Like that's our goal, not protecting democracy. Just throwing away money for no reason.
Tuberville believes this nonsense because he listens to RW media, which flatters his self-image because it gives him someone to look down on. But he really hasn't thought this through.
Nobody wants to spend money for no reason. They have reasons, they're just ones you disagree with.
If you listen to too much partisan media, you'll start to believe their caricatures of the other side are real, and you'll make stupid mistakes like this.
not saying I agree with it
they will be inaccurate. Women are PISSED OFF about the Dobbs decision and are FAR more likely to vote than men. That's why we won big this cycle in Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, right after a Biden is in trouble poll. In fact, the loss we took in Mississippi was likely from the blue wave not turning out for an anti-choice Democrat.
It's raining? Things are expensive? Maybe dudes won't stand in line. But Dobbs hangs over women like a sword. They can't forget and they won't forgive.
You are in no way required to consume all the media covering this horrible war. It is enough to know that a war has started, and horrible shit is to be expected.
Media outlets are motivated to keep showing you worse and worse videos and reports, so you stay glued and consume more ads. Notice how all the other news has vanished from their coverage. If these shows were balanced, you would at least hear about other happenings. I think they are doing the work of terrorists, terrorizing the world population, perhaps unknowingly.
So take a break now and then, as long as you need. There are plenty of people whose job it is to worry about these things. There are millions more who consume the news and distill the important parts. But at the end of the day, there is little for us to do about it. I can't control or even affect how the war unfolds. I can speak about how much and whether we support humans on one side or the other, but that's about it.
So it does not help to be hyper-informed, since there is little or nothing for us to do as individuals; and it could be counterproductive if it affects your health or your sleep. Do not listen to anyone who would berate your choice of self-care in favor of information-as-activism.
To me that implies the existence of the person before or between incarnations.
Jesus said John the Baptist was the return of Elijah (as predicted in Malachi 4), so it would not be out of character with the thinking at the time (pre-533).
It's also worth noting that causing a woman to miscarry the closest thing to abortion mentioned in the Bible does not carry the same penalty as murder, so they are not equated.
To those objecting, I understand the arguments against donating, but Christie can't be the only one on stage criticizing Trump and supporting the Constitution. The message would be tied to the messenger, and he has baggage.
But if two people talk about the importance of upholding the rule of law, it will make an impression beyond people's feelings about a candidate. They would reinforce each other's points, and people would have to consider them. It would make the debate about at least one idea, and not a series of screen tests for VP.
Besides, Trump's fans will be watching the slobber fest from Bowtie Boy. The ones watching will be looking for an alternative rather than a running mate for Trump.
It would be witness intimidation or some such, dressed up as free speech. Unfortunately I think it would benefit Chunk E. Cheese; it would seem to some deluded folk that he was being persecuted for political opinion.
This won't be popular here, but I think we should try to make his first incarceration about the truly monumental stuff if at all possible. The country as a whole would accept incarceration if it appears he deserves it, truly deserves it. I am not minimizing witness tampering, intimidation or interference. They are corrosive, but political violence is worse. Hs conduct will be considered at sentencing. Incarceration would be a distraction, a circus.
My hunch is that Smith is aware of the dangers of a fractured country; but of course that will not deter him from doing his job. He has faced worse and won. Trump can get away with a lot, until he can't. His ultimate fate is sealed, IMO, so I don't mind giving him a few apparent wins.
Not sure how the judge will rule on the social posts, though. Trump's good at toeing the line, like the mobster he is. I hope she tears him a new one, but we proceed with the case.
Then they start to get it.
Other people's pain sucks, but some people can tune it out. One's own pain is more immediate and pressing. That's human nature, and perfectly understandable. But the difference makes the transition harder and more pronounced for those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with empathy and compassion.
Just having a name on the ballot is not very expensive, but it does give us a voice in the debate.
If we don't show up and field a candidate, it makes us look weak or afraid to debate. It reinforces the idea they have that we can't support our positions because they are indefensible. So stand there and say your piece. Even if you don't win and you likely won't you will gain a modicum of respect for defending your beliefs. That incrementally changes the caricature the other side has about us, and opens the door for future gains. It also affects the national conversation; our ideas can get repeated on radio call-in shows, letters to the editor, and so on. Giving up without a fight does none of that.
There is always the possibility that a Republican candidate will be engulfed in a scandal big enough to turn off voters. If we have a candidate ready to fill the void, we have a chance at taking that seat; if we don't, that opportunity is lost.
#18: Mueller found no conspiracy would be less ambiguous if it was Mueller did not find a conspiracy.
This may seem like a trivial point, but it can give ammo to our opponents, who are quick to say things like, Mueller said no collusion!
The first statement can be read as an authoritative finding (proving a negative), whereas the sacond is more circumspect, clear, and accurate.
If Mueller had been able to discover exactly what Kilimnik did with the sensitive internal campaign data Manafort gave him, he might have had a chance to prove conspiracy. But that's a huge ask for anyone with knowledge of Russia. However, we know the campaign data contained identifiable information on voters that's the input.
The output was the Cambridge Analytical scandal, where the data on each voter was matched with their social media, and a psychological portrait created. This was then analyzed to estimate likeliness of voting, and for which candidate. They were then microtargeted cheaply by buying Facebook ads weapons-grade psyops, built by Russian military intelligence personnel to move them in a particular direction. So disaffected Bernie voters were shown fake articles on why it was pointless to vote, both parties are the same, etc. Republicans were shown inspiring messages or told how all the attacks on Trump wre lies.
The operation only had to move the needle a small percentage to have a big impact on the race. The results speak for themselves.
Manafort-Kilimnik is the beginning of a huge blind spot for U.S. investigators. We simply can't see what Russia did with the data, in order to prove conspiracy. But the input and output are evident.
Profile InformationMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 14,119
- 2023 (13)
- 2022 (13)
- 2021 (10)
- 2020 (4)
- 2019 (16)
- 2018 (11)
- 2017 (1)
- December (1)
- 2016 (9)
- 2013 (2)
- 2012 (1)
- October (1)