2024

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

mmm, rational has tended to survive in Georgia, yes.

why do you say that Ossof was "sent packing"? Isn't he in office until at least 2026?

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

mmm, rational has tended to survive in Georgia, yes.

why do you say that Ossof was "sent packing"? Isn't he in office until at least 2026?

He’s dead man walking. Locally at least. Maybe he can get himself into a DC circle but elected here he’s one and done

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

mmm, rational has tended to survive in Georgia, yes.

why do you say that Ossof was "sent packing"? Isn't he in office until at least 2026?

He’s dead man walking. Locally at least. Maybe he can get himself into a DC circle but elected here he’s one and done

May well be, but it'll be interesting to see whether he runs again or finds another path. But he's in that position for 3+ years more.

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

mmm, rational has tended to survive in Georgia, yes.

why do you say that Ossof was "sent packing"? Isn't he in office until at least 2026?

He’s dead man walking. Locally at least. Maybe he can get himself into a DC circle but elected here he’s one and done

May well be, but it'll be interesting to see whether he runs again or finds another path. But he's in that position for 3+ years more.

He was weak going in and skated by due to weaker competition but nobody cares if he exists in Atlanta basically and that was the case within a few months. Been totally unimpressive. I’m told he’s a nice guy but wasn’t qualified/prepared when he went in and is apparently so anonymous that there’s no support for him other than “we need that seat dem” from outside the state .

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

mmm, rational has tended to survive in Georgia, yes.

why do you say that Ossof was "sent packing"? Isn't he in office until at least 2026?

He’s dead man walking. Locally at least. Maybe he can get himself into a DC circle but elected here he’s one and done

May well be, but it'll be interesting to see whether he runs again or finds another path. But he's in that position for 3+ years more.

He was weak going in and skated by due to weaker competition but nobody cares if he exists in Atlanta basically and that was the case within a few months. Been totally unimpressive. I’m told he’s a nice guy but wasn’t qualified/prepared when he went in and is apparently so anonymous that there’s no support for him other than “we need that seat dem” from outside the state .

Assuming my thesis that the Dems need to hold the Senate and Presidency a couple of rounds so as to beat down MAGA and to re-balance SCOTUS from its current activist rightward lurch, is there another Dem who could win state-wide in the wings? Or does Ossof need to improve and hold on?

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...

Keep in mind I’ve been living with nearly a decade off runoffs on near every national election in Ga. And Perdue & Loeffler got put down. Ossof was weak and was sent packing. Herschel lost. I’d prefer ranked choice and not having every election be a runoff but it’s not like it’s generated disasters in this state. In fact atlanta is the SE capital/anchor for rational behavior winning in the end. Evidence doesn’t actually support ranked choice improving that system.

mmm, rational has tended to survive in Georgia, yes.

why do you say that Ossof was "sent packing"? Isn't he in office until at least 2026?

He’s dead man walking. Locally at least. Maybe he can get himself into a DC circle but elected here he’s one and done

May well be, but it'll be interesting to see whether he runs again or finds another path. But he's in that position for 3+ years more.

He was weak going in and skated by due to weaker competition but nobody cares if he exists in Atlanta basically and that was the case within a few months. Been totally unimpressive. I’m told he’s a nice guy but wasn’t qualified/prepared when he went in and is apparently so anonymous that there’s no support for him other than “we need that seat dem” from outside the state .

Assuming my thesis that the Dems need to hold the Senate and Presidency a couple of rounds so as to beat down MAGA and to re-balance SCOTUS from its current activist rightward lurch, is there another Dem who could win state-wide in the wings? Or does Ossof need to improve and hold on?

As of today more the latter but Dems seem to pop up shortly before elections often they’re not groomed through the system like reps in the state so I’m assuming someone will show up at the time needed. Kemp, for example, ran around the Atlanta suburbs in smaller roles then sec of state but was on a clear path to be in the mix eventually at the top of the state-not guaranteeing he’d be gov but known he’d run.

[CU88a]

Christie is just looking to be a spoiler in GOP Primary. These debates will be worth the extra popcorn, unless 2xIMPOTUS o d skips it to avoid the lashing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ent-2023-7

Christie, former New Jersey governor who is challenging Trump for the 2024 nomination, said the ex-president's claim is absurd and that he has, in fact, been indicted "because of his outrageous conduct."

Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper, Christie argued that no other American had "illegally retained classified national secrets after being asked — politely, quietly, and professionally for 18 months — to voluntarily turn them back over after he left the White House."

And no other American, he continued, "lied to their own lawyers about where those documents were" or who "flashed around documents regarding an Iranian war plan to people who didn't have clearance to see them."

[Farfromgeneva]

Christie is just looking to be a spoiler in GOP Primary. These debates will be worth the extra popcorn, unless 2xIMPOTUS o d skips it to avoid the lashing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ent-2023-7

Christie, former New Jersey governor who is challenging Trump for the 2024 nomination, said the ex-president's claim is absurd and that he has, in fact, been indicted "because of his outrageous conduct."

Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper, Christie argued that no other American had "illegally retained classified national secrets after being asked — politely, quietly, and professionally for 18 months — to voluntarily turn them back over after he left the White House."

And no other American, he continued, "lied to their own lawyers about where those documents were" or who "flashed around documents regarding an Iranian war plan to people who didn't have clearance to see them."

Yes it’ll be fun as Christie can get down on the street level with him.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The stakes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/us/p ... ew_arm_5_1

"Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.

He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”

“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Mr. Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.

“Our current executive branch,” Mr. McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”

Mr. Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.

“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs a policy organization, the Center for Renewing America.

The strategy in talking openly about such “paradigm-shifting ideas” before the election, Mr. Vought said, is to “plant a flag” — both to shift the debate and to later be able to claim a mandate. He said he was delighted to see few of Mr. Trump’s Republican primary rivals defend the norm of Justice Department independence after the former president openly attacked it.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement that the former president has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.” He added, “Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all.”


The two driving forces of this effort to reshape the executive branch are Mr. Trump’s own campaign policy shop and a well-funded network of conservative groups, many of which are populated by former senior Trump administration officials who would most likely play key roles in any second term.

Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.

That work at Heritage dovetails with plans on the Trump campaign website to expand presidential power that were drafted primarily by two of Mr. Trump’s advisers, Vincent Haley and Ross Worthington, with input from other advisers, including Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s hard-line immigration agenda.

Some elements of the plans had been floated when Mr. Trump was in office but were impeded by internal concerns that they would be unworkable and could lead to setbacks. And for some veterans of Mr. Trump’s turbulent White House who came to question his fitness for leadership, the prospect of removing guardrails and centralizing even greater power over government directly in his hands sounded like a recipe for mayhem.

“It would be chaotic,” said John F. Kelly, Mr. Trump’s second White House chief of staff. “It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”

The agenda being pursued has deep roots in the decades-long effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.

Its legal underpinning is a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory.

The legal theory rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches with overlapping powers to check and balance each other. Instead, the theory’s adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions or restrict the president’s ability to fire them. Reagan administration lawyers developed the theory as they sought to advance a deregulatory agenda.

“The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don’t answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic,” said Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, adding that the contributors to Project 2025 are committed to “dismantling this rogue administrative state.”

Personal power has always been a driving force for Mr. Trump. He often gestures toward it in a more simplistic manner, such as in 2019, when he declared to a cheering crowd, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Mr. Trump made the remark in reference to his claimed ability to directly fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, which primed his hostility toward law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He also tried to get a subordinate to have Mr. Mueller ousted, but was defied.

Early in Mr. Trump’s presidency, his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Mr. Trump installed people in other key roles who ended up telling him that more radical ideas were unworkable or illegal. In the final year of his presidency, he told aides he was fed up with being constrained by subordinates.

Now, Mr. Trump is laying out a far more expansive vision of power in any second term. And, in contrast with his disorganized transition after his surprise 2016 victory, he now benefits from a well-funded policymaking infrastructure, led by former officials who did not break with him after his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

One idea the people around Mr. Trump have developed centers on bringing independent agencies under his thumb.

Congress created these specialized technocratic agencies inside the executive branch and delegated to them some of its power to make rules for society. But it did so on the condition that it was not simply handing off that power to presidents to wield like kings — putting commissioners atop them whom presidents appoint but generally cannot fire before their terms end, while using its control of their budgets to keep them partly accountable to lawmakers as well. (Agency actions are also subject to court review.)

Presidents of both parties have chafed at the agencies’ independence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal created many of them, endorsed a proposal in 1937 to fold them all into cabinet departments under his control, but Congress did not enact it.

Later presidents sought to impose greater control over nonindependent agencies Congress created, like the Environmental Protection Agency, which is run by an administrator whom a president can remove at will. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued executive orders requiring nonindependent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review. But overall, presidents have largely left the independent agencies alone.

Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to change that, drafting an executive order requiring independent agencies to submit actions to the White House for review. Mr. Trump endorsed the idea on his campaign website, vowing to bring them “under presidential authority.”

Such an order was drafted in Mr. Trump’s first term — and blessed by the Justice Department — but never issued amid internal concerns. Some of the concerns were over how to carry out reviews for agencies that are headed by multiple commissioners and subject to administrative procedures and open-meetings laws, as well as over how the market would react if the order chipped away at the Federal Reserve’s independence, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Reserve was ultimately exempted in the draft executive order, but Mr. Trump did not sign it before his presidency ended. If Mr. Trump and his allies get another shot at power, the independence of the Federal Reserve — an institution Mr. Trump publicly railed at as president — could be up for debate. Notably, the Trump campaign website’s discussion of bringing independent agencies under presidential control is silent on whether that includes the Fed.

Asked whether presidents should be able to order interest rates lowered before elections, even if experts think that would hurt the long-term health of the economy, Mr. Vought said that would have to be worked out with Congress. But “at the bare minimum,” he said, the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review.

“It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” Mr. Vought said.

Other former Trump administration officials involved in the planning said there would also probably be a legal challenge to the limits on a president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. Mr. Trump could remove an agency head, teeing up the question for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 1935 and 1988 upheld the power of Congress to shield some executive branch officials from being fired without cause. But after justices appointed by Republicans since Reagan took control, it has started to erode those precedents.

Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University and a critic of the strong version of the unitary executive theory, argued that it is constitutional and desirable for Congress, in creating and empowering an agency to perform some task, to also include some checks on the president’s control over officials “because we don’t want autocracy” and to prevent abuses.

“The regrettable fact is that the judiciary at the moment seems inclined to recognize that the president does have this kind of authority,” he said. “They are clawing away agency independence in ways that I find quite unfortunate and disrespectful of congressional choice.”

Mr. Trump has also vowed to impound funds, or refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. After Nixon used the practice to aggressively block agency spending he was opposed to, on water pollution control, housing construction and other issues, Congress banned the tactic.

On his campaign website, Mr. Trump declared that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds and said he would restore the practice — though he acknowledged it could result in a legal battle.

Mr. Trump and his allies also want to transform the civil service — government employees who are supposed to be nonpartisan professionals and experts with protections against being fired for political reasons.

The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn, including by raising legal or pragmatic objections to his immigration policies, among many other examples. Toward the end of his term, his aides drafted an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” that removed employment protections from career officials whose jobs were deemed linked to policymaking.

Mr. Trump signed the order, which became known as Schedule F, near the end of his presidency, but President Biden rescinded it. Mr. Trump has vowed to immediately reinstitute it in a second term.

Critics say he could use it for a partisan purge. But James Sherk, a former Trump administration official who came up with the idea and now works at the America First Policy Institute — a think tank stocked heavily with former Trump officials — argued it would only be used against poor performers and people who actively impeded the elected president’s agenda.

“Schedule F expressly forbids hiring or firing based on political loyalty,” Mr. Sherk said. “Schedule F employees would keep their jobs if they served effectively and impartially.”

Mr. Trump himself has characterized his intentions rather differently — promising on his campaign website to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” and listing a litany of targets at a rally last month.

“We will demolish the deep state,” Mr. Trump said at the rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”

[MDlaxfan76]

Christie is just looking to be a spoiler in GOP Primary. These debates will be worth the extra popcorn, unless 2xIMPOTUS o d skips it to avoid the lashing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ent-2023-7

Christie, former New Jersey governor who is challenging Trump for the 2024 nomination, said the ex-president's claim is absurd and that he has, in fact, been indicted "because of his outrageous conduct."

Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper, Christie argued that no other American had "illegally retained classified national secrets after being asked — politely, quietly, and professionally for 18 months — to voluntarily turn them back over after he left the White House."

And no other American, he continued, "lied to their own lawyers about where those documents were" or who "flashed around documents regarding an Iranian war plan to people who didn't have clearance to see them."

Very unlikely that Trump shows for the first debate. No upside for him.

Christie will likely go after DeSantis in particular, so be prepared for DeSantis to be exposed, deer in the headlights. That's good for Trump.

DeSantis has signaled that he may take some shots at Tim Scott, and likely some broader swings at Trump not getting done most any of his campaign promises, various losses ever since...audience will boo some of the shots at Trump.

I listened to a podcast this week about QAnon (nut job with bombs and guns stalking Obama house was QAnon inspired); guy has been studying the movement for many years, deep inside the bowels of it. Lots of splinters and offshoots, but core beliefs include that a global elite cabal has controlled the world for centuries, perhaps thousands of years, drinking the blood of children, supposedly to sustain or extend life because of a chemical 'adreno something' that has such powers, and today it includes Wall Street titans, Hollywood, Democrats, Obama, Clintons, Soros...etc...piggybacks on old beliefs re Jews and cites various NAZI sources...but old mythology, made new...and also core is the belief that Trump, specifically, is the Chosen to overthrow this cabal, take them to Guantanamo and execute them all...ushering in utopia...violent, proto-fascist, the movement has appealed to Christian Nationalists, White Nationalists, and more recently broadened racially and with more women under the guise of 'save the children'...Pizzagate, Epstein, and being online way, way too much during Covid...now book banning, gender fears, etc...vaccine conspiracies, government control was another way "into" QAnon....and nothing, absolutely nothing, can be trusted as truthful from government.

Nutso's right? well...apparently 7% of all Americans say they believe in QAnon when asked specifically with that name...but at least 15% of Americans agree that global elites have conspired to rule the world in secret...

Nearly all such have coalesced in the GOP, and given the Trump mythology, they believe he and he alone is the Chosen...no matter what...and he now wears a Q pin to rallies and plays Q music at them...

7% of Americans is nearly 25% of the GOP...believe in QAnon by name...but double that believe in the core concept...Nearly all of those voters are going to vote for Trump no matter what, everything can be explained...unshakeable.

[MDlaxfan76]

My son was on a flight last evening from Palm Beach International to Baltimore-Washington International. The PBI airport and his flight was full of MAGA, and other far right apparel wearing people, including Q, a lot of Trump MAGA, Turning Point, etc...Turning Point conference...he was a bit freaked by how many young people, college age kids were there...mostly white, excited; "all looked the same"... but one huge black guy with appropriate gear attracted tons of attention, people taking selfies and asking for autographs, must have been a speaker...

And then Asa Hutchinson (who had spoken) came in and was standing close by...only one in a suit...only about 5 people approached him to say hi. Most ignored him or turned away...

My son was standing next to a very normal looking, put together, middle aged couple, wife asked her husband who he was, and he told her, and said "I like him"; she asked why; he said, "he's trying to get things back to normal"...but then said "but I'm not going to vote for him"...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... nr-vpx.cnn

[jhu72]

It occurred to me just how stupid the Trump / QAnon conspiracy types are. The 25-50% of the republiCON party. They have built up this theory to explain the world. International elites controlling the world, Trump is going to foil their plans, etc. This has to be pure fantasy because if it were the real world, the international elites would have had Trump assassinated years ago. What maroons.

[OCanada]

The irony of Trump talking about the deep state. He represents the culmination of more than fifty years of “deep state planning” and funding and grooming. His most recent rants are disturbingly detached from reality.

The reality so many are willing to commit supuku (figure of speech) not only to their own futures but their off-springs as well remains a measure of how many voters are influenced by fear of the “other” and bigotry

The Ojibwe speak of how there are two wolves fighting inside of each of us. One wolf is love and the other is fear. The winner in each case is the wolf each person feeds. A lot of people are feeding fear

[youthathletics]

It occurred to me just how stupid the Trump / QAnon conspiracy types are. The 25-50% of the republiCON party. They have built up this theory to explain the world. International elites controlling the world, Trump is going to foil their plans, etc. This has to be pure fantasy because if it were the real world, the international elites would have had Trump assassinated years ago. What maroons.

What if you learned qanon was really run by the left?

[MDlaxfan76]

It occurred to me just how stupid the Trump / QAnon conspiracy types are. The 25-50% of the republiCON party. They have built up this theory to explain the world. International elites controlling the world, Trump is going to foil their plans, etc. This has to be pure fantasy because if it were the real world, the international elites would have had Trump assassinated years ago. What maroons.

What if you learned qanon was really run by the left?

just putting it out there?

Probably by RFK Jr...he's Q adjacent.

One of the Q beliefs is that John F. Kennedy Jr actually wasn't killed, it was a cover-up and he's been secretly planning his return to help with the overthrow of the cabal...

[youthathletics]

It occurred to me just how stupid the Trump / QAnon conspiracy types are. The 25-50% of the republiCON party. They have built up this theory to explain the world. International elites controlling the world, Trump is going to foil their plans, etc. This has to be pure fantasy because if it were the real world, the international elites would have had Trump assassinated years ago. What maroons.

What if you learned qanon was really run by the left?

just putting it out there?

Probably by RFK Jr...he's Q adjacent.

One of the Q beliefs is that John F. Kennedy Jr actually wasn't killed, it was a cover-up and he's been secretly planning his return to help with the overthrow of the cabal...

long before RFK Jr. The classic bait and switch the left is so famous for doing. Accuse you of the very thing they are doing to put you on the defensive. Could be Tupac....

[Farfromgeneva]

Christie is just looking to be a spoiler in GOP Primary. These debates will be worth the extra popcorn, unless 2xIMPOTUS o d skips it to avoid the lashing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ent-2023-7

Christie, former New Jersey governor who is challenging Trump for the 2024 nomination, said the ex-president's claim is absurd and that he has, in fact, been indicted "because of his outrageous conduct."

Speaking to CNN's Jake Tapper, Christie argued that no other American had "illegally retained classified national secrets after being asked — politely, quietly, and professionally for 18 months — to voluntarily turn them back over after he left the White House."

And no other American, he continued, "lied to their own lawyers about where those documents were" or who "flashed around documents regarding an Iranian war plan to people who didn't have clearance to see them."

Very unlikely that Trump shows for the first debate. No upside for him.

Christie will likely go after DeSantis in particular, so be prepared for DeSantis to be exposed, deer in the headlights. That's good for Trump.

DeSantis has signaled that he may take some shots at Tim Scott, and likely some broader swings at Trump not getting done most any of his campaign promises, various losses ever since...audience will boo some of the shots at Trump.

I listened to a podcast this week about QAnon (nut job with bombs and guns stalking Obama house was QAnon inspired); guy has been studying the movement for many years, deep inside the bowels of it. Lots of splinters and offshoots, but core beliefs include that a global elite cabal has controlled the world for centuries, perhaps thousands of years, drinking the blood of children, supposedly to sustain or extend life because of a chemical 'adreno something' that has such powers, and today it includes Wall Street titans, Hollywood, Democrats, Obama, Clintons, Soros...etc...piggybacks on old beliefs re Jews and cites various NAZI sources...but old mythology, made new...and also core is the belief that Trump, specifically, is the Chosen to overthrow this cabal, take them to Guantanamo and execute them all...ushering in utopia...violent, proto-fascist, the movement has appealed to Christian Nationalists, White Nationalists, and more recently broadened racially and with more women under the guise of 'save the children'...Pizzagate, Epstein, and being online way, way too much during Covid...now book banning, gender fears, etc...vaccine conspiracies, government control was another way "into" QAnon....and nothing, absolutely nothing, can be trusted as truthful from government.

Nutso's right? well...apparently 7% of all Americans say they believe in QAnon when asked specifically with that name...but at least 15% of Americans agree that global elites have conspired to rule the world in secret...

Nearly all such have coalesced in the GOP, and given the Trump mythology, they believe he and he alone is the Chosen...no matter what...and he now wears a Q pin to rallies and plays Q music at them...

7% of Americans is nearly 25% of the GOP...believe in QAnon by name...but double that believe in the core concept...Nearly all of those voters are going to vote for Trump no matter what, everything can be explained...unshakeable.

In a dataset this size (large enough) 7% is massive.

[ggait]

Yes that is large. But totally unsurprising.

About 10% of Americans think that vaccines plant a microchip, moon landings were faked, and the Earth is flat.

And 30% of American still believe the 2020 election was stolen.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

[MDlaxfan76]

It occurred to me just how stupid the Trump / QAnon conspiracy types are. The 25-50% of the republiCON party. They have built up this theory to explain the world. International elites controlling the world, Trump is going to foil their plans, etc. This has to be pure fantasy because if it were the real world, the international elites would have had Trump assassinated years ago. What maroons.

What if you learned qanon was really run by the left?

just putting it out there?

Probably by RFK Jr...he's Q adjacent.

One of the Q beliefs is that John F. Kennedy Jr actually wasn't killed, it was a cover-up and he's been secretly planning his return to help with the overthrow of the cabal...

long before RFK Jr. The classic bait and switch the left is so famous for doing. Accuse you of the very thing they are doing to put you on the defensive. Could be Tupac....

Heck, hundreds, probably thousands of years...it was the "left" that drove the NAZIS...and the Crusades...and the Inquisition...and...