TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[dada]

It's an internet meme thing, I get it. Frog is meme of the moment. Some internet memes catch on in the wider culture for a time, and some don't, for various reasons.

Subcultures have in-jokes and buzz words. They develop their own slang. Everysmurf is smurfy in a subculture.

Do I need to be concerned with the particulars of this one? eh, I'll pass. I think I get the idea.

You have to understand, I'm not a monitor, an outside observer of troll-culture. I'm at war with it.

Total war. I know it may seem like I'm a sweetheart, but really, deep down I am not a nice person.

Total war with troll culture?

Jared Cohen's Jigsaw made an announcement about that recently, I think

I have no idea who that is. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Yes, total war against troll culture. You can think of me as the master-brain of the Lucky Black Cats. Cold, calculating and merciless. You haven't heard of us for a reason. Our trouble spreads like an inky shadow over everything. meows.

While it's true that votes may not matter, Let's pretend they do for the sake of the discussion.

So let's pretend we're a conservative, thinking about who to vote for. We have a job where we use our brains, we're an English teacher or something. We consider ourselves a sensible human being.

Clinton? hm. There's that email thing. Well, at least she uses email. Trump tweets like my schoolkids.

She was kind of sloppy with that classified information though. On the other hand, she has access to classified information. That says something. She has experience. And everyone makes mistakes. Alright, I'll give her a pass on that one.

Her party has their kids in line. Young and idealistic Democrats were put in their place. I like that. My party is in disarray. These Ayn Rand, illuminati conspiracy types are a circus.

I see all the neocons are backing Clinton. And of course my wife, and mom. Wow, I can't believe I'm even considering this. Strange times we live in.

[norton ash]

Strange times. That noise from the breaker's yard next door is makin' me UNEASY.

EDIT: All I can suggest is hold your nose, try not to notice the bayonet between your shoulder blades, and vote Hillary.

[tapitsbo]

Dada how do you feel about Jeet Heer's work?

You're a more enjoyable writer than him but he likes those kinds of thought experiments, too.

[dada]

Dada how do you feel about Jeet Heer's work?

You're a more enjoyable writer than him but he likes those kinds of thought experiments, too.

Thanks! It's nice to hear my ramblings are being enjoyed.

Just looked him up. eh. I'm not much for journalists. Maybe he has other stuff I might like.

Looks like he's a twitterer. I don't like going over there.

I only use social media to post things sometimes. I don't look at facebook walls or twitter feeds or any of that stuff. I'm like all output nowadays.

[dada]

.

This is why, when I want to get a sense of what The People are thinking and what the future holds, I wander on over to 4chan or Reddit and have a look at the memes.

.

You definitely give these websites more credit than I do. I see them more as echo chambers for people with short attention spans who live on the internet. What The People there are thinking is mostly 'am I cool? I'd better look around and see what is everyone else thinking right now to make sure.'

How easy would it be to game that system? If you're a professional opinion-shaper, you drop your agenda into the hive mind, watch them crawl around it for awhile. It's temporary though, flighty and ephemeral. But that's what you get paid to do as an opinion-shaper. Sounds like it must be a thankless job.

I was joking. I never go to 4chan or Reddit (except the latter occasionally when someone links), and probably get enough of the fallout elsewhere to have a sense of what is going on in these echo chambers for a limited demographic. If I did, maybe I'd get the dubious idea that young people are turning to Trump, as opposed to (maybe) Stein or Johnson, or not caring in particular.

My observation is that it seems much more like a set of reactions against, rather than a principled-based endorsement for... Trump / far right. It seems much less echoic than the neolib / SJW establishment it is taking aim at... they seem to have zero understanding of it as far as I can see.

I'm wondering, what is the 'SJW establishment' to you, Searcher08?

SJW was a term coined during gamergate, a codeword that means 'evil feminists' and 'people who fight for racial and gender equality.'

You could say I'm a social justice warrior. I would say I am, without hesitation. I'm not part of any establishment. I'm extremely anti-establishment, in fact.

So I represent the SJW. I have no problem with that. I take their derogatory label, and I'll wear it proudly. And I'll fight, argue, discuss, engage, and I'm intelligent and scary. They hate people like me.

[JackRiddler]

I almost started a new thread, and I might, but probably enough.

Is the Bush endorsement (so far "effective" rather than "official") a net plus or a net minus for Clinton?

Does it grant permission to loyal old guard conservatives to break ranks against the fraudulent Trump? Or is it a provocation to vote Trump among blind establishment haters (blind insofar as they may really think Trump is "anti-establishment") who now see Bushes openly united with Clinton?

Is it not a confirmation to the left not to bother, since after all the most important thing in the world 12 years ago was to stop the Bush, who is now endorsing the Clinton, in the cause of the new most important thing in the world today, to stop the Trump. Ah, but who's thinking of the left in this, anyway?

If it is a net minus, have the Bushes figured it out? We used to credit them (their crew, not so much the front boys personally) with a lot of deviousness and double-think. We had adjectives like Rovian, oooh what a genius of a flunky. Fed fake documents confirming the actually true story of Bush's AWOL to Rather, toppled him and defused the story forever. Anyway, this Bush gang originated in the See-Eye-Ay, no?

So are they serious, or are they playing a reverse psychology game to Trump's favor?

I figure they're serious, now that I've typed the above, which helped me sort it through. They want a comeback for their ilk within their own party, and it's Trump in the way of that, not Clinton. And like the MIC and generals and P2Ps and neocons and geostrategy wankers jumping up for Clinton, they want an orderly regulation of the imperial slaughterhouse. No mad dog shit -- from the butchers of Iraq!

The other question remains: Net plus or net minus? Probably net minus, by a little bit. Its effect will recede, especially from the minds of the low-info voters it would most likely affect.

Unless of course Clinton goes for a joint commercial with W. Because I can totally see her camp being that stupid. It's true, as said above, that Camp Clinton and the present state of the neoliberal policy elites is even much, much more of an echo chamber than Reddit.

[82_28]

Start the thread. I tried to start a kind of stupid one a few weeks ago as you know. It's not as though we're gonna change the world here at RI but at least we can vent. It shows that even leftists give a shit about this country. I like that we're "safe" here and is open to the world to check out. I don't find what we do here mere hopeless dreams but look at the world you blind motherfuckers! Just kidding.

I am leaning towards Stein. But who are we kidding? I may just sit this one out and only vote for local issues.

[dada]

Hang on, I gotta put on my 'pre-game show sports commentator' hat...

I almost started a new thread, and I might, but probably enough.

Is the Bush endorsement (so far "effective" rather than "official") a net plus or a net minus for Clinton?

Does it grant permission to loyal old guard conservatives to break ranks against the fraudulent Trump? Or is it a provocation to vote Trump among blind establishment haters (blind insofar as they may really think Trump is "anti-establishment") who now see Bushes openly united with Clinton?

Is it not a confirmation to the left not to bother, since after all the most important thing in the world 12 years ago was to stop the Bush, who is now endorsing the Clinton, in the cause of the new most important thing in the world today, to stop the Trump. Ah, but who's thinking of the left in this, anyway?

No one cares about the left! The Donald is too polarizing, there's no need to worry about the left. They can't in good conscience go third-party or abstain in this one.

I'm making sweeping generalizations, here. There's always going to be exceptions, sure. My opinion, literally a few handfuls of exceptions in this case. Not worth chasing those votes.

If it is a net minus, have the Bushes figured it out? We used to credit them (their crew, not so much the front boys personally) with a lot of deviousness and double-think. We had adjectives like Rovian, oooh what a genius of a flunky. Fed fake documents confirming the actually true story of Bush's AWOL to Rather, toppled him and defused the story forever. Anyway, this Bush gang originated in the See-Eye-Ay, no?

Rove is practically calling it for Clinton. Not supporting her, just talking purely electoral college numbers. He did call Trump a complete idiot, though. Fun times, right?

So are they serious, or are they playing a reverse psychology game to Trump's favor?

I figure they're serious, now that I've typed the above, which helped me sort it through. They want a comeback for their ilk within their own party, and it's Trump in the way of that, not Clinton. And like the MIC and generals and P2Ps and neocons and geostrategy wankers jumping up for Clinton, they want an orderly regulation of the imperial slaughterhouse. No mad dog shit -- from the butchers of Iraq!

Yeah that. Although they could probably reel him in, keep him in line if they'd wanted to. But the GOP is just plain pissed off. There's a way these political things are supposed to work. Who does this reality tv trash-celebrity think he is, stirring up our tea party paranoia to make a run for president.

Donald didn't play by the rules of the Washington machine, and now they're going to show him what real power is.

The other question remains: Net plus or net minus? Probably net minus, by a little bit. Its effect will recede, especially from the minds of the low-info voters it would most likely affect.

Unless of course Clinton goes for a joint commercial with W. Because I can totally see her camp being that stupid. It's true, as said above, that Camp Clinton and the present state of the neoliberal policy elites is even much, much more of an echo chamber than Reddit.

No one cares about the left! haha

I think she doesn't have to do much of anything at this point. Just let it all happen.

Seriously, she's got the Democrats locked is my opinion. I don't think she can do any wrong with them. Like I say, Trump is just too polarizing. She could do that commercial with W. Progressives would be angry, Centrists shake their heads. Wouldn't change a thing, though.

Centrist Democrats want to win. They don't care what it takes. That's two-party politics. Go team. They definitely don't care about 12 years ago. If they did, things would already look very different than they do now.

They are really making this play for the conservatives, though. It'll be all dogwhistles to the right in the debates.

[Nordic]

What "left" are you talking about?

There basically is no left. Unless you're talking about Jill Stein supporters.

[Nordic]

Strange times. That noise from the breaker's yard next door is makin' me UNEASY.

EDIT: All I can suggest is hold your nose, try not to notice the bayonet between your shoulder blades, and vote Hillary.

Why would you do such a thing when you don't have to. Vote for Jull Stein. Or someone else. Or don't vote.

Hillary is Dick Cheney. How could you vote for that?

Or are you joking?

[dada]

What "left" are you talking about?

There basically is no left. Unless you're talking about Jill Stein supporters.

I know. I was doing my sports-commentator act.

I won't be voting. I don't participate in this sham.

I don't fit into any demographic, though, and I know it. I'm a demographic of one, discussing this and that on RI, a place where some other rare and interesting minds happen to gravitate to. Minds that have seen pretty deep into some heavy shit, and don't act like they haven't. There's not many places around like that. At least, I haven't found any.

[seemslikeadream]

Man Dies of Thirst in Jail Run by Trump-Loving Sheriff After Guards Cut off His Water for Six Days

Sheriff Clarke is a Trump supporter who came to national attention during the August riots in Milwaukee.

By Patrick Hilsman / The Influence September 20, 2016


38-year-old Terrill Thomas was arrested in connection to a shooting and taken to Milwaukee County Jail. Nine days later, he was dead of dehydration. His death has been ruled homicide. This article was originally published by The Influence, a news site that covers the full spectrum of human relationships with drugs.

According to inmates, guards allegedly deprived Thomas of water for six days, reported the Journal Sentinel. “If something happens to that man, it’s your fault,” one of the inmates reportedly told guards. Milwaukee County Jail is under the jurisdiction of Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke, a star in conservative circles after delivering a rousing speech at the Republican National Convention earlier this summer.

Sheriff Clarke is a Trump supporter who came to national attention during the August riots in Milwaukee, when he denigrated the Black Lives Matter movement. Clarke frequently talks about “law and order” and often denigrates “black cultural dysfunction.”

How about the dysfunction of letting a man die of thirst while in the care of the state? The ruling of homicide does not necessarily mean that charges will be brought against anyone and Clarke’s office is predictably silent.

“No one should ever die of dehydration. It just should never happen,” Erik J. Heipt, a lawyer for the Thomas family, told The Huffington Post.
http://www.alternet.org/human-rights/ma ... r-six-days

[Luther Blissett]

What "left" are you talking about?

There basically is no left. Unless you're talking about Jill Stein supporters.

It definitely exists in some cities. It's small but it's real. And not even just Stein supporters.

[tapitsbo]

Dada how do you feel about Jeet Heer's work?

You're a more enjoyable writer than him but he likes those kinds of thought experiments, too.

Thanks! It's nice to hear my ramblings are being enjoyed.

Just looked him up. eh. I'm not much for journalists. Maybe he has other stuff I might like.

Looks like he's a twitterer. I don't like going over there.

I only use social media to post things sometimes. I don't look at facebook walls or twitter feeds or any of that stuff. I'm like all output nowadays.

I am definitely not a fan of his either.


I would posit that "conservatism" is a dead or dying movement with people like Heer paid to keep it on life support.

[tapitsbo]

Doesn't strike me as wrong to call the Sanders campaign relatively "left"

It's spooky seeing how his supporters haven't been able to effectively use the evidence of fraud during the campaign against Clinton.

To hear people at RI and elsewhere talk, the Sanders campaign had the weight of the zeitgeist behind it. I noticed that they were extremely divided against each other and poorly able to respond to the tactics used against them like the "bernie bro" psy op

Trump's supporters were able to nimbly destroy the vast massively funded machine behind the other candidates. Lots of people were paid a lot of money to ridicule the idea that Trump would beat more status quo candidates like Rubio. The idea that he would get the Republican candidacy was a taboo until it had already happened.