US Politics: A democratic election Prospect Theory and practice

[Zorral]

Bombshell Trump Russia revelation: Truth Social allegedly ‘kept afloat’ by nephew of Putin insider

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/trump-truth-social-stock-wildly-fluctuates-208285765862

[Tywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, no. Maybe some of the older stories are like simple comic books, like the tales of the various judges. But most of the scriptures are far more interesting. The gospel of Mark is a brilliant work of apocalyptic esotericism, an impressive mosaic of scriptural allusions. Ecclesiastes is some gorgeous and heavy philosophy. The psalms are a wealth of beauty and raw human emotion.

This is important and enriching material. But only when approached properly, not like some cake recipe for salvation.

Why assume that comic books are simple? Many are more thoughtful than various religious texts while not claiming to be the absolute truth that should guide our lives. 

[DMC]

There are countless works on the historical Jesus, but a recent one I found enjoyable with an insightful perspective is Reza Aslan’s Zealot (2013).  Really easy read too, pretty sure I read the whole thing in two sittings.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

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

Why assume that comic books are simple? Many are more thoughtful than various religious texts while not claiming to be the absolute truth that should guide our lives. 

Why assume that any given religious text is not thoughtful, or less thoughtful than comic books? 

I admit that certain graphic novels can be sophisticated and compelling works of art. They don't compare to the biblical scriptures in terms of cultural importance, but that's no knock against them. 

Hopefully you can admit that your earlier comparison of the bible to comic books was not meant as a compliment.

[Tywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Why assume that any given religious text is not thoughtful, or less thoughtful than comic books? 

I admit that certain graphic novels can be sophisticated and compelling works of art. They don't compare to the biblical scriptures in terms of cultural importance, but that's no knock against them. 

Hopefully you can admit that your earlier comparison of the bible to comic books was not meant as a compliment.

It's a neutral statement, but yo, when your lead deity character is both a wizard and a zombie, the comp becomes fair. Furthermore, religious texts and comic books can both be incredibly thoughtful or downright silly and obviously not true. Problem is one is rightly seen as fiction and the other as faith with significant cultural importance, and I'm not so sure that's a good thing right now. 

 

[VigoTheCarpathian]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Trump the Messiah is the perfect translation of the times we live in. 

For all of the accusations I heard in church against Clinton and Obama, I’d say Trump is the closest thing to the biblical Antichrist.
 

Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.

— 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4 NRSV (1989)

[DMC]

So No Labels is packing it in after they couldn’t find anybody to run under their..no label.  These type of groups are always eye-rolling in their premise that centrism somehow means better and even more righteous.  Not to mention their laughable lack of understanding that the US electoral system simply doesn’t allow for the competitive emergence of third parties.  But what was especially amusing with this effort was they thought they could make a difference during rampant polarization.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

It's a neutral statement, but yo, when your lead deity character is both a wizard and a zombie, the comp becomes fair. Furthermore, religious texts and comic books can both be incredibly thoughtful or downright silly and obviously not true. Problem is one is rightly seen as fiction and the other as faith with significant cultural importance, and I'm not so sure that's a good thing right now. 

 

Come on, at least get the lore right. A wizard is a wielder of arcane magics, the prophets are conduits of divine magic, thus they are either high-clerics or paladins. Zombies are undead, any dead person who has been brought back through revivification or resurrection spells is alive, not undead. So far as I can tell the biblical resurrections aren't making zombies. So, Jesus is definitely not a lich in the way his miracles and resurrection are described in the source material. But the end times descriptions, when people will be rising from their graves en mass, do sound like zombies. 

[Tywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Come on, at least get the lore right. A wizard is a wielder of arcane magics, the prophets are conduits of divine magic, thus they are either high-clerics or paladins. Zombies are undead, any dead person who has been brought back through revivification or resurrection spells is alive, not undead. So far as I can tell the biblical resurrections aren't making zombies. So, Jesus is definitely not a lich in the way his miracles and resurrection are described in the source material. But the end times descriptions, when people will be rising from their graves en mass, do sound like zombies. 

Dumbledore made food appear. Point one for team wizard. He could also cure people. Point two. And he valued knowledge just like a rabbi would. Point three. I could keep going, but the man is a wizard. 

There's no arguing the zombie portion. He was dead and came back to life. Cut and dried. And you don't know if he was a little... different after he returned from Pet Sematary. 

Edited April 5 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[DireWolfSpirit]

12 hours ago, Zorral said:

Bombshell Trump Russia revelation: Truth Social allegedly ‘kept afloat’ by nephew of Putin insider

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/trump-truth-social-stock-wildly-fluctuates-208285765862

Exactly as I've always maintained, the Trumps are bi*@h owned by Putin.

[Fez]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

So No Labels is packing it in after they couldn’t find anybody to run under their..no label.  These type of groups are always eye-rolling in their premise that centrism somehow means better and even more righteous.  Not to mention their laughable lack of understanding that the US electoral system simply doesn’t allow for the competitive emergence of third parties.  But what was especially amusing with this effort was they thought they could make a difference during rampant polarization.

Especially since, to have any chance at all, a third party candidate would need to have pretty much the exact opposite stances of what these groups want. They always want the mythical reasonable Republican (read: not too social conservative, but otherwise bog standard). Whereas an actually effective third party candidate would be some populist hybrid of all the positions that these groups hate (e.g., calling for high taxes on the rich and shutting down the border); basically Trump 2016 with some tweaks to appeal to Democrats more and further differentiate from the generic Republican running.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, no. Maybe some of the older stories are like simple comic books, like the tales of the various judges. But most of the scriptures are far more interesting. The gospel of Mark is a brilliant work of apocalyptic esotericism, an impressive mosaic of scriptural allusions. Ecclesiastes is some gorgeous and heavy philosophy. The psalms are a wealth of beauty and raw human emotion.

This is important and enriching material. But only when approached properly, not like some cake recipe for salvation.

Your second paragraph is exactly why “Sola Scriptura” fundamentalism scares me to death.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Especially since, to have any chance at all, a third party candidate would need to have pretty much the exact opposite stances of what these groups want. They always want the mythical reasonable Republican (read: not too social conservative, but otherwise bog standard). Whereas an actually effective third party candidate would be some populist hybrid of all the positions that these groups hate (e.g., calling for high taxes on the rich and shutting down the border); basically Trump 2016 with some tweaks to appeal to Democrats more and further differentiate from the generic Republican running.

If they wanted to actually move America more towards bipartisanship, then they ought to do it by fighting in the primaries of both parties, rather than fielding 3rd party candidates with no chance of winning.  If they supported people like Hogan in Maryland, Collins in Maine, Dolan in Ohio, and Tester in Montana, that would help make bipartisan deals in the Senate a bit more possible.  You could do ever better in lower profile races in the house, to help fund more mainstream candidates against the edges of both parties. 

I'm not saying that would be a particularly exciting or impactful effort (those "mainstream" candidates are typically well funded anyway), but it would probably show some results and successes would at least be possible.  Instead, they're trying to win the hardest race in the country first, without even a ghost of a chance of actually succeeding. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 hours ago, DMC said:

So No Labels is packing it in after they couldn’t find anybody to run under their..no label.  These type of groups are always eye-rolling in their premise that centrism somehow means better and even more righteous.  Not to mention their laughable lack of understanding that the US electoral system simply doesn’t allow for the competitive emergence of third parties.  But what was especially amusing with this effort was they thought they could make a difference during rampant polarization.

Not to mention that the US version of centrism is pretty far to the right already

[Fez]

Just now, Maithanet said:

If they wanted to actually move America more towards bipartisanship, then they ought to do it by fighting in the primaries of both parties, rather than fielding 3rd party candidates with no chance of winning.  If they supported people like Hogan in Maryland, Collins in Maine, Dolan in Ohio, and Tester in Montana, that would help make bipartisan deals in the Senate a bit more possible.  You could do ever better in lower profile races in the house, to help fund more mainstream candidates against the edges of both parties. 

I'm not saying that would be a particularly exciting or impactful effort (those "mainstream" candidates are typically well funded anyway), but it would probably show some results and successes would at least be possible.  Instead, they're trying to win the hardest race in the country first, without even a ghost of a chance of actually succeeding. 

Well yes, certainly. Ground up is the only way to achieve lasting change. But that's boring and everyone wants to ignore that.

I will say though, I think Perot 1992 shows that with the right stances and in the right circumstances, a 3rd party presidential candidate can have a real shot. If his campaign hadn't had such a bizarre July that year (including him briefly dropping out of the race), he might've actually won. He was certainly the polling frontrunner in May/June.

[Tywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not to mention that the US version of centrism is pretty far to the right already

Not really. It's more or less open to liberal light social issues and conservative light economic stances. 

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Well yes, certainly. Ground up is the only way to achieve lasting change. But that's boring and everyone wants to ignore that.

I will say though, I think Perot 1992 shows that with the right stances and in the right circumstances, a 3rd party presidential candidate can have a real shot. If his campaign hadn't had such a bizarre July that year (including him briefly dropping out of the race), he might've actually won. He was certainly the polling frontrunner in May/June.

Perot was never going to win and if he denied either Clinton or Bush the necessary EC votes Clinton would have been voted in. Again, third parties don't work at the higher levels. You're better off joining a party and influencing it. Run third party if you want for your local school board. 

[Zorral]

Trump swindles his followers — again

Description of the Green Bay WI rally:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/05/trump-swindle-crowd-green-bay-rally/

Quote

 

GREEN BAY, Wis. — Let’s say you’re an ardent Donald Trump supporter and you decided to invest $100,000 of your retirement savings into Trump Media because your favorite former president says it’s a “highly successful” company.

Well, if you bought in during last week’s initial pubic [stet -- this typo is in the reporting] offering at the peak of $79.38 a share, your $100,000 nest egg was worth only $57,000 this week when the stock hit a low of $45.26 after an April Fool’s Day crash — a 43 percent loss in just three trading days.

Not for the first time, Trump has played his supporters for suckers.

The skid came after Trump Media reported this week that it lost $58.2 million in 2023 on sales of just $4.1 million — which suggests that Trump Media is practically worthless. The shares are bound to collapse further unless some wealthy entity — Saudi Arabia? China? — buys shares to gain leverage over Trump, who can’t dump his own stake for six months. ....

.... Those in the room had to know, on some level, that Trump was making stuff up. When he boasted that “we have a room that’s sold out and people are standing outside in the snow” they could see with their own eyes that the room wasn’t full and people weren’t standing outside.

But I got the sense that most of them were there not to hear Trump’s words but to participate in the performance. Almost all wore variations of Trump hats, sweatshirts or T-shirts. One wore a Trump flag as a cape; another’s shirt showed Trump as a matador; a third hand-painted her shirt to say “Trump, Mt. Rushmore Bound, 2025.” They gleefully joined in the ritual chants: “Build that wall!” and “F--- Joe Biden.” Twice, hecklers tried to shout at Trump; the protesters were hardly audible, but the responding “boos” and chants of “USA!” from the crowd forced Trump to suspend his speech.

A minority identified themselves as extremists: the man in the Confederate-flag baseball cap, the guy flashing a white-power hand gesture at the stage, the woman holding up a wooden cross toward the press pen, as if we were vampires. ....

 

 

Edited April 5 by Zorral

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Not really. It's more or less open to liberal light social issues and conservative light economic stances. 

This no label attach group centrism is guys like Manchin and some moderate Republican (Murkowski) going on a compromise ticket.

[Fez]

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

Not really. It's more or less open to liberal light social issues and conservative light economic stances. 

Perot was never going to win and if he denied either Clinton or Bush the necessary EC votes Clinton would have been voted in. Again, third parties don't work at the higher levels. You're better off joining a party and influencing it. Run third party if you want for your local school board. 

He was polling in first place that spring, which may very well have been enough to overcome the "wasted vote" concern that usually sinks 3rd party bids. Your own state's experience with Jesse Ventura shows what can happen if a 3rd party bid gets enough momentum going.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Exactly as I've always maintained, the Trumps are bi*@h owned by Putin.

Ya, this has been reported in many places this week.  I've brought it up here too, earlier.