I don't think it'll be a popular opinion amongst the people that I tend to chat with, but I actually wanted the Democrats to lose the last election so they can win more elections.
I didn't want them to lose because they necessarily have to lose because I'm a Republican partisan, but because the Republicans absolutely destroyed themselves after 2007, and that led to the Obama presidency as well as a supermajority in the Senate and a healthy majority in Congress.
That destruction ended up leading to a period where they were trying to figure out a new way to be that was actually going to win the elections again, and eventually that led to Donald Trump, who is far palatable than the neocon strategy of the George W. Bush era.
I have a sneaking suspicion that they all know what's about to happen now, and what I had hoped would happen back in 2020 just took a few more years to play out -- they know that they're about to get their shit packed in, and in the same way that the Republican party was schizophrenic for a while there because they couldn't figure out a winning formula, the Democrats just don't have a winning formula. They're going to keep on trying different things until they find something that sticks, and as much as everyone thinks that it would be something that worked in the past -- woke environmentalism was a winning strategy in 2007, but it isn't 2007 anymore and woke environmentalism has run its course just as neoconservativism had been a winning strategy but had also run its course.
Woke environmentalism will of course continue to exist, (Nikki Haley is still in government for example) but it isn't going to be the same driving force it was, something new and more palatable will become the thing. What will it be? No idea yet. But if we're being totally honest, I think that there's a lot of stuff on the progressive side of things that can still draw voters without pissing them off. If you think about it, a lot of Republicans are using a lot of terminology from occupy Wall Street before it went woke, so I think that there's a lot of Andy corporate stuff that they could step up to. Of course that doesn't look real right now because woke environmentalists are the establishment, but if Trump drains the swamp like he's saying he's going to then it could be that by the time the next generation of democrat strategy comes to pass it will be against an establishment that is largely Trumpian.
It doesn't feel possible in the moment that people could possibly want to go back to the democrats, but on the other hand in 2008 for a lot of people it didn't feel like anyone could possibly ever want to support Republicans.
I didn't want them to lose because they necessarily have to lose because I'm a Republican partisan, but because the Republicans absolutely destroyed themselves after 2007, and that led to the Obama presidency as well as a supermajority in the Senate and a healthy majority in Congress.
That destruction ended up leading to a period where they were trying to figure out a new way to be that was actually going to win the elections again, and eventually that led to Donald Trump, who is far palatable than the neocon strategy of the George W. Bush era.
I have a sneaking suspicion that they all know what's about to happen now, and what I had hoped would happen back in 2020 just took a few more years to play out -- they know that they're about to get their shit packed in, and in the same way that the Republican party was schizophrenic for a while there because they couldn't figure out a winning formula, the Democrats just don't have a winning formula. They're going to keep on trying different things until they find something that sticks, and as much as everyone thinks that it would be something that worked in the past -- woke environmentalism was a winning strategy in 2007, but it isn't 2007 anymore and woke environmentalism has run its course just as neoconservativism had been a winning strategy but had also run its course.
Woke environmentalism will of course continue to exist, (Nikki Haley is still in government for example) but it isn't going to be the same driving force it was, something new and more palatable will become the thing. What will it be? No idea yet. But if we're being totally honest, I think that there's a lot of stuff on the progressive side of things that can still draw voters without pissing them off. If you think about it, a lot of Republicans are using a lot of terminology from occupy Wall Street before it went woke, so I think that there's a lot of Andy corporate stuff that they could step up to. Of course that doesn't look real right now because woke environmentalists are the establishment, but if Trump drains the swamp like he's saying he's going to then it could be that by the time the next generation of democrat strategy comes to pass it will be against an establishment that is largely Trumpian.
It doesn't feel possible in the moment that people could possibly want to go back to the democrats, but on the other hand in 2008 for a lot of people it didn't feel like anyone could possibly ever want to support Republicans.
[Admin Mode] just did a quick reboot of the relevant stuff, requiring a change to DNS.
You do have to be careful of slaynews as a source. It's obviously got a very specific agenda they're pushing so even if they say things you like you have to triple check everything from them.
Probably because they have to pretend that they weren't lying out of their asses literally 4 days ago.
I've been really finding that almost all the western movies and music I consume are over 10 years old.
And you might go "Oh, well you're just getting old and you like the nostalgia", but a lot of it I've never seen before!
Not to mention, stuff not out of the west I'm enjoying weekly. It's just the Hollywood system that's failing to produce anything I want to watch.
(I guess there's been a very small number of examples of good stuff made in the past 10 years I watched and enjoyed, but not many, and they sort of prove that it isn't like I'm dogmatically avoiding western media made in the past 10 years)
And you might go "Oh, well you're just getting old and you like the nostalgia", but a lot of it I've never seen before!
Not to mention, stuff not out of the west I'm enjoying weekly. It's just the Hollywood system that's failing to produce anything I want to watch.
(I guess there's been a very small number of examples of good stuff made in the past 10 years I watched and enjoyed, but not many, and they sort of prove that it isn't like I'm dogmatically avoiding western media made in the past 10 years)
There's a big thing: You need ID to buy booze, or cigarettes, or to get a bank account, or to drive a car -- there's lots of things you need ID for.
Is the hypothesis that these supposedly disenfranchised voters live the lives of amish monks?
Is the hypothesis that these supposedly disenfranchised voters live the lives of amish monks?
Drm-free media is worth a premium imo
Of course, since that often isn't an option, people often get it at a steep 100% discount.
Of course, since that often isn't an option, people often get it at a steep 100% discount.
I'd like to see a short about what the meetings were like. "look! There's a roof someone could shoot our principal from!" "Hmmm.. yes, but anyone who tries to shoot the president will know were just as good as the men so they'd never try to shoot from such an obvious spot." "Gadzooks you're right! How could I be so foolish?!"
I told my 2 year old that Joe had dropped out and endorsed Kamala and he said "That seems like a highly suspicious decision. Clearly she only got 2% of the vote in the primaries in 2020, she simply isn't electable and everyone knows it. I wonder if this is a strategic decision whereby the Democrats will essentially throw Kamala Harris into the volcano proverbially speaking so they don't damage the credibility of any candidates with any chance of winning 2028?"
My prediction is "historic loss".
This isn't because of her gender or skin color, it's because she's insufferable and incompetent and without a demented old man to hide behind the media's noodly arms are simply not capable of carrying that much water.
This isn't because of her gender or skin color, it's because she's insufferable and incompetent and without a demented old man to hide behind the media's noodly arms are simply not capable of carrying that much water.
A lot of people say something along the lines of "If you have a gut feeling that something's wrong, it probably is".
Problem is you can't come into a courtroom with a gut feeling, you need evidence. If past instances were any indication, we'll probably find out the truth after it's completely impotent to know.
Problem is you can't come into a courtroom with a gut feeling, you need evidence. If past instances were any indication, we'll probably find out the truth after it's completely impotent to know.
You're right, and I think both parties need to be held to account a lot more for what they do in that regard. They wait until they're no longer in power to introduce legislation then blame the other party for not passing it when they had the capacity to pass it often just a few years prior.
I think we can also further break it down to two more questions, subjective and objective, and look at the points of view as right brained vs. left brained.
The objective question of "was the election actually legitimate" goes to whether the action of overturning an election is right or wrong. Overturning a legitimate election would be wrong regardless of your personal viewpoint, and not overturning an illegitimate election would be right regardless of your personal viewpoint.
But the subjective question of "Did Trump think the election was actually legitimate" goes to whether his part in doing so would be tyrannical or not. If he honestly believed that the election had been illegitimate, then even if he's wrong he's not being tyrannical to push back against it, and if he honestly didn't believe that the election had been illegitimate, then he's tyrannical to push back against it even if it did turn out to be illegitimate.
At this point, I do think that the election of 2020 was legitimate insofar as the election itself was generally properly handled, but in the moment I had questions of my own, and part of those questions were reasonable given the illegal and unethical methods we'd seen used throughout the Trump presidency and in particular during 2020. I think the thing that won the 2020 election was the establishment media attack machine more than anything, but that's unfortunately legitimate and legal and not a reason to overturn anything. I do think that Trump thought he was doing the right thing, however even if he was wrong, making it a good thing he ultimately failed to overturn the election.
There was lots of circumstantial evidence, that just didn't end up translating into real evidence of wrongdoing. Some of the circumstantial evidence was really damning, such as election workers caught on tape saying some really bad things or the photo of an election observer using binoculars.
There are two parts of the brain, one of them being logical and the other one being emotional. Circumstantial evidence is not persuasive to the logical part of the brain, but it can be extremely persuasive to the emotional part of the brain. And there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that something weird was going on with the 2020 election. For example, changing the way that the election was done at the last second, the severe disconnect between the number of people at Trump rallies compared to Biden rallies, videos showing election officials saying really questionable things, the photograph of an election observer being forced to use binoculars to observe, not to mention the overwhelming piece of circumstantial evidence that was the summer of Love riots which were actively assisted by the Democratic establishment. Now none of these will hold up in court because they don't actually prove anything. They are entirely logically inconsistent with anything going wrong. However, emotionally they set off all kinds of alarm bells. Now myself being a more logical person, ultimately I do need to have the real evidence of wrongdoing to say something happened. Donald Trump doesn't strike me as a logical person, he strikes me as extremely emotional. I think that's part of his appeal. That's also why he often says things that are factually wrong, because he's an emotional guy and he's appealing to emotion. (By the way, that's not a justification for saying stuff that's false, it's just an explanation of it.) so for an extremely emotional guy like him, I think that the circumstantial evidence is more than enough to convince him conclusively that there were shenanigans in the elections, so it probably was a sincerely held belief on his part regardless of whether that was objectively the case.
"The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" is a book by psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist, published in 2009. The book explores the differences between the two hemispheres of the brain. The right hemisphere is referred to in the book as the "Master," it is responsible for holistic thinking, context, empathy, and an understanding of the broader picture. It is more connected to the real, lived experience and the embodied world. The left hemisphere is referred to as the "Emissary," it specializes in analytical thinking, language, abstraction, and breaking things down into parts. It deals with details, categorization, and is more focused on manipulation of the world rather than experiencing it.
From a left-brained perspective, the election wasn't stolen because there was no evidence of it being directly stolen in the moments of 2020, but from a right brained perspective the election was stolen from 2016 onwards, and the stolen election only got worse as time went on because the will of the people that had voted for Donald Trump had been subverted by forces that thought that they knew better.
From a right-brained perspective, the lack of specific evidence for a specific part of the narrative doesn't disprove the narrative because there's overwhelming evidence from a holistic standpoint including overwhelming evidence of lawlessness from the Democrats leading up to the election, as well as open pronouncements from many people that they're going to do whatever it takes to beat Trump presumably including fraud or criminal activity.
Western society is extremely right brained, and there's a good reason for that: autistic right-brained viewpoints have built some of the most powerful weapons and technologies the human race has ever seen. The thing is, that doesn't make it dominantly correct, it's just one of two worldviews. So the right brain can say that the election wasn't stolen, and the left brain can say that it was, and in spite of the fact that they're saying opposite things, they are both within their own purview correct.
Now some people might say "but obviously the facts and figures brain is more correct", and that's exactly the attitude of the left brain, since of of the traits of the left brain is it thinks it's the smarter side of the brain. In reality, the holistic part of the brain often realizes things before the analytical part of the brain. That's why the dominant ideologies for most of human history were holistic religions heavy on symbolism and light on facts and figures and analytical data.
One obvious problem with this whole analysis is that taking right brain analysis and trying to stuff it into a left brain legal system just isn't going to work, and it didn't work and rightfully so. Much like someone who brings their car to an auto mechanic and starts demanding certain mechanical procedures get done because they know that there's a problem but they don't know really what problem or how to fix it, Trump continuing to insist on using the specific legal remedies for problems that obviously existed but would probably not be resolved by the tools he was hoping to use, he was never going to get the outcome he wanted. On the other hand, he's not a lawyer he's a real estate magnate. An auto mechanic would have a better idea of how certain tools would work in certain situations, and a lawyer would work better in certain situations as well. While some of Trump's advisors did tell him that there was no chance of these tools working, some very well-established and respected lawyers told him they could work.
The objective question of "was the election actually legitimate" goes to whether the action of overturning an election is right or wrong. Overturning a legitimate election would be wrong regardless of your personal viewpoint, and not overturning an illegitimate election would be right regardless of your personal viewpoint.
But the subjective question of "Did Trump think the election was actually legitimate" goes to whether his part in doing so would be tyrannical or not. If he honestly believed that the election had been illegitimate, then even if he's wrong he's not being tyrannical to push back against it, and if he honestly didn't believe that the election had been illegitimate, then he's tyrannical to push back against it even if it did turn out to be illegitimate.
At this point, I do think that the election of 2020 was legitimate insofar as the election itself was generally properly handled, but in the moment I had questions of my own, and part of those questions were reasonable given the illegal and unethical methods we'd seen used throughout the Trump presidency and in particular during 2020. I think the thing that won the 2020 election was the establishment media attack machine more than anything, but that's unfortunately legitimate and legal and not a reason to overturn anything. I do think that Trump thought he was doing the right thing, however even if he was wrong, making it a good thing he ultimately failed to overturn the election.
There was lots of circumstantial evidence, that just didn't end up translating into real evidence of wrongdoing. Some of the circumstantial evidence was really damning, such as election workers caught on tape saying some really bad things or the photo of an election observer using binoculars.
There are two parts of the brain, one of them being logical and the other one being emotional. Circumstantial evidence is not persuasive to the logical part of the brain, but it can be extremely persuasive to the emotional part of the brain. And there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that something weird was going on with the 2020 election. For example, changing the way that the election was done at the last second, the severe disconnect between the number of people at Trump rallies compared to Biden rallies, videos showing election officials saying really questionable things, the photograph of an election observer being forced to use binoculars to observe, not to mention the overwhelming piece of circumstantial evidence that was the summer of Love riots which were actively assisted by the Democratic establishment. Now none of these will hold up in court because they don't actually prove anything. They are entirely logically inconsistent with anything going wrong. However, emotionally they set off all kinds of alarm bells. Now myself being a more logical person, ultimately I do need to have the real evidence of wrongdoing to say something happened. Donald Trump doesn't strike me as a logical person, he strikes me as extremely emotional. I think that's part of his appeal. That's also why he often says things that are factually wrong, because he's an emotional guy and he's appealing to emotion. (By the way, that's not a justification for saying stuff that's false, it's just an explanation of it.) so for an extremely emotional guy like him, I think that the circumstantial evidence is more than enough to convince him conclusively that there were shenanigans in the elections, so it probably was a sincerely held belief on his part regardless of whether that was objectively the case.
"The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" is a book by psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist, published in 2009. The book explores the differences between the two hemispheres of the brain. The right hemisphere is referred to in the book as the "Master," it is responsible for holistic thinking, context, empathy, and an understanding of the broader picture. It is more connected to the real, lived experience and the embodied world. The left hemisphere is referred to as the "Emissary," it specializes in analytical thinking, language, abstraction, and breaking things down into parts. It deals with details, categorization, and is more focused on manipulation of the world rather than experiencing it.
From a left-brained perspective, the election wasn't stolen because there was no evidence of it being directly stolen in the moments of 2020, but from a right brained perspective the election was stolen from 2016 onwards, and the stolen election only got worse as time went on because the will of the people that had voted for Donald Trump had been subverted by forces that thought that they knew better.
From a right-brained perspective, the lack of specific evidence for a specific part of the narrative doesn't disprove the narrative because there's overwhelming evidence from a holistic standpoint including overwhelming evidence of lawlessness from the Democrats leading up to the election, as well as open pronouncements from many people that they're going to do whatever it takes to beat Trump presumably including fraud or criminal activity.
Western society is extremely right brained, and there's a good reason for that: autistic right-brained viewpoints have built some of the most powerful weapons and technologies the human race has ever seen. The thing is, that doesn't make it dominantly correct, it's just one of two worldviews. So the right brain can say that the election wasn't stolen, and the left brain can say that it was, and in spite of the fact that they're saying opposite things, they are both within their own purview correct.
Now some people might say "but obviously the facts and figures brain is more correct", and that's exactly the attitude of the left brain, since of of the traits of the left brain is it thinks it's the smarter side of the brain. In reality, the holistic part of the brain often realizes things before the analytical part of the brain. That's why the dominant ideologies for most of human history were holistic religions heavy on symbolism and light on facts and figures and analytical data.
One obvious problem with this whole analysis is that taking right brain analysis and trying to stuff it into a left brain legal system just isn't going to work, and it didn't work and rightfully so. Much like someone who brings their car to an auto mechanic and starts demanding certain mechanical procedures get done because they know that there's a problem but they don't know really what problem or how to fix it, Trump continuing to insist on using the specific legal remedies for problems that obviously existed but would probably not be resolved by the tools he was hoping to use, he was never going to get the outcome he wanted. On the other hand, he's not a lawyer he's a real estate magnate. An auto mechanic would have a better idea of how certain tools would work in certain situations, and a lawyer would work better in certain situations as well. While some of Trump's advisors did tell him that there was no chance of these tools working, some very well-established and respected lawyers told him they could work.