Donald John Trump gets “a little political” on Fox and Friends.

[Virtual ghost]

The annoying thing to me is how after they do this, they whine about the unreasonable "hatred" being shown towards them and how unfair it is and people are just being so gosh darn mean to them when they get excited by someone who promises to treat other people like shit.

That part is kinda understandable even if it isn't "nice".
However there are people out there that really think that a badass will give them functional healthcare, good education, working infrastructure ... etc. Which are all very intellect heavy goals that require quite a bit of knowledge. What means that a real badass is kinda destined to fail here.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That part is kinda understandable even if it isn't "nice".

Of course it makes sense, because people can be self-centered pieces of shit.

That doesn't mean I don't find the lack of self-awareness and personal accountability incredibly irritating.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Of course it makes sense, because people can be self-centered pieces of shit.

That doesn't mean I don't find the lack of self-awareness and personal accountability incredibly irritating.

This presumes that being self centered piece of shit is something that makes sense (and to me it kinda doesn't, but ok) .


But this kind of voting for me is mostly due to the deficit of proper education. If you don't know how things really work you either skip the whole thing or make a guess. What includes voting out of spite as well.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This presumes that being self centered piece of shit is something that makes sense (and to me it kinda doesn't, but ok) .


But this kind of voting for me is mostly due to the deficit of proper education. If you don't know how things really work you either skip the whole thing or make a guess. What includes voting out of spite as well.

It makes sense within the context of my theoretical framework of human behavior. It probably doesn't make sense for their personal well-being. These are the same people for whom Trump acts exactly like their vision of a strong leader. They aren't really people inclined to think in terms of cause and effect... none of these things are actually connected in their mind. They usually aren't very smart people, or if they are smart, they are extremely self-centered to the point that this becomes stupidity as well.

It's like that test a while ago with the four quadrants. I wish I remembered the name of the test but it seemed like the people who were self-centered but truly had some sense of pragmatism were easier to deal with then the ones who were self-centered without pragmatism. There was the "good" quadrant which was other-centered but not pragmatic, and then the "smart" quadrant which was both. I wish I at least remembered what the axes were but they somewhat correlated to that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It makes sense within the context of my theoretical framework of human behavior. It probably doesn't make sense for their personal well-being.

It's like that test a while ago with the four quadrants. I wish I remembered the name of the test but it seemed like the people who were self-centered but truly had some sense of pragmatism were easier to deal with then the ones who were self-centered without pragmatism. There was the "good" quadrant which was other-centered but not pragmatic, and then the "smart" quadrant which was both. I wish I at least remembered what the axes were but they somewhat correlated to that.

Yeah, I remember that test. Probably because it said to me that I was smart.



But here is something ultra fresh on the topic:
Whistleblower: Russia taps Facebook ‘herds’ to sow division in Ukraine

I just don't get who thought that linking every household with totalitarian governments is a good idea. Therefore if you really want to sanction them this kinda makes for some interesting ideas/areas.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah, I remember that test. Probably because it said to me that I was smart.



But here is something ultra fresh on the topic:
Whistleblower: Russia taps Facebook ‘herds’ to sow division in Ukraine

I just don't get who thought that linking every household with totalitarian governments is a good idea. Therefore if you really want to sanction them this kinda makes for some interesting ideas/areas.

It told me the same thing, haha.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It told me the same thing, haha.

Yeah, but in the end this was just another silly online test. Even if it kinda has clear or interesting points to make.


But tell me something, what sounds better to your: Trump runs in 2024 or he doesn't run ? (I ask in a sense of being able to win 2024)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah, but in the end this was just another silly online test. Even if it kinda has clear or interesting points to make.


But tell me something, what sounds better to your: Trump runs in 2024 or he doesn't run ? (I ask in a sense of being able to win 2024)

Yeah, true.

If you mean in terms of the country, that's quite hard to say. I think the damage Trump caused was limited in part because he was so erratic and not really knowledgeable about anything outside of branding and PR. Of course lots of people in the Republican party want to wrest control from him, and to do it, they'll probably ape his formula and try to appear Trump-like.

I don't think the consequences of this would be good, either, should they win. Especially because this may cause a certain degree of complacency to sit in among the anti-Trump people that were more focused on the dignity of the office and respectability than on policy, as they would probably play that game well of adhering to the proper "norms" (which is one reason why I hate so much that people have zeroed in on that).

The question is if they can somehow lock Trump out of the primary or force somebody else through in some way, would that disillusion and anger the base of support enough that they wouldn't show up in 2024? If the establishment wins (not that they are good) that may alienate and dampen the enthusiasm of enough of the Trump jihadists to make a difference.

It's not looking great in 2024 precisely because Joe Biden was kinda forced through the primary in a way because he was acceptable for enough of the Democratic establishment to get everyone on board with him. but he really wasn't the best man for the job. I know that they didn't want Bernie (which I certainly have issues with them for), but I truly think that beyond that, he was the worst person for the job out of almost everybody on that stage. The results are pretty much exactly as anticipated, and that doesn't give the Dems much to work with in 2024. "c'mon vote for me again so I can continue to not make things better".

I think it could very well be that the best shot the Dems have is the Republicans wresting control from Trump and putting someone who tries to be trump like, but none of the jihadists can actually stomach and consider a RINO. Keep in mind that this person would probably still be pretty awful, but they wouldn't be good at the kind of posturing and showmanship, the PR and the branding that worked for Trump.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, true.

...

I mean I was going more in the direction that if the dems find a decent candidate that is better that on the other side is Trump again. This is very risky but it could help elect a half decent person if it shows up. 2022 will probably be a reactive red wave but perhaps in 2024 something can be done. I mean I see that on the red side there is civil war over the control of the party, what means that their candidate isn't defined as much as that looked a few months. They seem to be developing alternative to Trump and that is good since the party has to move on. So the question was more about who do you want as the opponent ? Trump or establishment.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I mean I was going more in the direction that if the dems find a decent candidate that is better that on the other side is Trump again. This is very risky but it could help elect a half decent person if it shows up. 2022 will probably be a reactive red wave but perhaps in 2024 something can be done. I mean I see that on the red side there is civil war over the control of the party, what means that their candidate isn't defined as much as that looked a few months. They seem to be developing alternative to Trump and that is good since the party has to move on. So the question was more about who do you want as the opponent ? Trump or establishment.

I'd go with the establishment because there would be likely be enough bitterness to dampen enthusiasm among the Trump jihadists. I think it's possible that Trump could get re-elected. While his incompetence tends to limit the damage he can do I think he is also a destabilizing element in American society, and I'm not sure we could handle that. An establishment GOP candidate might get more awful stuff done but there probably wouldn't be further destabilization.

Some people I guess may see me as a radical revolutionary but I'm not of the opinion that it's a good idea to deliberately try to make things worse because then things will be bad enough to make people want something good. Ultimately I do think social stability is worthwhile but I disagree with "common sense" ideas about how to achieve it that seem to be favored by some prominent mainstream Democrats.

I think there are positive movements taking place and the best way for them to grow is with some a bare minimum of social stability. If we have Proud Boys running around the streets shooting people that's probably not good for anyone.

Also one of my grievances with Hillary Clinton is that she encouraged Trump's candidacy because she thought he would be easy to beat and then she ran a very complacent, overly confident, (even arrogant) campaign. I don't think that's a mistake that people should make again, but of course, because we live in hellworld, it very well could happen. (I think if she'd tried to appeal to the Democratic base rather than unreliable "moderate Republicans" after that primary battle and made better decisions about which states to focus on instead of running victory laps before election day even happened all the other factors working against her (like sexism and hero of the resistance James Comey) might not have been large enough to matter).

I think elections ultimately are decided more by enthusiasm and energy and that the importance of "moderates" or swing voters is overstated. The atmosphere in 2016 here was interesting. There was nothing really for Hillary at all (or even all that much anti-Trump; in those days I remember way more pro-Trump posts than anti-Trump posts); the most you saw was a foregone conclusion that she would win.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'd go with the establishment because there would be likely be enough bitterness to dampen enthusiasm among the Trump jihadists. I think it's possible that Trump could get re-elected. While his incompetence tends to limit the damage he can do I think he is also a destabilizing element in American society, and I'm not sure we could handle that. An establishment GOP candidate might get more awful stuff done but there probably wouldn't be further destabilization.

Some people I guess may see me as a radical revolutionary but I'm not of the opinion that it's a good idea to deliberately try to make things worse because then things will be bad enough to make people want something good. Ultimately I do think social stability is worthwhile but I disagree with "common sense" ideas about how to achieve it that seem to be favored by some prominent mainstream Democrats.

I think there are positive movements taking place and the best way for them to grow is with some a bare minimum of social stability. If we have Proud Boys running around the streets shooting people that's probably not good for anyone.

Well I simply look this through who would be easier opponent.


However if possible it would really be good that Republicans manage to phase out Trumpism. Since with current global events Trumpism is real risk factor that can cost us. Republican mainstream has it's problems but they will keep the ship at least generally steady. What is kinda the foundation for everyone else. With current global events all people that question NATO are very dangerous. While in that regard we simply have to be unified front since even with that there will be some uphill struggles globally.

 

[Virtual ghost]

A fresh piece of live blog from Politico, for those that think nothing will happen in Ukraine:


KREMLIN: SEPARATIST LEADERS ASK PUTIN FOR HELP

The leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk so-called People's Republics in eastern Ukraine have asked Moscow for help “repelling” Ukrainian “aggression,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, according to Russian news agency Interfax.


NATO is basically the only way that the mess doesn't spread outside of Ukraine (or that it is prevented even there).

 

[Hypatia]

I think you are not as neutral on Trump as you are claiming to be, which is making me suspicious of your motives. I think that much of your objection to the image I posted has to do with the specific individual in question.

As for fentanyl, I should also note that the article you posted misrepresented statistics to make a false claim that fentanyl overdoses are a larger cause of death than Covid-19. Is the issue we want to talk really that fentanyl is a big problem, or is it about what a great president Trump was? If it's the former, why are statistics being displayed in such a misleading function to make it look like covid-19 (which Trump bungled) is a distraction from "real problems".

I'll be happy to talk about fentanyl if you can admit that Covid-19 is a bigger problem, rather than believing in an assertion based on something totally baseless because it makes Trump look better.

What the hell are you talking about? I never dared suggest that the “fentanyl crisis” has claimed more lives than COVID-19. My suggestion was that it was a comparable problem in the United States, given that total fatal fentanyl overdoses in one calendar year of 12 months (April 2020-May 2021) is nearly twice that of COVID-19’s impact on the 0-49 demographic in the United States (since February 2020 to present); ergo, my argument was in support of measures to curb its usage in the United States. Please stop insulting this discourse by routinely maligning me as well as the context of the data presented. If you have a problem with me, I suggest we cool off discourse until you can speak in an un-inimcal way. I don’t appreciate you drudging up the data I presented only to completely twist and malign the context in which I brought it up— you have been routinely disrespectful to me as well as the subject matter of this thread, something that I had tolerated— and attempted to broker agreement with you— even conceding, and attempting to have a conversation with you on something that was way off-topic to the thread that I had originally started with Dr. Anaximander, making you seem like you’re his de facto comrade and second in command, and it feels really inauthentic and contrived. If you can’t try to speak to me in a peaceable way, as I believe I’ve done nothing to stimulate you in this conversation, please don’t try to provoke me into responding to you with false accusations.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What the hell are you talking about? I never dared suggest that the “fentanyl crisis” has claimed more lives than COVID-19. My suggestion was that it was a comparable problem in the United States, given that total fatal fentanyl overdoses in one calendar year of 12 months (April 2020-May 2021) is nearly twice that of COVID-19’s impact on the 0-49 demographic in the United States (since February 2020 to present); ergo, my argument was in support of measures to curb its usage in the United States. Please stop insulting this discourse by routinely maligning me as well as the context of the data presented. If you have a problem with me, I suggest we cool off discourse until you can speak in an un-inimcal way. I don’t appreciate you drudging up the data I presented only to completely twist and malign the context in which I brought it up— you have been routinely disrespectful to me as well as the subject matter of this thread, something that I had tolerated— and attempted to broker agreement with you— even conceding, and attempting to have a conversation with you on something that was way off-topic to the thread that I had originally started with Dr. Anaximander, making you seem like you’re his de facto comrade and second in command, and it feels really inauthentic and contrived. If you can’t try to speak to me in a peaceable way, as I believe I’ve done nothing to stimulate you in this conversation, please don’t try to provoke me into responding to you with false accusations.

Given that you do acknowledge that Covid is an issue and not just a conspiracy to make Trump look bad, yes, I believe we can talk.. Yes, I did believe you were seeking to misrepresent statistics for a political purpose. Since that appears not to be your intention, I have no issue with you at the moment.

I have had a lot of conversations with people engaging in bad faith discussion on these kinds of topics on here and I no longer consider such discussions worth investing a significant amount of my time in. You'll pardon me if I'm on guard.

This is the damage fanatics cause when they routinely poison the discourse in such a fashion; it tends to erode trust. I apologize for the fact that you had to face the consequences of that.

What about making Narcan more available?