Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[PCHawk]

I don't think comparing Trump to prior fascist dictators convinces any trump supporter to move away from him. We are so desensitized by Godwin's Law: for the last 2 decades, we have fairly consistently heard Bush, Obama, and Trump all compared to Hitler. Further, we envision Nazi Germany as this monstrosity that could never happen again, the German citizens as either horrifically racist or inconceivably gullible. We are not like that.

Guess what? Neither were those Germans prior to being led to that state by a charismatic leader who preached nationalism, grievance, and a common enemy they could focus their hatred upon. I really do NOT think we will become Nazi Germany, I think we have enough guard rails in place and a strong enough counter-balance to Trump's fascist tendencies, and overall most people in this country have it pretty good (much of the grievance is contrived).

But it is hard to not think of the Kristallnacht when Trump starts hammering his mass deportation plan. There are already paramilitary organizations (analogs to the SA, or "brown shirts") working throughout our country to locate illegal immigrants. In a recent speech, Trump said something to the effect of...we have people ready to take care of these immigrants, and they will be allowed to do so (paraphrased). It was not clear if he was talking about US Law Enforcement, Military, or something else, but it certainly could have been taken as a call to arms for these militias (much like his "stand back and stand by" was in 2016).

I am sure this seems hyperbolic to anyone who supports Trump, and I hope it is truly hyperbole. But it is hard to not see parallels.

The biggest issue with the mass deportation idea is something almost has to be done because soooo many people have come in unvetted over the last four years. At first they were conspiracy theories about Venezuelan prisons being emptied into the US. Now there are Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes.

It's not just an issue on safety either. As much as the two party system sucks, a one party system is worse. Imagine if one party could do whatever they wanted with no fear at all of being voted out? If they just let all the new illegals stay, not only is it a huge safety concern, we are for the very long term future a one party country. The entire country will be California. I don't know what the answer is. Mass deportation using the military sucks bad. But not doing it will be the end of the republican party and democracy. God I hate the stupid end of democracy saying.

 

[PCHawk]

This is another thing I worry about, the Christian Right and their push to make this country a Christian nation. For those of us that are atheist or any of the other thousands of religions worldwide, having a Christian nation will turn us into just another radicalized version of the countries we see. This country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. Why is that so hard for them to follow? Picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be followed is not the way to go.

Hey we agree!

 

[PCHawk]

Elon Musk runs Twitter. A little biased, don't you think.

He's biased for sure. And I'd be shocked if he hasn't punched in some algorithm to show more right leaning stuff. But I see a ton of left leaning stuff on my timeline so he's definitely not shutting it down completely tho. Your point is taken tho.

 

[PCHawk]

Man that was a lot. Thank God I had a short day of work. Or should I say thanks Biden for the shitty economy?


That was a joke.

 

[Fryowa]

1 - No. But if Russia brought nukes to Cuba would the fact that they haven't attacked yet me a good argument for why it's no big deal.

2 - Is your question "should they attack them" or "would it be understandable why they would want to"? My answer to the first question is no and the second question is yes.

3 - Again, is your question "should we", or "would we"? Because I could easily see the US using the threat of force in that situation. I wouldn't feel comfortable if Russia had free rain to set nukes right outside of Texas.

1. What NATO countries are putting nuclear weapons near the Russian border?

2. That's not understandable for one, and that's not how you framed your argument. You're gaslighting.

3. What NATO countries "set nukes" right outside of Russia after being admitted to NATO?

 

[Fryowa]

Whats wrong with Twitter? It's the one place that shows both sides. You think CNN or Fox News would be better? How about Facebook where Zuck openly admitted the government persuaded them to suppress info?

Both sides? So there's no algorithm steering you in the direction of extremism because that's what generates clicks and thus ad money?

CNN and Fox are in fact no better. There are many websites that are better though, and here is a great resource for helping identifying bias.

 

[Bordone]

I'm curious to know other people's opinions on whether or not the parties have flipped. Supposedly they flipped years ago. In a lot of ways, it seems like they have again. Liberals used to be anti war, anti big government, anti big corporations, anti big pharma and pro free speech. It really seems like the script flipped on all of those things. It also seems like some democrats that are for all of those things (like Kennedy and Gabbert) switched to Republicans and some Republicans who were known as war mongers (like the Bush's and Chaney's) switched to democrats. Is anyone else seeing this?

Bill Clinton turned the dem party into the old republican party minus the evangelicals. We've had a unified economic policy since then with the two parties throwing smoke and mirror identity politics around to keep people arguing with each other. Obama bailed out the banks instead of the American people which is one of the two major factors in trump being elected in the first place. (the other being Hillary caught rigging the dem primary then not bothering to campaign to the traditional dem base).

the current republican party is said evangelicals under educated rural xenophobes (typically one in the same) and the oligarchs lying to them. they are not for or against anything other than anti the "other side"
they did everything to kill a border bill so they could continue using it as a talking point. The are against the Ukraine war because the dems are for it. they all voted against fema funding and are blaming biden for politicizing it. The only purpose of this party is socialism for big business and the ultra rich and continued use of fossil fuels

 

[Fryowa]

This is another thing I worry about, the Christian Right and their push to make this country a Christian nation. For those of us that are atheist or any of the other thousands of religions worldwide, having a Christian nation will turn us into just another radicalized version of the countries we see. This country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. Why is that so hard for them to follow? Picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be followed is not the way to go.

That's why you should stick to handling those issues yourself and in your personal life. If you think you're going to change any of that you're in for a long road of disappointment. Last I checked there's no one forcing any of us to go to church or forcing us to be atheists, they're only telling you to. There's a difference. Who cares if someone tells you you should go to church? Don't listen to them and do your own thing. It's what I do.

Mind you I'm all about separation of C&S, but politicians are gonna continue to politic. Tune it out.

 

[CP87]

Dude I gotta say. I've always heard, and experienced the saying conservatives think with their brain and liberals think with their hearts. So when I see guys just get instantly mad at anyone who defends Trump it makes me laugh. But you're without a doubt the most logical person on the board. So the way you think intrigues the hell out of me.

Serious question. Where do you get your info? I don't watch any news at all so I get all my info from scrolling Twitter. (Save the laughs) my algorithm is basically 100% responsible for the dots I've connected. I'm my mind, I've figured it all out and the other side just doesn't pay enough attention. But I don't believe that for a second with you. That means you've seen a million things that connected the dots for you to believe what you do. And I have no doubt you're just as convinced as I am that you've figured it all out. That means either one of is is a dope or we're both being played. I don't think your a dope and I very much so don't think I am. So we've gotta be getting played. Fucking social media man....

I trust mainstream media (e.g. network, AP, Reuters), so that is always my fallback. I do not trust anything at face value from cable news networks (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or the bin of loonies that lie on either of the fringes).

I also trust major print media...although most have a left-leaning bias which comes through in opinion pieces and headlines, they have an editorial process and they are strongly incentivized to report the truth lest they lose credibility. That last part is getting broken as many are more interested in the "left leaniness" than the "always accurate" part (the same reason Fox News is so popular, on the other end of the spectrum). I still think there is a ton of pressure to "get things right" as a major print source.

I trust fact-checkers, although they have their own biases:


I also trust government agencies that are pretty far-removed from the political theater, for example CDC or DOJ (I am sure some would argue these are just political mouthpieces, but there are so many people working in these departments from across the political spectrum, most career public servants, that I think they mostly share facts).

I used to work harder to get podcasts from across the political spectrum. For politics stuff, I liked 538 (analytics-based, not a ton of spin); Left, Right, and Center (they work hard to represent all viewpoints); and Uncommon Knowledge from the Hoover Institute. I gave up on Uncommon Knowledge after its viewpoint did a 180 from rabidly anti-Trump to pro-Trump following the 2016 election. As Fry stated, I think people can and should change their minds when presented with new information, but that switch wasn't associated with any new information coming out, just a different person in power. My brother also used to run a right of center, libertarian type of blog that I enjoyed.

I also consider myself skilled at finding information and assessing validity and applicability to a topic. This is based upon my background as a scientist, but it does generalize to other areas as well. This helps me identify bullshit, though I am sure I get fooled plenty, as well. I think I am reasonably self-aware and okay at admitting that some things I just don't know.

You might not agree with all of my sources of info, but this is who I more or less trust.

Embarrassed to admit, but I have allowed my news sources (on Twitter and podcast form) to become much more siloed and homogenous. I wish I had the strength to just stop paying attention to this altogether, but I still seek sources to fuel my righteous anger to get that momentary reminder that I am alive. It is no different from drugs or junk food (the former I never tried, the latter I also have issues with), it is a worthless addiction that brings no joy to my life and actively detracts from health and happiness. I fall deeper into this crap the more stressed out I am with life in general, as well as during times when the world seems hopelessly lost.
I have some shit I need to work on...but at least I recognize it (step 1!).

 

[PCHawk]

1. What NATO countries are putting nuclear weapons near the Russian border?

2. That's not understandable for one, and that's not how you framed your argument. You're gaslighting.

3. What NATO countries "set nukes" right outside of Russia after being admitted to NATO?

It's the threat of being able to do it that would have a country understandably nervous. Would you not be nervous if Mexico suddenly "teamed up" with Russia?

 

[PCHawk]

Both sides? So there's no algorithm steering you in the direction of extremism because that's what generates clicks and thus ad money?

CNN and Fox are in fact no better. There are many websites that are better though, and here is a great resource for helping identifying bias.

I've talked in this thread about algorithms stearing thoughts.

 

[PCHawk]

Bill Clinton turned the dem party into the old republican party minus the evangelicals. We've had a unified economic policy since then with the two parties throwing smoke and mirror identity politics around to keep people arguing with each other. Obama bailed out the banks instead of the American people which is one of the two major factors in trump being elected in the first place. (the other being Hillary caught rigging the dem primary then not bothering to campaign to the traditional dem base).

the current republican party is said evangelicals under educated rural xenophobes (typically one in the same) and the oligarchs lying to them. they are not for or against anything other than anti the "other side"
they did everything to kill a border bill so they could continue using it as a talking point. The are against the Ukraine war because the dems are for it. they all voted against fema funding and are blaming biden for politicizing it. The only purpose of this party is socialism for big business and the ultra rich and continued use of fossil fuels

The boarder bill (and most bills for that matter) piggy backed a bunch of shit in with it. Money for Ukraine was one of the things. Also the boarder bill that got shot down had a lot more to do with giving a better path to citizenship than stopping people from crossing.

Also if the republican party is still for the ultra rich, why are all most of the ultra rich democrats now?

 

[PCHawk]

I trust mainstream media (e.g. network, AP, Reuters), so that is always my fallback. I do not trust anything at face value from cable news networks (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or the bin of loonies that lie on either of the fringes).

I also trust major print media...although most have a left-leaning bias which comes through in opinion pieces and headlines, they have an editorial process and they are strongly incentivized to report the truth lest they lose credibility. That last part is getting broken as many are more interested in the "left leaniness" than the "always accurate" part (the same reason Fox News is so popular, on the other end of the spectrum). I still think there is a ton of pressure to "get things right" as a major print source.

I trust fact-checkers, although they have their own biases:
View attachment 11108

I also trust government agencies that are pretty far-removed from the political theater, for example CDC or DOJ (I am sure some would argue these are just political mouthpieces, but there are so many people working in these departments from across the political spectrum, most career public servants, that I think they mostly share facts).

I used to work harder to get podcasts from across the political spectrum. For politics stuff, I liked 538 (analytics-based, not a ton of spin); Left, Right, and Center (they work hard to represent all viewpoints); and Uncommon Knowledge from the Hoover Institute. I gave up on Uncommon Knowledge after its viewpoint did a 180 from rabidly anti-Trump to pro-Trump following the 2016 election. As Fry stated, I think people can and should change their minds when presented with new information, but that switch wasn't associated with any new information coming out, just a different person in power. My brother also used to run a right of center, libertarian type of blog that I enjoyed.

I also consider myself skilled at finding information and assessing validity and applicability to a topic. This is based upon my background as a scientist, but it does generalize to other areas as well. This helps me identify bullshit, though I am sure I get fooled plenty, as well. I think I am reasonably self-aware and okay at admitting that some things I just don't know.

You might not agree with all of my sources of info, but this is who I more or less trust.

Embarrassed to admit, but I have allowed my news sources (on Twitter and podcast form) to become much more siloed and homogenous. I wish I had the strength to just stop paying attention to this altogether, but I still seek sources to fuel my righteous anger to get that momentary reminder that I am alive. It is no different from drugs or junk food (the former I never tried, the latter I also have issues with), it is a worthless addiction that brings no joy to my life and actively detracts from health and happiness. I fall deeper into this crap the more stressed out I am with life in general, as well as during times when the world seems hopelessly lost.
I have some shit I need to work on...but at least I recognize it (step 1!).

I think most people are in your boat with how following this stuff affects them. For some reason it doesn't bother me at all. I'm just so interested in these topics and how people think. It does probably take up more of my life than it should. Especially when I get talking on here.

I am surprised you haven't sniffed out the BS surrounding January 6th tho. To me that one was easy.

 

[Fryowa]

-I never said that. I said I don't care if they do. Meaning we have our own problems we can fix before trying to save everyone else. And by save everyone else I mean get half of their male population killed

Buddy of all countries on this big rock we were created by more different people from more different backgrounds from all different countries. This isn't some deal where we've been around with one main lineage for 1,000 years like Europe or the Middle East.

With the huge military ability, money, and reach our armed forces we have, we as a nation have a duty to protect people whose countries can't.

When exactly is your cutoff date where we stopped being a nation of immigrants? If Putin is shooting missiles at hospitals and killing people who can't kill back, your road resurfacing project can wait a few days. In 2024 no military on earth now or in the entire history of the world would even think about putting their dukes up because it would be instant total suicide. We have the power to end that invasion with a few drone pilots and cruise missile ships within before lunch on a Tuesday...we have a duty to help other countries who can't. That I'm not really going to argue if you don't think so. Sorry.

 

[Fryowa]

It's the threat of being able to do it that would have a country understandably nervous. Would you not be nervous if Mexico suddenly "teamed up" with Russia?

No. Our military is bigger, more well-trained, more well-equipped, and has exponentially farther reach and logistics than the rest of the worlds' militaries combined. Like it or not, there's one thing our country knows better than anything else, and that's how to go to war and how to blow up persons, places, and things. Russia and all their supposed might as the 2nd most powerful military in the world can't even take over a section of land in Ukraine the size of like 20 counties in Iowa reliably. Like all their conventional weapons and forces, their nuclear arsenal is also in a state of disrepair and dysfunction. This war in Ukraine has shown that without a doubt there isn't a force on this planet even close to being able to do anything more than a proverbial mosquito bite if they squared off with us. We have 11 full strength aircraft carrier strike groups all over the globe, each with a full complement of destroyers and missile cruisers keeping watch. Not to mention submarines and every other base scattered from here to infinity. Seriously, google "world militaries compared" to see stats on our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and look at the equipment, ships, and planes. Any of our 4 branches individually towers over the next largest full militaries.

And let's say someone tried it made an actual dent in our military, what the f*ck are they going to do when they get here to take over?

Name another country on Earth that has 350,000,000 people spread over 3.8 million square miles owning 433,000,000 firearms. Did you see how riled up our populace got after 9/11? There's a really, REALLY good reason we've never been attacked by anything other than religious extremist wackos since 1941. One bomb dropped by Russia/China within our borders would be the end of both of those coutries immediately. Nukes or no nukes. My money after seeing Russia's fake news military is on no nukes.

One thing is for sure, for all our faults we are rabidly patriotic and when some outsider f*cks with any of us we get really goddamn angry, our differences (temprarily) get put aside, and entire countries start getting rearranged.

It might not be that way for the rest of time, but as long as we and our next few generations are alive it will be.

 

[PCHawk]

Buddy of all countries on this big rock we were created by more different people from more different backgrounds from all different countries. This isn't some deal where we've been around with one main lineage for 1,000 years like Europe or the Middle East.

With the huge military ability, money, and reach our armed forces we have, we as a nation have a duty to protect people whose countries can't.

When exactly is your cutoff date where we stopped being a nation of immigrants? If Putin is shooting missiles at hospitals and killing people who can't kill back, your road resurfacing project can wait a few days. In 2024 no military on earth now or in the entire history of the world would even think about putting their dukes up because it would be instant total suicide. We have the power to end that invasion with a few drone pilots and cruise missile ships within before lunch on a Tuesday...we have a duty to help other countries who can't. That I'm not really going to argue if you don't think so. Sorry.

Why are you talking about immigrants? Are you insinuating I don't want immigrants coming here?

If you're of the belief that no country dare take on our military, you must be asking yourself how the Biden administration couldn't prevent Russia from invading. Trump likes to say the war would have never happened if he was in office. Are you suggesting Trump could have said "don't try it" and Putin would have chickened out out over his fear from our military? If only we had recent proof of wars (perhaps in the middle east) where we crushed them before lunch, because that sounds easy.

And now that I think of it, what assholes are we to let so many Ukrainians needlessly die instead of spending one brunch kicking Russia's ass? It's our duty to protect them but instead we are just giving them money and watching them get slautered. Your definition of helping other countries might be off a bit.

 

[Fryowa]

Why are you talking about immigrants? Are you insinuating I don't want immigrants coming here?

If you're of the belief that no country dare take on our military, you must be asking yourself how the Biden administration couldn't prevent Russia from invading. Trump likes to say the war would have never happened if he was in office. Are you suggesting Trump could have said "don't try it" and Putin would have chickened out out over his fear from our military? If only we had recent proof of wars (perhaps in the middle east) where we crushed them before lunch, because that sounds easy.

And now that I think of it, what assholes are we to let so many Ukrainians needlessly die instead of spending one brunch kicking Russia's ass? It's our duty to protect them but instead we are just giving them money and watching them get slautered. Your definition of helping other countries might be off a bit.

Ukraine has a ton of long range conventional missiles given to them by the US mostly and a few other NATO countries (this is why you should read news from places other than scrolling Elon). The US gave them those missiles with the restriction that they do not get fired across the Russian border.

Every analyst out there has said this thing would be over in a heartbeat if the US would sned approval for them to use those missiles to strike Russia. But we don't. We would not have to put a single boot on the ground or spend more money if they'd just let Ukraine strike inside Russia. Putin knows this would be the end of him if they did so he's yelling "Nukes!" Which is a bluff because their nukes have been maintained as well as their army has.

It's time to call the bluff. Putin is shooting missiles into Ukraine hospitals and schools, Ukraine should be able to fight back and Russia would feel the real force of a real military.

 

[PCHawk]

No. Our military is bigger, more well-trained, more well-equipped, and has exponentially farther reach and logistics than the rest of the worlds' militaries combined. Like it or not, there's one thing our country knows better than anything else, and that's how to go to war and how to blow up persons, places, and things. Russia and all their supposed might as the 2nd most powerful military in the world can't even take over a section of land in Ukraine the size of like 20 counties in Iowa reliably. Like all their conventional weapons and forces, their nuclear arsenal is also in a state of disrepair and dysfunction. This war in Ukraine has shown that without a doubt there isn't a force on this planet even close to being able to do anything more than a proverbial mosquito bite if they squared off with us. We have 11 full strength aircraft carrier strike groups all over the globe, each with a full complement of destroyers and missile cruisers keeping watch. Not to mention submarines and every other base scattered from here to infinity. Seriously, google "world militaries compared" to see stats on our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and look at the equipment, ships, and planes. Any of our 4 branches individually towers over the next largest full militaries.

And let's say someone tried it made an actual dent in our military, what the f*ck are they going to do when they get here to take over?

Name another country on Earth that has 350,000,000 people spread over 3.8 million square miles owning 433,000,000 firearms. Did you see how riled up our populace got after 9/11? There's a really, REALLY good reason we've never been attacked by anything other than religious extremist wackos since 1941. One bomb dropped by Russia/China within our borders would be the end of both of those coutries immediately. Nukes or no nukes. My money after seeing Russia's fake news military is on no nukes.

One thing is for sure, for all our faults we are rabidly patriotic and when some outsider f*cks with any of us we get really goddamn angry, our differences (temprarily) get put aside, and entire countries start getting rearranged.

It might not be that way for the rest of time, but as long as we and our next few generations are alive it will be.

It's so funny how you completely forgot the last umpteen times our military tried to invade another country. Do you think someone in Russia at some point typed up your exact post about us trying to kick Afghanistan's ass?

The issue with Mexico is how fast a nuke would hit us from right next door compared to across the world. It would give us no time to retaliate. If what you are saying is true, why did we make such a big deal of Russia bringing missiles to Cuba? If Russia decides ending civilization is the better option than losing, our military won't stop it buddy. All we can do is kill them too.

 

[PCHawk]

Ukraine has a ton of long range conventional missiles given to them by the US mostly and a few other NATO countries (this is why you should read news from places other than scrolling Elon). The US gave them those missiles with the restriction that they do not get fired across the Russian border.

Every analyst out there has said this thing would be over in a heartbeat if the US would sned approval for them to use those missiles to strike Russia. But we don't. We would not have to put a single boot on the ground or spend more money if they'd just let Ukraine strike inside Russia. Putin knows this would be the end of him if they did so he's yelling "Nukes!" Which is a bluff because their nukes have been maintained as well as their army has.

It's time to call the bluff. Putin is shooting missiles into Ukraine hospitals and schools, Ukraine should be able to fight back and Russia would feel the real force of a real military.

So we are actively preventing the war from being over? We agree on that one. Once the war ends the money laundering stops. And you said that one in your post just now. I'm just agreeing with it. I'm starting to wonder if you're saying the exact same thing as me, just in a different way.

 

[Fryowa]

Why are you talking about immigrants? Are you insinuating I don't want immigrants coming here?

You gave a response earlier of, "We have our own problems here, f*ck 'em and let them fight their own battles."

We didn't get this great country built with that attitude. We got it by talking those immigrants with nothing to lose into the country and helping them thrive. Imagine where we'd be if we had the, "F*ck 'em, we have our own problems here" attitude when people were coming across the Atlantic in the early 18th and 19th centuries.

Other countries built this one into what it is today and we have duty to help the rest of the world from shit stains like Russia and Putin.