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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It may be that "democracy" fails in the future. But it won't be because of Trump. It'll be much subtler, and it'll be caused less by his populist tendencies and more by the sellout of the country to corporations by the milquetoast members of both parties. I don't fear a revolution led by the Proud Boys. I fear the one that arguably took place long ago on K Street -- one that grinds away slowly today, capturing all of the important levers of power, controlling all the important mouths in both parties. One that keeps the masses bickering while it lines its pockets.

It's got no name, and it's not a conspiracy. It's just Money. Giant entities with shit tons of it needn't get together and plan anything. They've got shared goals and interests. All they need do is act in their own self-interest and their efforts will dovetail, complementing each other. While the lurid poles of our political discourse fight about whether the trans folks are getting a fair shake or certain books should be banned from high school curricula.

In the teeth of efforts by these same corporate powers and their aligned govt counterparts to massage online speech, and to squelch debate about dubious to often outright fabulist narratives offered by "the institutions" in the lying guise of "saving us from dis/mis/mal-information," I find it had to worry about cranks that slither out from under the rocks of Trumpworld, or its broader universe of MAGAland. Those idiots can be controlled.

Trump is a threat, and a danger. No doubt. He can do damage. But I'd say people like Larry Fink can and are doing a whole hell of a lot more.

Trump's threat to democracy is that he is normalizing, for one of the two political parties, the idea that you only accept election results when you win. To state the obvious, the whole system hangs on the idea that everyone accepts the legitimacy of the government, winners and losers alike. When you say "those idiots can be controlled," I don't know what you are talking about. Not that anyone is going to beat Trump for the GOP nomination, but most of the people running against him aren't willing to challenge him on anything important, and those that are have no prayer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think some think that. I think a lot of others, however, think that "democracy" is their side having rights and the other side not having rights. The right and left both seek to curtail the powers and rights of the other under the bizarre reasoning that the other side's use of such rights is somehow an infringement on their rights. It's a childlike logic game. "Mind your own business" is anathema to both.

Speaking of childish logic games, I don't understand why you like to play this game of thinking of something stupid that someone has said somewhere, elevating it as if it's worth responding to, and then explaining that both the right and left do it.

Like, who thinks "that 'democracy' is their side having rights and the other side not having rights"?

Setting the concept of "democracy" aside, there is a strong impulse across the land to talk about interests as rights. Conservatives who disagree that, for example, gays and lesbians should have equal rights have created bogus religious rights to entitle themselves to discriminate. Progressives who want to change the culture around race and gender and other norms have advocated for rights to safe spaces. Obviously, the reason for this is that you can articulate your own interest as a right, you have a legal and political grievance that becomes more actionable. But it doesn't have anything to do with "democracy."

I can because I know dozens and dozens of Rs who would love to do exactly that. But that imagining becomes a mere pipe dream given the reality of the primary process and the size of the cult that Trump has behind him.

They need to do the politics to win people over.

Or, we could wait for Trump to die. I don't want to be overly optimistic about this, but I do think that a lot of his legitimacy is charismatic, and that it will be very hard to anyone else to replicate it. He's not going to live for ever. What happens after that? (Or if he loses another time?)

The GOP is gone. I don't know what the party is today. I don't know if it's even really a party anymore. It looks like a playground for dead enders with a few sane voices trying to right a sinking ship.

I really thought that the GOP would lose more people in the middle as it lurched to the crazy right, but there are a lot of Republicans who have just recalibrated and stayed the course.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That call has never struck me as damning evidence. It sounds bad, but in context (at that time, he was still litigating the vote and had a belief the votes were out there) it's a guy saying, granted, in mafioso-speak, "I know I won... Go find me the votes I know are out there."

If you accept that he knew he'd lost, then you agree that he acted as a mafioso trying to change an election he'd lost. When he had that call, he was not still litigating the vote. He had lost that litigation. He was trying to get the result tossed.

My issue with her sprawling indictment is it's too broad. That case will take forever, and as Powell and Chesebro and Meadows have shown already, by demanding a speedy trial or filing any of the myriad motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (and soon, the argument that the allegations don't meet the definition of a crime) individual defendants can take the case apart from endless angles and give Trump a preview of Willis' strategy.

I'm not clear why you think a broad case isn't the right response to a broad conspiracy, or why you think the fact that some defendants are trying to do stuff delegitimizes the prosecution.

The case is also too ambitious. She's trying to lasso a lot of acts on the parts of lower level operators which are clearly not criminal into a RICO claim.

That is a common conservative talking point lately, but it's nonsense. Not every fact mentioned is therefore criminal.

But this isn't a hub and spokes scenario. This is an allegation that all of these people, many of whom never interacted or even met each other, were all engaged in a massive concerted effort to do something they all knew was illegal. That's hard to prove, and I could see trial and appellate courts slapping Willis' hand for being abusive in her scope.

If she can't prove it, she can't prove it. But it was pretty obvious in real time that Trump had a lot of people criming to overturn his election loss. That is the heart of it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I really thought that the GOP would lose more people in the middle as it lurched to the crazy right, but there are a lot of Republicans who have just recalibrated and stayed the course.

I was thinking about this the other day. 10 years ago the PB had a dozen libs and maybe 3 or 4 hard core Rs. Then there was Penske whom I always assumed was just a dada performance thing.

Me? I was the only one who actually put thought into votes (besides sebby but you can’t categorize him); I mean was there anyone else here who voted for W twice and Obama twice?

The Rs included Slave. Last thing I saw from him was defending orange puke after the weird claims about his inauguration crowd, so at least early he hadn’t moved. But B&B was pretty hardcore R and she seems to have moved way away from that lot.

And until the Rs move to a decidedly different flavor, that is, non-insane place, I ain’t voting for them.

So if you extrapolate from our small sample they might have lost a lot of voters. It’s important to remember that facefuck won because Hillary was a flawed choice for a lot of reasons and there was a huge increase in 3rd party votes from people who didn’t like her.

As to state legislatures I just point to what Michigan did. In 2020 we passed an anti gerrymandering law by popular vote. Legislators have no control- a 9 person commission picks boundaries: 4 R 4 D and 1 independent. The next vote the Ds took both houses. The talking heads sold it as a reaction to Trump, but nope. It was a reaction to our taking back our state. I can’t believe other states don’t do that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was thinking about this the other day. 10 years ago the PB had a dozen libs and maybe 3 or 4 hard core Rs. Then there was Penske whom I always assumed was just a dada performance thing.

Me? I was the only one who actually put thought into votes (besides sebby but you can’t categorize him); I mean was there anyone else here who voted for W twice and Obama twice?

The Rs included Slave. Last thing I saw from him was defending orange puke after the weird claims about his inauguration crowd, so at least early he hadn’t moved. But B&B was pretty hardcore R and she seems to have moved way away from that lot.

And until the Rs move to a decidedly different flavor, that is, non-insane place, I ain’t voting for them.

So if you extrapolate from our small sample they might have lost a lot of voters. It’s important to remember that facefuck won because Hillary was a flawed choice for a lot of reasons and there was a huge increase in 3rd party votes from people who didn’t like her.

Our demographic is trending D, but others are trending R.

As to state legislatures I just point to what Michigan did. In 2020 we passed an anti gerrymandering law by popular vote. Legislators have no control- a 9 person commission picks boundaries: 4 R 4 D and 1 independent. The next vote the Ds took both houses. The talking heads sold it as a reaction to Trump, but nope. It was a reaction to our taking back our state. I can’t believe other states don’t do that.

I've said it before, but it would be best if every state had a commission whose job would be to pick the most compact districts with equal population to some objectively small tolerance. Anyone can submit a proposal, and the commission picks the one that yields districts of roughly equal size with the shortest aggregate borders.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't fear a revolution led by the Proud Boys.

It will take someone with greater organizing ability than TFG, but one danger to democracy involves local police and sheriffs.

It's just Money. Giant entities with shit tons of it needn't get together and plan anything.

They do get together and plan things, but the Money has been in charge for a long time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Like, who thinks "that 'democracy' is their side having rights and the other side not having rights"?

Setting the concept of "democracy" aside, there is a strong impulse across the land to talk about interests as rights. Conservatives who disagree that, for example, gays and lesbians should have equal rights have created bogus religious rights to entitle themselves to discriminate. Progressives who want to change the culture around race and gender and other norms have advocated for rights to safe spaces. Obviously, the reason for this is that you can articulate your own interest as a right, you have a legal and political grievance that becomes more actionable. But it doesn't have anything to do with "democracy."

I used rights where I should have used interests, but I think it's because I was leapfrogging to effect. The interests are manifesting themselves as rights, or preclusion of the rights of others.

The interest, the impulse, to use your term, becomes the basis to assert a right to do something, or a right to stop someone else from doing something. The right wing and the progressives each power over-- well... everyone. Sometimes de jure, sometimes de facto. Where they can't acquire the former, they use the latter. Boycotts, book banning, cancellation, soft censorship of antagonistic views as mis/dis/mal-information.

The right and left are authoritarians, and that is not false equivalence. They are engaged in a zero sum game and the impact of their authoritarian impulses is a preclusion of rights. Free speech? Sure, you have it. But not in Florida. And not if you want to keep your job at a corporation that has embraced the "correct politics" of the day.

The right is Orwell. The left is Huxley. They're both Trumpian. And they both want society to reflect what they think it ought to be. And they're pretty damn adamant about it.

It is deeply undemocratic behavior, so yes, I think MAGA and Wokeland are terrible threats to "democracy" in the broad sense it is described in the media.

They need to do the politics to win people over.

Can't sway cult members. Hopeless to try.

Or, we could wait for Trump to die. I don't want to be overly optimistic about this, but I do think that a lot of his legitimacy is charismatic, and that it will be very hard to anyone else to replicate it. He's not going to live for ever. What happens after that? (Or if he loses another time?)

Totally agree. This probably invites a hex of some sort, were I a believer in souls or afterlives, but Trump's death would be the best result of all possible ones at the moment.

I really thought that the GOP would lose more people in the middle as it lurched to the crazy right, but there are a lot of Republicans who have just recalibrated and stayed the course.

And there a ton more who left the GOP after Dobbs and aren't coming back.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

If you accept that he knew he'd lost, then you agree that he acted as a mafioso trying to change an election he'd lost. When he had that call, he was not still litigating the vote. He had lost that litigation. He was trying to get the result tossed.

That "if" is what has to be proven. I thought he made the call before the litigation was over, but even being wrong about that, Trump never agrees he lost any court case. His asking for votes is consistent with his past refusal to accept defeat and a belief that the court didn't have adequate proof before it and he was seeking that proof.

I'm not clear why you think a broad case isn't the right response to a broad conspiracy, or why you think the fact that some defendants are trying to do stuff delegitimizes the prosecution.

I think roping in inner circle types like Giuliani is smart. But 18 people many of whom have never even heard of each other? And I'm not speaking to legitimacy. I'm handicapping based on practicalities.

That is a common conservative talking point lately, but it's nonsense. Not every fact mentioned is therefore criminal.

I didn't say they were. But when you start mixing non-criminal acts with criminal acts, you invite both confusion, doubt as to which is and isn't criminal, and the defense that the case is criminalizing politics.

If she can't prove it, she can't prove it. But it was pretty obvious in real time that Trump had a lot of people criming to overturn his election loss. That is the heart of it.

She has a rifle. There's enough to nail a tight crowd of inner circle types who have solid criminal exposure. I think using the shotgun is a strategy error. But that's just me. I've never been the sort to sue everybody one can just to be careful because it makes a messy case. I think the smarter approach is to do your due diligence and sue the people you're certain have liability.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Setting the concept of "democracy" aside, there is a strong impulse across the land to talk about interests as rights. Conservatives who disagree that, for example, gays and lesbians should have equal rights have created bogus religious rights to entitle themselves to discriminate. Progressives who want to change the culture around race and gender and other norms have advocated for rights to safe spaces. Obviously, the reason for this is that you can articulate your own interest as a right, you have a legal and political grievance that becomes more actionable. But it doesn't have anything to do with "democracy."

One more point on this.

I'm watching Coco Gauff and Muchova in the US Open semifinals yesterday. Great match. Both playing their asses off, and a wonderful ending where a 19 year old, first teenager a long time, makes it to the finals.

But while Gauff is on an early roll, a pack of protestors start screaming, shutting down play for 15 minutes, potentially imperiling the hot streak Gauff had been enjoying in the match.

Really? Is that how fucking nuts we've become? These miscreants are going to fuck with a couple players who've trained for years to get where they are just because these ostensibly aggrieved sorts feel so fucking deeply about something?

Yes. That is the case. People are so invested in their "causes," and so blindered to the annoyance they cause everyone else, that they Just Don't Give a Fuck about Gauff, Muchova, or the thousands of people (and if you've been to the Open, you know it's filled with lots of middle class and even working class folks who've paid a decent sum and traveled considerably to be there) in the stands.

This mentality can be written off as a few whackjobs doing what whackjobs do. But it's better described as what it is: Fundamentalism. These nuts (one of whom glued himself to the floor) are a microcosm of the types of anti-democratic zealots who are imperiling "democracy." They are so fucking sure -- so fucking sure -- that their cause is so important and their desires must be immediately met that they'll take almost any measure to push it forward.

They're on a continuum with MAGA and the extreme Progressives/Woke. Ask a MAGA person how he or she can support a clear authoritarian and they'll tell you some nonsense about how the US is imploding and will be communist if Biden is allowed another term. Utterly fucking unhinged. Ask a strident Progressive/Woke person how they can be so extreme, how they can deny facts, reality, biology, etc. to foist narratives of dubious credibility and demand bizarre policy fixes, and they'll tell you theirs is a cause that is so essential and so immediate that any and all means must be taken. And both will tell you it is totally fine to try to censor and shame into silence their opponents rather than debate them. And burn their books if that option is available.

These people are nuts - zero sum gamers, fundamentalists, as whacked as the fucking Taliban in their zeal.

And it is that organically demented mindset - the certainty that "I am right, and on the right side of history, and therefore entitled to be as mad a zealot as I like!" view - that threatens "democracy" more than anything else. As long as that persists, the middle cannot compromise. And no compromise by the middle? Well then, no functional government or society.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And not if you want to keep your job at a corporation that has embraced the "correct politics" of the day.

Companies don't want you to embarrass them. The horror.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think roping in inner circle types like Giuliani is smart. But 18 people many of whom have never even heard of each other? And I'm not speaking to legitimacy. I'm handicapping based on practicalities.

And it turns out the special grand jury recommended charges for a whole bunch more. Which is interesting.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

One more point on this.

I'm watching Coco Gauff and Muchova in the US Open semifinals yesterday. Great match. Both playing their asses off, and a wonderful ending where a 19 year old, first teenager a long time, makes it to the finals.

But while Gauff is on an early roll, a pack of protestors start screaming, shutting down play for 15 minutes, potentially imperiling the hot streak Gauff had been enjoying in the match.

Really? Is that how fucking nuts we've become? These miscreants are going to fuck with a couple players who've trained for years to get where they are just because these ostensibly aggrieved sorts feel so fucking deeply about something?

Yes. That is the case. People are so invested in their "causes," and so blindered to the annoyance they cause everyone else, that they Just Don't Give a Fuck about Gauff, Muchova, or the thousands of people (and if you've been to the Open, you know it's filled with lots of middle class and even working class folks who've paid a decent sum and traveled considerably to be there) in the stands.

This mentality can be written off as a few whackjobs doing what whackjobs do. But it's better described as what it is: Fundamentalism. These nuts (one of whom glued himself to the floor) are a microcosm of the types of anti-democratic zealots who are imperiling "democracy." They are so fucking sure -- so fucking sure -- that their cause is so important and their desires must be immediately met that they'll take almost any measure to push it forward.

They're on a continuum with MAGA and the extreme Progressives/Woke. Ask a MAGA person how he or she can support a clear authoritarian and they'll tell you some nonsense about how the US is imploding and will be communist if Biden is allowed another term. Utterly fucking unhinged. Ask a strident Progressive/Woke person how they can be so extreme, how they can deny facts, reality, biology, etc. to foist narratives of dubious credibility and demand bizarre policy fixes, and they'll tell you theirs is a cause that is so essential and so immediate that any and all means must be taken. And both will tell you it is totally fine to try to censor and shame into silence their opponents rather than debate them. And burn their books if that option is available.

These people are nuts - zero sum gamers, fundamentalists, as whacked as the fucking Taliban in their zeal.

And it is that organically demented mindset - the certainty that "I am right, and on the right side of history, and therefore entitled to be as mad a zealot as I like!" view - that threatens "democracy" more than anything else. As long as that persists, the middle cannot compromise. And no compromise by the middle? Well then, no functional government or society.

Funny that you don't even mention what they were protesting. It's a lot easier to both sides when you don't even attempt to grapple with the substance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Companies don't want you to embarrass them. The horror.

There's nothing embarrassing about questioning what has turned out to be a bizarre form of religion.

Most people roll their eyes at extreme progressive silliness and the severe forms of the DEI/ESG stuff. I apply that approach. I also do the same thing with MAGA. Why get into a fight with these people? And certainly, there's no point in telling them both of their movements have been co-opted by corporate masters playing both sides and puppeteering them as useful idiots.

They're the embarrassment. And people like me are cowards. Hence, I have a hard time faulting, and a great deal of admiration, for people who call bullshit on them. Those people have character, as opposed to a desire to accrue money from MAGA and progressives and getting thru their conversations with help from tequila (I've lately been on an anejo kick).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Funny that you don't even mention what they were protesting. It's a lot easier to both sides when you don't even attempt to grapple with the substance.

She was expecting a protest because they did them at prior Grand Slams. She said she wasn't bothered. But she won. Wonder how the loser felt?

Curious, what "substance" do you see? A guy glued his foot to a tennis court and some friends threw confetti and chanted- you find that illuminating or mind changing?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...imate-protest/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Funny that you don't even mention what they were protesting. It's a lot easier to both sides when you don't even attempt to grapple with the substance.

That protest held outside the match, on the grounds, would have been totally fine. To do it in the match is the height of narcissism and extreme fundamentalism. They did nothing but harm their cause.