter and Gaslighting.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem with your problem is that denying or ignoring the facts that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and has declared he'll be a dictator on day one, and that Republicans are trying to set up a fascist nation, doesn’t help us avoid the fact that Trump US an existential threat to democracy or keep Republicans from setting up a fascist nation (see Project 2025) or letting Trump be a dictator on day one…
The BIG difference that Emily wants to sweep under the rug, is that those accusations are spot-on and Trump’s counter accusations of all those same about things are lies.
It’s all more of the same “No puppet no puppet YOU’RE the puppet!!
And yes, he’s still Pootey’s puppet.

So let's walk through your post.

1) "existential threat" Do you actually know what that means, or does it just sound like a good rallying cry to you? An existential threat is literally a threat to our entire existence. It's the possibility of a massive asteroid strike causing an extinction event that takes humans out of the running completely. If you truly and genuinely believe that Trump being elected is going to cause the entire US to cease existing completely... then is there a limit to what you would do to prevent that? What is out of bounds if you actually believe Trump is going to make the US no longer be a nation?

Or is this just a fancy-sounding phrase that you've heard repeated over and over by "your side" so you parrot it without thought?

2) "dictator on day one" is another bit of intentional propaganda that you're repeating.

“Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked Trump in the interview taped in Davenport, Iowa on Tuesday.

“Except for day one,” Trump responded. Trump said on the “day one” he referred to, he would use his presidential powers to close the southern border with Mexico and expand oil drilling.

Trump then repeated his assertion. “I love this guy,” he said of the Fox News host. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

Left leaning media latched on to this and reframed it and fed it to you with a cherry on top. So now you dutifully repeat it, saying that Trump vows" to be a dictator "on day one".

3) Republicans are trying to set up a "fascist nation". Again, same as with "existential threat", and also calling anybody and everybody a nazi. It's hyperbolic rhetoric that you've been fed, and that you repeat over and over.

It is my opinion that you're thoughtlessly regurgitating the talking points you've been handed, because in some way they resonate with your own views.

And here's my question: If you actually, genuinely, completely believe that Trump being elected is an actual literal existential threat that will result in the US no longer being a country, that Trump will actually literally be a dictator, and that Republicans are actually literally going to set up an actual literal fascist nation... What are you prepared to do about it?

If you actually believe the things you say, and you're not just being a mouthpiece passing along catchy phrases... are you going to sit idly by if Trump wins the election?

 

[Elixir]

This is a frightening hybrid of Moore-Coulter and Gaslighting.

Perfectly described.
Emily knows what she’s s doing. I try not to ascribe to malice that which cluelessness is sufficient to explain. But absent any ability to tell us the difference between the TRUTH and the statement “Trump is an existential threat to democracy”, and her resorting to accusations of hyperbole, malice rises to the top of possible explanations.

 

[Emily Lake]

I understand your concerns about the rhetoric and I share those concerns, however it's unfair to assume I'm contributing to that without basis.

To be fair, you just sort of wandered through and caught some cross fire. I don't generally view you as taking part in extreme rhetoric. Most of my general complaint was intended for others.