Phylum of Alexandria

On 2/24/2024 at 1:15 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That would only work if those so called Christians were consistent in their beliefs and not practising Biblical textualism a la carte.

The focus of my comment wasn't on the so-called Christians, it was on the edge lords and Rogan bros, who flitter between libertarianism and a decidedly secular type of authoritarianism. A lot of these guys are probably already divided on the issue of abortion, and most of them would be against banning birth control, or porn, etc.

Like any culture war issue, the more they are affected directly, the more soberly they start to view the matter.  And I'm not talking absolutes, or everyone. But large chunks of the secular portion of MAGA will be concerned at the very least by such stories, providing potential for some of the concerned to reconsider their vote for this November.

These recent reports about Christian nationalist agendas for the Trump administration could potentially be used as a wedge to divide the MAGA coalition and weaken it.

Alt-right edge lords and wannabe-libertarian Rogan bros don't want prudes censoring them or dictating their sex lives. Now, I doubt many of them would outright join the side of the lefty scolds they love to hate. But at very least it might be possible to get them to look at Trump's Christ coalition with apprehension (rightfully so), and maybe vote 3rd party.

Obviously, this would be most relevant for political strategists. But if any of you happen to know someone of either leaning, getting them to think about real potential ramifications for them in a Trump presidency powered by a Christian fascist movement might at the very least give them pause about their vote in the coming election.

Reading about the Wisconsin electoral map victory, this does give me hope. The Wisconsin GOP have been some of the worst authoritarian bullies, just completely defying the will of the people. And yet the people didn't give up. 

The MAGA movement want us to lose heart, to eventually back down. But they can be worn down too, as long as we don't lose heart. We may need to crush them over and over again to do it.

I for one am down for that task. I want to see those fashy tears!

3 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

There are literally multiple major wars going on right now and no, he doesn't just have to make noises fart out of his face hole. Training a dog is very, very, very far down on the org chart. 

I know. I can't believe we're back to this fucking topic...

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I simply can’t understand how many Canadians still go to Florida, even with everything going on.

 

It is a great place to visit, despite all the Trumpy weirdos. I left my heart at Weeki Wachee Springs.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like a lot of the discussion with Biden is all a matter of context.  If you look at what he accomplished, given the slimmest senate majority (21-22) and a Republican House (23-24), yes, his legislative track record is pretty solid.  Likewise, he was handed a turd in terms of the economy, with COVID disruptions and the Ukraine war leading to inflation that he is still getting blamed for, in spite of the US doing basically the best of any developed economy.  On foreign policy, he had to deal with first the Afghan withdrawl (which was going to be a disaster any way you go) and now with Israel/Palestine, where there are no good answers and he again looks impotent and feckless. 

Basically Biden is relying heavily on voters to give him credit for context because the actual results aren't that great.  Inflation did hurt most Americans.  High interest rates make housing unaffordable.  COVID killed nearly a million Americans since Jan 2021.  A ton of problems like guns, climate change, immigration, wealth inequality, and college costs have had either band-aid solutions or no progress at all.  

I think it's fair to say that Biden did as well as could be reasonably expected, but...it still doesn't feel great.  The biggest political event of his presidency is the fall of Roe v Wade.  Obviously not his fault, but Biden didn't exactly manage a lot of big wins to counterbalance it.  Obama got gay marriage, ACA and killed Bin Laden.  Biden gave us...the Inflation Reduction Act and pardoned federal marijuana possession cases?

That's fair. There are different talents underlying campaigning and governing. It's clear Obama was the better campaigner, and arguably helped Democrats win more seats in Congress. I lean toward saying that Biden has proved more impressive than Obama at governance while in office, though perhaps he could have done even more if he had inspired enough voters to turn more seats around. There's also the fact that Biden was able to learn from Obama's term and apply that later on, whereas Obama's chance to learn was strictly during his time in office.

Unfortunately, it's campaigning that Biden needs to do to communicate his accomplishments and show people he's up to the job. It's not his strength by any means, so I am worried. Trump will provide plenty of contrast to make Joe seem like a normal, decent guy. But that's not enough. He needs to get out there and show people that he's an old but competent grandpa who addresses people's needs, and can do so even more with a second term.

7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

He's actually done a surprisingly good job IMO even if I want someone a lot younger to replace him. I believe if we had a sane political system where Republicans would be good teammates that he could have gotten so much more done. But they're so cynical in their pursuit of power. Despite all that bullshit he's still been able to do a lot. 

Similarly, given the slim Congressional majority he had to work with, it's impressive what he managed to accomplish. Some of it being bipartisan. He did a lot more than we all had assumed would be possible given the cards he was dealt.

Continue.

Supreme Court might rule on the Colorado case soon. I didn't mention it at the time, but I found it rather revolting that no justice chose to speak on the issue of whether Trump did in fact engage in or support insurrection. I know they're being "strategic" on this one, but to see even the liberal justices dancing around the issue despite the plain facts, not to mention the whole purpose of the clause coming from the Civil War, makes me retch a bit.

12 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My dad is “concern trolling” about the Civil award against the Trump organization.  He says he dislikes like Trump but the State getting this kind of civil damages “bothers him”.

I told him… I have -O- sympathy for Trump or his organization.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing it's not a good idea to threaten, defame, and intimidate your prosecutors and judge every hour of every day. Probably not the best strategy for a lighter ruling.

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

But, and there's my big but. Why did European cooperation not take off with renewed vigor after Trump threatened to blow up NATO (the first time)? European countries should have immediately realized that they could no longer afford to wait for the US to drop the ball to develop their own weapons and production lines. I guess these things take time, but it's like we still waited the last possible moment (i.e. the invasion of Ukraine) to be concerned with weapons production...

I'm a little surprised such efforts weren't underway back in Dubya's time when the US was attacking and occupying a sovereign nation based on the ludicrous belief that Iraq had financed the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they were, and went nowhere.

But yes, I agree that Trump's rise to the office should have been the clearest signal yet that the old order was dead, or at least convulsing with demons. Perhaps caution was suggested given Trump's erratic and prickly nature, or perhaps there was some foolish hope he would learn on the job and eventually act like a typical president.

I would like to know the geopolitical strategies going forward of various foreign leaders toward given the worryingly tumultuous nature of US politics and governance. Right now the fate of NATO--and with it, the probability of future land grabs by Russia and China--seems like it will be decided by a coin toss. I can't imagine the rest of the world will tolerate those odds for much longer, even if Biden wins. It's hard to act in good faith with Dr. Jekyl when Mr. Hyde pops up half the time. 

29 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Unfortunately it is really not.

On wheel of fortune I'd like to buy an E at this point.

The best I can do is "Nad Lump Rot."

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

This is where Trump steals the Republican campaign coffers to pay his bills.

And when various foreign leaders and oligarchs come calling with deals he can't refuse...

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

Whether that works on voters or not, Trump's ego surely won't allow him to let this pass?

He knows Trump's ego can be assuaged with promises of money. Yet it's in his interest to muddy the waters with respect to who would be Russia's best ally, as it makes Trump's anti-American sentiments one more point of disagreement in a larger cloud of debatable facts.

3 hours ago, Maltaran said:

He’s saying Biden is more experienced and more predictable, I don’t think anyone can really disagree with that.

Nothing to do with your comment or politics, but it's nice to see some Grey Alys love on the forum. 

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That was what the article talked about. Did you read it? 

I didn't read the article Zorral linked to, but I did listen to Josh and Kate's recent TPM podcast. They did concede that one special election doesn't tell you much. But they made two related counterpoints: one, this is consistent with the larger pattern of election results since Trump took office, including other special elections. This is the stronger point. And two: if the Republican candidate had won, you better believe that journalists and pundits would be saying that it was a bell weather and that it means bad things for the Democrats in the general election. Now, just because one side gets special treatment, that doesn't mean the treatment is factually correct, but still, it's a fair point.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So...you're saying he's due?

I mean, this is one of the most unprecedented things - a party that has so little control that an actual loser is not forced out and does not bow out willingly. Usually when you get a loser the party does a lot of postmortem and figures out what they did wrong and prioritizes future candidates based on some of those strategies. What the GOP did in this case is to just...claim they didn't lose.

In any case, using past long-dead history to justify analysis here is pretty flawed.

Well, I'm not saying anything strongly. If anyone seems to benefit from breaking from conventional wisdom, it's Trump. 

But still, he's a proven loser. Saying that incumbents might not enjoy the benefits they used to is probably true, but I don't know if that means the guy who already lost to the same candidate has an advantage. Nikky Haley or really anyone else, definitely. But Trump? His main strength is his adoring base, not anyone else.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, of the last 7 POTUSes 3 have lost re-election. That's not a great track record! I think anything that uses the entire POTUS history to justify viewpoints on recent events is ignoring a lot of the more recent changes in our politics. We are not living in environments that compare to elections even 40 years ago. 

True, but it's worth noting that the current incumbent's rival this year will be one of those 3 who lost re-election.

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Pretty sure many of us have had jobs where you're always expected to be available. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to POTUS. 

I've had extremely stressful jobs with odd and undefined hours that usually ran to 80 hour work weeks. My current job is more humane, but still filled with stressful and depressing content, sometimes involving suicide cases.

Yet at no point would I put any of my work stress anywhere near that of any world leader, as the decisions I make do not directly result in other people's deaths, potentially in the thousands or even millions with one wrong move. Or displacements, unemployment, unrest, you name it.

It's pointless arguing what is the most demanding job, but most reasonable will agree that it's extremely demanding, and extremely stressful, with extremely important consequences.

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

It's a 4 year reality TV gig with big consequences.  

Emphasis on the latter part of your sentence. For most people who are not sociopaths, that's extremely stressful.

Just now, Larry of the Lawn said:

It can't be that tough, Donald fucking Trump and G.W. Bush did it.  

Donald Trump mostly didn't do it. And despite Dick Cheney doing most of Dubya's work for him, he still left office noticeably worn and aged.

20 minutes ago, horangi said:

While I get the sentiment, that would eliminate not only all boomers, but all GenXrs, and decent bunch of older or just precocious Millennials from office.  Unless you are thinking of one of the hangers-on from Animal House, only like a third of the remainder that can vote would even meet the minimum age for President.

Pete Buttigieg is one year younger than Ty's cutoff, so he'd go from being one of the younger people there straight to being the new Biden. 

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

I know plenty of C-suite types.

Not the same thing at all. This conversation isn't even worth having with you, it's so silly. So: end transmission.

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

All he has to do is talk. And he can't even do that properly. 

Executive level jobs are a piece of piss.

Come on dude. At least try to know what you're talking about before commenting.

Most demanding if you take it seriously, yes. Not so much if you're watching Fox News and tweeting.

Edit: Just look at some before and after pics of previous presidents to see what it does to people.

48 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

EDITED TO ADD: I want to address the "Biden is losing his marbles" thing. Why do we think that? Because he occasionally mixes up names? More likely, it is because Fox Noise is broadcasting the message. Nothing about the policy coming out of the White House indicates to me a president who is suffering from dementia or whatever

It really didn't help Biden that he seemed sleepy and rambling at his press conference, even without the Mexico/Egypt mixup. I have some concerns about his ability to do 4 more years of the most demanding job on earth, because senescence can take sudden jumps in the advanced years. Not guaranteed, but it's a reasonable thing to worry about.

I don't doubt his ability to do the job right now. But he does have to get re-elected, and so he and his staff do need to get their shit together. They need to accept the media as it is, and take control of the narrative. Biden needs to find ways to get into the spotlight more, and not fuck it up.

5 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

No, but likely Democratic voters are crying out for a younger, more diverse party especially in place where those candidate can win. The old guard has to be thanked for everything they've done and then be given their golden watches. Pelosi at least had the dignity to step aside while staying on as the wise elder, but she too should give the seat up and just be an advisor to young new elected officials. Frankly I don't think anyone that was at least in college in the 90's should be in office.

There's something to be said for hard won know-how that comes with decades of experience. To that effect, I'm hoping your last line was exaggerated for humor. But it's true that the party needs more youngish leaders, at the very least leaders where the ability to soldier on physically and mentally isn't even a thought.