Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Once Trump gets re-elected Scott Adams is getting a Kennedy Center honor!

It is Bukowski’s birthday.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

It is Bukowski’s birthday.

For Buk to get a Kennedy Center honor we’d need like Teddy Kennedy to become president.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Does Dogbert hate Mondays? I know Garfield sure does. But you know what Garfield loves? Lasagna. When I think back on my Garfield-reading days, sometimes I wonder why it is that the fact that Garfield loves lasagna is so funny that the entire plot of some 60-70% of the Garfield cartoons that I read back then is that Garfield loves lasagna. But those were simpler times, when it was universally acknowledged that a lasagna-eating cat was endlessly hilarious, and when it would have been unusual for someone to become so mad about the fact that the FBI took back classified nuclear documents stolen by an ex-president and kept in an unsecure location, that they would try to storm an FBI office alone and then commit suicide-by-cop.

Simpler times ….

Years ago someone took Garfield out of the cartoons. It was just Jon talking to himself and it was glorious.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Years ago someone took Garfield out of the cartoons. It was just Jon talking to himself and it was glorious.

https://garfieldminusgarfield.net

Genius.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

https://garfieldminusgarfield.net

Genius.

The two on this page are so good. Particularly the top one. So good. And so raw.

https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/page/7

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We'll never know why Trump took those records. People like to assume nefarious goals, but it's just as likely incompetence, arrogance (they're mine), and paranoia (they're confidential to me and my team alone), or all four combined.

I wouldn't assume we won't find out. This also could be a simple case of selling secrets to fund his next bigger and better insurrection. I mean, that a long and honored tradition for deposed despots.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I was apparently the fourth person to get in touch with my husband about it. He was stationed there in the early 90s, so he doesn't qualify. Thankfully, he does not have any cancers or other diseases.

He said that while they were there, the water issue was a known thing they used to joke about. The internet algorithms have figured out that he has some sort of connection there. He's been followed by the ads for a few weeks now.

I've gotten two robocalls about it. I have nothing at all to do with it.

Just realized there's a decent chance my FIL was there during the relevant time period.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is the best thing I have read in a while to explain why people like Adams act like they act and say what they say.

I don't think this is the best thing on the subject. The point it makes about Trumpism effectively being a new religion (he doesn't explicitly say that, but he clearly indicates that's what it is) is spot-on.

Noah Rothman recently did a book about progressivism being a "New Puritanism" and is all over the news on a book tour right now. I think he's improperly focusing on progressivism and should also cite Trumpism as a new form of fundamentalist religion. As the author of the piece you cited notes, Trump's guilt is immaterial. To get behind him is an act of faith, and faith is, like this definition or not, an act of self-delusion. One is choosing to put aside powers of reason and observation and believe in something that all but assuredly isn't and for which there's zero proof.

But other assessments are incorrect:

What makes this situation worse is that there is no remedy for it. When people are driven by fantasies, by resentment, by an internalized sense of inferiority, there is no redemption in anything. Winning elections, burning effigies, even shooting at other citizens does not soothe their anger but instead deepens the spiritual and moral void that haunts them.

It is only a portion of Trumpists, the own-the-libs and nativists, who fit this description. A significant portion of Trumpland I see in this purple state doesn't want to control others. I honestly don't think it gives a shit. It's people who want to be left alone. They have a strong independent streak and view Trump and the GOP as instruments to retain personal and local control. They don't like taxes, regs, or federal mandates on how their kids are schooled. They don't resent "elites" (they'd laugh at this author's suggestion they're jealous) and don't want to change laws. They just want to be left alone.

How big is this slice of Trumpland? I don't know. But I'd guess it's a healthy percentage.

My guess is these people dislike Trump about as much as anyone else. They just figure then enemy of my enemy is my friend.

. . .

Another point I'd note is, this author makes an error someone took me to task for making a couple weeks ago. I was joking with a moderate friend of mine that people who suspect the election was fixed are idiots and not worth addressing. I explained how an election cannot be rigged, as I have some first hand experience in how they're managed.

He asked me "Why is it invalid for a person on the right to despair over how the country is changing?" I defended that believing the election was fixed was failing to grasp basic facts. He and I have similar politics. He agreed with that but asserted the bias that allows for such suggestibility is valid. I had to admit I didn't have an response to the argument that a person feeling like his country is changing in ways he doesn't like isn't automatically disqualified form offering an opinion.

It is okay to see what's happening in the country and not like it.

That doesn't sound controversial. But then I considered how I'd replied to people with that position in the past. I'd call them knaves, Don Quixotes tilting at economic and demographic changes they've no prayer of stanching. Many others would reflexively call them bigots and racists. And those indictments certainly apply to many of them.

But again, abstractly, to lament or seek to stand athwart change is not an automatically invalid, or even deviant, position. It is, technically, a view that has a seat at the table. And I think the recent branding of conservatism as entirely deviant is fueling its degradation into right wing populism.

When a conservative says, just by way of example, "The border is too easily breached," the response should be, "Well, we tried to fix that with immigration reform, but by electing an extremist like Trump, the GOP screwed that up for everyone." The answer should not be, "That is a xenophobic perhaps racist view that deserves no reply."

Negation never works. It just pisses people off and convinces them that the issue really is binary, and their only choice is to pick a side in our dysfunctional political war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think this is the best thing on the subject. The point it makes about Trumpism effectively being a new religion (he doesn't explicitly say that, but he clearly indicates that's what it is) is spot-on.

Noah Rothman recently did a book about progressivism being a "New Puritanism" and is all over the news on a book tour right now. I think he's improperly focusing on progressivism and should also cite Trumpism as a new form of fundamentalist religion. As the author of the piece you cited notes, Trump's guilt is immaterial. To get behind him is an act of faith, and faith is, like this definition or not, an act of self-delusion. One is choosing to put aside powers of reason and observation and believe in something that all but assuredly isn't and for which there's zero proof.

But other assessments are incorrect:

What makes this situation worse is that there is no remedy for it. When people are driven by fantasies, by resentment, by an internalized sense of inferiority, there is no redemption in anything. Winning elections, burning effigies, even shooting at other citizens does not soothe their anger but instead deepens the spiritual and moral void that haunts them.

It is only a portion of Trumpists, the own-the-libs and nativists, who fit this description. A significant portion of Trumpland I see in this purple state doesn't want to control others. I honestly don't think it gives a shit. It's people who want to be left alone. They have a strong independent streak and view Trump and the GOP as instruments to retain personal and local control. They don't like taxes, regs, or federal mandates on how their kids are schooled. They don't resent "elites" (they'd laugh at this author's suggestion they're jealous) and don't want to change laws. They just want to be left alone.

How big is this slice of Trumpland? I don't know. But I'd guess it's a healthy percentage.

My guess is these people dislike Trump about as much as anyone else. They just figure then enemy of my enemy is my friend.

. . .

Another point I'd note is, this author makes an error someone took me to task for making a couple weeks ago. I was joking with a moderate friend of mine that people who suspect the election was fixed are idiots and not worth addressing. I explained how an election cannot be rigged, as I have some first hand experience in how they're managed.

He asked me "Why is it invalid for a person on the right to despair over how the country is changing?" I defended that believing the election was fixed was failing to grasp basic facts. He and I have similar politics. He agreed with that but asserted the bias that allows for such suggestibility is valid. I had to admit I didn't have an response to the argument that a person feeling like his country is changing in ways he doesn't like isn't automatically disqualified form offering an opinion.

It is okay to see what's happening in the country and not like it.

That doesn't sound controversial. But then I considered how I'd replied to people with that position in the past. I'd call them knaves, Don Quixotes tilting at economic and demographic changes they've no prayer of stanching. Many others would reflexively call them bigots and racists. And those indictments certainly apply to many of them.

But again, abstractly, to lament or seek to stand athwart change is not an automatically invalid, or even deviant, position. It is, technically, a view that has a seat at the table. And I think the recent branding of conservatism as entirely deviant is fueling its degradation into right wing populism.

When a conservative says, just by way of example, "The border is too easily breached," the response should be, "Well, we tried to fix that with immigration reform, but by electing an extremist like Trump, the GOP screwed that up for everyone." The answer should not be, "That is a xenophobic perhaps racist view that deserves no reply."

Negation never works. It just pisses people off and convinces them that the issue really is binary, and their only choice is to pick a side in our dysfunctional political war.

He is not explaining the behavior of people like your moderate friend, or for that matter most Trump voters. He is describing the behavior of the people who present the threat of violence. For that matter, I'm not sure that fits Scott Adams, but Adams is using his megaphone to agitate those people.

I don't think it helps much to compare Trump supporters "beliefs" to religion. You say,

To get behind him is an act of faith, and faith is, like this definition or not, an act of self-delusion. One is choosing to put aside powers of reason and observation and believe in something that all but assuredly isn't and for which there's zero proof.

I don't think faith plays much of a role at all (and it's silly to say that faith is ipso facto delusion). Loudly insisting on things that other people disbelieve is one way of signaling group solidarity. There's no sacrifice to expressing group solidarity by saying things that are reasonable, but when you loudly insist on things that are patently false, you are making a statement about conviction.

A great many people vote for Trump because they're on the right, and he was their candidate. They're not the ones dragging things to the crazy, they're just along for the ride. They are not interested in violence which is what the thing that I linked was about.

Calling woke progressivism a New Puritanism seems like a really good way to show that you don't know anything about Puritanism.

[Replaced_Texan]

I understand the reluctance, but they have to prosecute him. Don't they??

The evidence is pretty overwhelming, and this is just one filing.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I understand the reluctance, but they have to prosecute him. Don't they??

The evidence is pretty overwhelming, and this is just one filing.

They may be waiting for him to have a heart attack or something.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

They may be waiting for him to have a heart attack or something.

A night in jail may help that…..

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I understand the reluctance, but they have to prosecute him. Don't they??

The evidence is pretty overwhelming, and this is just one filing.

He had stolen state secrets. He knew he had stolen state secrets. He didn't give them back when asked. He (through his lawyer) lied about having given them all back.

Anyone else would already be in jail, but as the former guy, he isn't just anyone else. I wonder if it will take actual evidence of having shown them to a foreign actor to get him actually prosecuted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

He had stolen state secrets. He knew he had stolen state secrets. He didn't give them back when asked. He (through his lawyer) lied about having given them all back.

Anyone else would already be in jail, but as the former guy, he isn't just anyone else. I wonder if it will take actual evidence of having shown them to a foreign actor to get him actually prosecuted.

I think the crux of the matter is that he is convinced that they are his documents, and the guy from Judicial Watch (among others?) echoed that and told him what they wanted to hear. Lots of the other bullshit is because he is playing a PR game, not a working a legal matter.

He is wrong, of course, but I think that's what he believes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the crux of the matter is that he is convinced that they are his documents, and the guy from Judicial Watch (among others?) echoed that and told him what they wanted to hear. Lots of the other bullshit is because he is playing a PR game, not a working a legal matter.

He is wrong, of course, but I think that's what he believes.

I'm also coming around to the idea that a Special Master is not such a bad thing.