I'm skeptical. That seems like a small demographic to explain a difference in polling, and I'm wondering how much reach an online movement like QAnon would have on folks who barely go into town. If you haven't been participating much in society in general, what are the odds you'd be active on Facebook or 4chan?
Conservatism has been molded to mimic Trump's ideology. Just as it had been molded into Reagan's in the 1980s and Eisenhower's in the 1950s. It will change again
To me at least, there's one significant thing that distinguishes Eisenhower from Reagan and Trump: he warned everyone about the existence of the military-industrial complex and made a call to keep that thing in check. I respect that. Some may dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, but there's enough academic literature on the subject, from credible journals, that suggest otherwise. Ideologically, I could not be further apart from someone like Eisenhower, we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But I give him credit for speaking out against the military-industrial complex. He didn't have to warn people about it, but he did it anyway. It wasn't part of some electoral strategy, since he was leaving office.
There's a funny anecdote going around... apparently an aspiring GOP politician from Pennsylvania, Dean Browning, said that as a "black gay man," Obama had done nothing for him, while his life had only gotten better under Trump.
Dean Browning is white.
He later claimed he was merely quoting an actual gay black man, but it looks like Dean Browning has been using a fake account to post on Twitter, but forgot to log out of his main account before posting today. Folks suspect that the alt account is "Dan Purdy," which often replies to Browning's real account.
There's a funny anecdote going around... apparently an aspiring GOP politician from Pennsylvania, Dean Browning, said that as a "black gay man," Obama had done nothing for him, while his life had only gotten better under Trump.
Dean Browning is white.
He later claimed he was merely quoting an actual gay black man, but it looks like Dean Browning has been using a fake account to post on Twitter, but forgot to log out of his main account before posting today. Folks suspect that the alt account is "Dan Purdy," which often replies to Browning's real account.
The amount of what is called "copy pasta" that takes place on Twitter at this point is completely off the rails. I can't count the number of accounts I've seen that basically say the same thing, with a picture of a black man and a handle that has 12 numbers after it.
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
There was a time, maybe 15 years ago that 15 or 16 of the last 18 FDA directors came from a major pharmaceutical company or left the FDA to a major pharmaceutical company or Monsanto. The FDA is a pawn of the thing they are supposed to be regulating. Usless imo. Take soybean crops for example, it is amazing what Monsanto did to push all soybean crops through their greedy little fingers. Yeah, maybe Monsanto is no more but it would be childishly ignorant in the extreme to think that Bayer has any more scruples than they did. Pharma is not our friend, scary that they have a stranglehold on the world today because of the pandemic. Lobbyists, strangle the entire breed and see what we can do without them. Kay don't strange them, that would be awful, but eliminate the hold they have on our government. We can do better, we can and I hope we will, it won't happen when the few are dictating the lives of everyone else. I like free market but somewhere along we really stepped on our private parts to give them so much control.
North Dakota is now literally out of hospital beds, and our Republican Governor was recently reelected with 70% of the vote. His solution is to let COVID-19 positive healthcare workers keep working, because there is no other choice left. There aren't enough beds, and there aren't enough nurses to handle the load. My relative isolation in my apartment is about to become total again. Back to ordering groceries online and having them delivered.
Just read a stupid thing on my news feed about who was the smartest president. I don't believe it and it just encourages me to doubt what I read even more. Acording to the bs article one president stood head and shoulders above the rest, John Quincy Adams 175. Not arguing that he was not smart, don't know anything about him really, just saying that there is no way the rest were not smarter than they were! I struggle just to take care of myself and my IQ is 164 or 172 depending on which test is given. Love how they just throw things out there and expect people to believe what they say. I am NOT smarter than Lincoln, or any of the rest of them. Just saying, people can claim anything, we don't have to believe it. Why can't people see that just because you read it online doesn't make it true? How can they possibly know what George Washington's IQ was? Someone will believe it as fact though. Like election fraud. I am ashamed of what we have become.
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Just read a stupid thing on my news feed about who was the smartest president. I don't believe it and it just encourages me to doubt what I read even more. Acording to the bs article one president stood head and shoulders above the rest, John Quincy Adams 175. Not arguing that he was not smart, don't know anything about him really, just saying that there is no way the rest were not smarter than they were! I struggle just to take care of myself and my IQ is 164 or 172 depending on which test is given. Love how they just throw things out there and expect people to believe what they say. I am NOT smarter than Lincoln, or any of the rest of them. Just saying, people can claim anything, we don't have to believe it. Why can't people see that just because you read it online doesn't make it true? How can they possibly know what George Washington's IQ was? Someone will believe it as fact though. Like election fraud. I am ashamed of what we have become.
Possibly this is a narrative some are pushing just because John Quincy Adams won the disputed election in 1824 without winning the popular vote or the electoral college. So it’s natural that supporters of a certain individual might wish to have his name circulating a little more. I’ve seen an uptick in mentions of that election from Democrats who were nervous about legal challenges, electors etc. as well.
It's impossible to overstate just how much they KNOW everything they are throwing out to the public right now is bullshit. These are horrible people, evil people. But when it gets in front of a judge, they literally can't even explain why they are there or what they are even alleging:
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Even more recently in Kansas 2012, Sam Brownback attempted something along these lines - no taxes, no regulation.
Serious question: is an obvious attempt to overthrow the results of an election any less worrying or nefarious because the people attempting to do so are incompetent and may not succeed?? Because I don't see how the answer to that question is anything but an emphatic "no". Are we only supposed to be concerned about coup attempts that are 100% certain to be successful?? If that's the case then what would be the point at all??
Whether Trump and the Republicans are serious OR successful doesn't seem to me to matter a hell of a lot. What they are clearly projecting to the public right now is EXACTLY what the alarmists have been saying for what, months, years at this point?? That it doesn't matter what the results are, we get to win. The fact that Joe Biden is almost certainly going to be sworn in on January 20 does NOT change the fact that the GOP is now fully embracing the idea of overturning the will of the voters. The CLEAR will of the voters.
Serious question: is an obvious attempt to overthrow the results of an election any less worrying or nefarious because the people attempting to do so are incompetent and may not succeed?? Because I don't see how the answer to that question is anything but an emphatic "no". Are we only supposed to be concerned about coup attempts that are 100% certain to be successful?? If that's the case then what would be the point at all??
Whether Trump and the Republicans are serious OR successful doesn't seem to me to matter a hell of a lot. What they are clearly projecting to the public right now is EXACTLY what the alarmists have been saying for what, months, years at this point?? That it doesn't matter what the results are, we get to win. The fact that Joe Biden is almost certainly going to be sworn in on January 20 does NOT change the fact that the GOP is now fully embracing the idea of overturning the will of the voters. The CLEAR will of the voters.
Wait 'till Biden passes the next Covid stimulus package. You're going to see hysterics and doomsday predictions from every Republican in Congress. Trump isn't going away either. He'll be screaming for his supporters to grab their pitchforks at every arena he's allowed to speak in. You heard it here first...
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Even more recently in Kansas 2012, Sam Brownback attempted something along these lines - no taxes, no regulation.
They can have a recount in Wisconsin, but they have to pay for it. Last indication was they don't wanna pony-up the 3 million dollars. They are going to do a hand recount in GA. They are not entitled to one in PA. No recount has ever changed more than a few hundred votes. They'd need to net THOUSANDS. And yes, every Trump fundraising email about election fraud now includes a disclaimer that 50% of any money sent in will be going to retire campaign debt. It's a grift to the end. At this point, I could care less if his people are getting scammed. They've been warned about him countless times. It's on them.
It's also worth mentioning that Jill Stein's pointless, bullshit (also grifting) recount in WI in 2016 did nothing to stop the transition or reflect on the narrative of who actually won the race.
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Even more recently in Kansas 2012, Sam Brownback attempted something along these lines - no taxes, no regulation.
As a native Kansan, you'd think I'd already be aware of that.
I think 'most' people are unaware of 'most' things the government is doing. The focus of both parties on a scant few explosive issues blurs all the rest of the bad (and good) things they are doing.
They can have a recount in Wisconsin, but they have to pay for it. Last indication was they don't wanna pony-up the 3 million dollars. They are going to do a hand recount in GA. They are not entitled to one in PA. No recount has ever changed more than a few hundred votes. They'd need to net THOUSANDS. And yes, every Trump fundraising email about election fraud now includes a disclaimer that 50% of any money sent in will be going to retire campaign debt. It's a grift to the end. At this point, I could care less if his people are getting scammed. They've been warned about him countless times. It's on them.
It's also worth mentioning that Jill Stein's pointless, bullshit (also grifting) recount in WI in 2016 did nothing to stop the transition or reflect on the narrative of who actually won the race.
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Even more recently in Kansas 2012, Sam Brownback attempted something along these lines - no taxes, no regulation.
As a native Kansan, you'd think I'd already be aware of that.
I think 'most' people are unaware of 'most' things the government is doing. The focus of both parties on a scant few explosive issues blurs all the rest of the bad (and good) things they are doing.
I've honestly completely ignored local politics until 3-4 months into Trump's presidency.
So, to speak in more abstract terms, aside from the elections issue, I'm against free markets because I believe that markets should be regulated, in order to guarantee two things: quality control and tax revenue. Regarding the former, I don't believe there should be, for example, an unregulated food market, without any kind of quality control. You can argue that the FDA or any equivalent organization in other countries is flawed in one way or another. Sure, but it principle there should be some way to ensure that what you're eating has passed certain health checks. At least that's how I see it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Even more recently in Kansas 2012, Sam Brownback attempted something along these lines - no taxes, no regulation.
As a native Kansan, you'd think I'd already be aware of that.
I think 'most' people are unaware of 'most' things the government is doing. The focus of both parties on a scant few explosive issues blurs all the rest of the bad (and good) things they are doing.
I've honestly completely ignored local politics until 3-4 months into Trump's presidency.
It used to be much safer to do so. I remember thinking John Major and George Bush were as bad as it got.
I think what we're learning from the Trump team's 0-12 efforts in the courts and John Robert's comments in the case about the ACA, is that judges REALLY don't like having their time wasted on nonsense. Some of then may have ideological beliefs, but those seem to be superceded by lawyers actively trying to insult their intelligence.
The vaccine may be around the corner, but these last couple months are basically going to be a slaughter. There is no way the healthcare systems in these rural states can hold another week at this point. His citizens are dying and the current President is wallowing in his own private misfortune. The harshest lesson of all in this election was learning just how many citizens do not give a fuck about this at all. If Trump just decided to nuke Saskatchewan tomorrow, he wouldn't lose a single additional voter.
Comments
To me at least, there's one significant thing that distinguishes Eisenhower from Reagan and Trump: he warned everyone about the existence of the military-industrial complex and made a call to keep that thing in check. I respect that. Some may dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, but there's enough academic literature on the subject, from credible journals, that suggest otherwise. Ideologically, I could not be further apart from someone like Eisenhower, we're on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But I give him credit for speaking out against the military-industrial complex. He didn't have to warn people about it, but he did it anyway. It wasn't part of some electoral strategy, since he was leaving office.
Dean Browning is white.
He later claimed he was merely quoting an actual gay black man, but it looks like Dean Browning has been using a fake account to post on Twitter, but forgot to log out of his main account before posting today. Folks suspect that the alt account is "Dan Purdy," which often replies to Browning's real account.
The amount of what is called "copy pasta" that takes place on Twitter at this point is completely off the rails. I can't count the number of accounts I've seen that basically say the same thing, with a picture of a black man and a handle that has 12 numbers after it.
On the issue of tax revenue, I know that some hardcore free market advocates don't believe in any kind of taxes. Ok, but the money for funding, say, public roads, has to come from somewhere. This is where the discussion can reach a dead end if the other person argues that roads should be private. To me that would be highly impractical, if not impossible.
The free market thing should (should, not is) be an easy argument to make. We had one not too long ago in terms of nations' history. We had 12-16 hour works shifts standard, child labor, no safety guidelines or consequences or support for on the job death, and the best part, no guaranteed wages. A lot of companies liked to pay their employees in fun bux that could only be spent at company stores. You'd think all the proponents of a free market could just look back a hundred years...
Possibly this is a narrative some are pushing just because John Quincy Adams won the disputed election in 1824 without winning the popular vote or the electoral college. So it’s natural that supporters of a certain individual might wish to have his name circulating a little more. I’ve seen an uptick in mentions of that election from Democrats who were nervous about legal challenges, electors etc. as well.
Even more recently in Kansas 2012, Sam Brownback attempted something along these lines - no taxes, no regulation.
It was, wait for it, a spectacular failure.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/418768-kansas-voters-render-final-verdict-on-failed-tax-cut-experiment
Whether Trump and the Republicans are serious OR successful doesn't seem to me to matter a hell of a lot. What they are clearly projecting to the public right now is EXACTLY what the alarmists have been saying for what, months, years at this point?? That it doesn't matter what the results are, we get to win. The fact that Joe Biden is almost certainly going to be sworn in on January 20 does NOT change the fact that the GOP is now fully embracing the idea of overturning the will of the voters. The CLEAR will of the voters.
Wait 'till Biden passes the next Covid stimulus package. You're going to see hysterics and doomsday predictions from every Republican in Congress. Trump isn't going away either. He'll be screaming for his supporters to grab their pitchforks at every arena he's allowed to speak in. You heard it here first...
As a native Kansan, you'd think I'd already be aware of that.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-virus-outbreak-wisconsin-360784375a3fbaac6cc6cd3a5796ec33
Trump campaign is literally contesting election results to raise money to pay off debt
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-legal-defense-donations-debt/
What Trump said about recounts in Wisconsin in 2016,
It's also worth mentioning that Jill Stein's pointless, bullshit (also grifting) recount in WI in 2016 did nothing to stop the transition or reflect on the narrative of who actually won the race.
My favorite tweet of today so far:
I think 'most' people are unaware of 'most' things the government is doing. The focus of both parties on a scant few explosive issues blurs all the rest of the bad (and good) things they are doing.
I'm sure glad that the Republican Party is against frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasers. Oh, wait...
I've honestly completely ignored local politics until 3-4 months into Trump's presidency.
It used to be much safer to do so. I remember thinking John Major and George Bush were as bad as it got.
He was at Arlington today for Veterans Day.