Politics And Current Events

[Troy Loney]

What non-conspiracy ways are there to attack him?

You can't figure out non-conspiratorial ways to attack the guy who was impeached twice?

He is uniquely ill suited for the job.

Refused to relinquish control of his businesses while in office, and actively lobbied for the government to spend money at his property while president.

[DigitalGypsy66]

Trump went and attacked Haley's husband for being "away" when he's actually deployed overseas with the National Guard or some such. Yet these fools lap it up. Imagine a Dem making fun of a deployed soldier etc. etc.

[tifosi77]

Folks have been banging non-conspiratorial drums wrt Trump for close to 10 years now. It has proved persuasive to far fewer people than I have the emotional IQ to comprehend or accept.

[count2infinity]

For his base, Trump is their god. There is no other god than him. Real, conspiratorial, fake… none of that matters.

For people on the fence (which we’ve already discussed… how the f*ck are you in the fence about him?), wild and outlandish claims that turn out to be absolutely nothing are harmful. Make him look like a victim. And I know it’s such a teeny tiny % of individuals, but those are the numb nuts you have to convince to not vote for him somehow.

[Troy Loney]

People think that Trump did a good job with COVID. It’s like, why bother at this point trying to make cogent arguments.

[shafnutz05]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump- ... 024-02-11/

Here's one.

Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough

Or this:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... -book.html

He would either refuse to admit Russian wrongdoing — Trump refused even to concede that the regime poisoned Alexei Navalny — or repeat bizarre snippets of Russian propaganda: NATO was a bad deal for America because Montenegro might launch an attack on Russia; the Soviets had to invade Afghanistan in the 1970s to defend against terrorism. These weren’t talking points he would pick up in his normal routine of watching Fox News and calling Republican sycophants.

A second reason is that reporter Craig Unger got a former KGB spy to confirm on the record that Russian intelligence had been working Trump for decades. In his new book, “American Kompromat,” Unger interviewed Yuri Shvets, who told him that the KGB manipulated Trump with simple flattery. “In terms of his personality, the guy is not a complicated cookie,” he said, “his most important characteristics being low intellect coupled with hyperinflated vanity. This makes him a dream for an experienced recruiter.”

[Kaiser]

It's afraid

[dodint]

Do you like me? Check YES or no.

[Troy Loney]

That is presidential

[nocera]

Trump thinks he’s the reason why Taylor has money?

[willeyeam]

The T Swift and Swifties vote is definitely still up for grabs

[Viva la Ben]

[tifosi77]

I don't know Swift's discography at all, to know when stuff was released, but I think chunks of the MMA only went into effect last year.

She makes something like $100 million from Spotify. Which is a fabulous number, but that's off of over 26 billion streams of her music. So that's still the fractions-of-a-penny salami slicing game from Superman III and Office Space.

[dodint]

Joe looks good there.

[Shyster]

For people on the fence (which we’ve already discussed… how the f*ck are you in the fence about him?), wild and outlandish claims that turn out to be absolutely nothing are harmful. Make him look like a victim. And I know it’s such a teeny tiny % of individuals, but those are the numb nuts you have to convince to not vote for him somehow.

This is a great reason to avoid the conspiratorial stuff. If you make an outrageous claim, and it's proved false, it undermines all of the other points and arguments you might make. I've seen this in action in appellate arguments. A party makes a couple reasonable arguments and one that is totally whack-a-doo crazy. The judges focus on tearing apart the crazy one and basically brush off the other reasonable arguments.

[tifosi77]

Are you saying parties with winning hands lose because judges ignore the merits of the sensible arguments? Or that the argument bandwidth is sapped by the wack-a-doo?

[Shyster]

I'd say some of both. It's more than the argument bandwidth is sapped by the wack-a-doo, but I believe that a really bad argument will make judges less likely to consider, or even ignore, other arguments that actually have merit.

I mean, let's say you just heard someone assert some plausible arguments, but then also say something along the lines of the Earth is flat or that the Moon is a holographic projection. Are you going to consider the merits of their other assertions, or would you be more inclined to just dismiss them out of hand?

[Morkle]

[blackjack68]

That it’s real makes it so good!

[nocera]

I feel better about KC winning knowing how much it annoys the far right.

[shafnutz05]

I feel better about KC winning knowing how much it annoys the far right.

My MiL is a hardcore Bills fan and completely off the MAGA cliff...brutal

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Biden leaning into memes annoys me. It feels unbecoming especially for an 80 year old who needs to be briefed on what a meme is

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

or, well, I know he doesn’t actually post tweets, but it’s embarrassing that someone who represents him posts that kind of stuff

[Nuge]

[NTP66]

MIMH is the board's new official wet blanket.